Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Sunnyisland

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Now, maybe you could answer the question, how many nationalists were protected when the IRA fire bombed the Le Mons restaurant?

None .

KeithAFC

Although the UVF had begun the killing and bombing, this organisation was left untouched, as were other violent Loyalist satellite organisations such as TARAthe SHANKILL DEFENCE ASSOCIATION and the Ulster protestant volunteers.

The IRA started the bombing. On Nelson's Pillar. A very important monument to the British people on the island.

karma_

trendyvicar wrote: »

Republicans were killing more people. In fact they murdered more than twice as many as Loyalists during the conflict.

You're looking at those figures and seeing what you want to see, the fact is, that the ordinary Catholic population in the North was by far the hardest hit.

Of the 3747 people who were killed in the Troubles, 1259 of them were Catholic civilians, that's almost 34%, the vast majority of these were by Loyalist paramilitaries.

There were 727 Protestant civilians killed, and 20% of this number were also killed by Loyalists in mistaken identity.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

The IRA started the bombing. On Nelson's Pillar. A very important monument to the British people on the island.

Your having a laugh now keith.

KeithAFC

realies wrote: »

Your having a laugh now keith.

Absolutely not. That hurt a lot of people to see it getting blown up. It heated everything up. The IRA invasion of Ulster during the 50s was bad enough but this just reminded everyone of how bad it could be.

Bottle_of_Smoke

KeithAFC wrote: »

Absolutely not. That hurt a lot of people to see it getting blown up. It heated everything up. The IRA invasion of Ulster during the 50s was bad enough but this just reminded everyone of how bad it could be.

It hurt them that a monument in a foreign country was blown up?

Not quite, though there is a grain of truth in your sentiment, in that the UVF was formed out of paranoid factions insecure in celebration of Irish culture and commemoration of the Easter rising in Belfast and Dublin.

Hard to know what would have happened if the UVF wasn't formed in 66 and the pogroms never occured. I do think the last 30 years could have been different. Ironically I suspect without catalysts like internment or Bloody Sunday, Terence O'Neill's prediction of Catholics living like Protestants may have had a chance to be proven correct, which could have slowed the birth rate of Catholics, which is probably the only threat to the union in the coming decades. (RCs already outnumbering total number protestants at certain school ages) This is because the civil rights movement could have continued and some form of equality may have come through.


Next to pointless speculating though, if those events didn't happen there may even have been worse events, culminating in outright civil war or a death toll of 10,000.

On the actual topic - no way am I commenting. Whatever answer you give it will be genuinely hurtful to some people. eg if its justified then innocent unionists are going to feel let down and attacked, justifying the campaign doesn't help the hurt felt by their son or daughter being caught up in a bomb with a dodgy warning. Say its not justified then you're telling victims of state oppression they should have just put up with it. There's no winning coming out of this thread.

irishh_bob

KeithAFC wrote: »

Absolutely not. That hurt a lot of people to see it getting blown up. It heated everything up. The IRA invasion of Ulster during the 50s was bad enough but this just reminded everyone of how bad it could be.

you would weep if ( a) statue of oliver cromwell in drogheda was blown up

Chuck Stone

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Hard to know what would have happened if the UVF wasn't formed in 66 and the pogroms never occured. I do think the last 30 years could have been different.

When dem negros started gettin' all uppity, thinkin' they was as good as the white man, well, they had to be taught a lesson.

irishh_bob

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It hurt them that a monument in a foreign country was blown up?

Not quite, though there is a grain of truth in your sentiment, in that the UVF was formed out of paranoid factions insecure in celebration of Irish culture and commemoration of the Easter rising in Belfast and Dublin.

Hard to know what would have happened if the UVF wasn't formed in 66 and the pogroms never occured. I do think the last 30 years could have been different. Ironically I suspect without catalysts like internment or Bloody Sunday, Terence O'Neill's prediction of Catholics living like Protestants may have had a chance to be proven correct, which could have slowed the birth rate of Catholics, which is probably the only threat to the union in the coming decades. (RCs already outnumbering total number protestants at certain school ages) This is because the civil rights movement could have continued and some form of equality may have come through.


+1 , if the unionists had an an ounce of common sense , they would have saw it as in thier interest to woo , court and win over the minority catholic population , equal access and opportunity with regards , employment , housing etc would have put paid to any significant republican rebellion taking shape , instead they chose to take the jackboot approach and mirror the botha types in south africa

Next to pointless speculating though, if those events didn't happen there may even have been worse events, culminating in outright civil war or a death toll of 10,000.

On the actual topic - no way am I commenting. Whatever answer you give it will be genuinely hurtful to some people. eg if its justified then innocent unionists are going to feel let down and attacked, justifying the campaign doesn't help the hurt felt by their son or daughter being caught up in a bomb with a dodgy warning. Say its not justified then you're telling victims of state oppression they should have just put up with it. There's no winning coming out of this thread.

+1 , if the unionists had an an ounce of common sense , they would have saw it as in thier interest to woo , court and win over the minority catholic population after 1921 , equal access and opportunity with regards , employment , housing etc would have put paid to any significant republican rebellion taking shape , instead they chose to take the jackboot approach and mirror the botha types in south africa

KeithAFC

irishh_bob wrote: »

you would weep if ( a) statue of oliver cromwell in drogheda was blown up

Some people would have probably taken offence if it was a Cromwell statue as he is a hero to some Protestants. But this did cause paranoia and strife in the Protestant community at the time.

Bottle_of_Smoke

irishh_bob wrote: »

+1 , if the unionists had an an ounce of common sense , they would have saw it as in thier interest to woo , court and win over the minority catholic population after 1921 , equal access and opportunity with regards , employment , housing etc would have put paid to any significant republican rebellion taking shape , instead they chose to take the jackboot approach and mirror the botha types in south africa

I wouldn't put it like that because it implies unionists were inherently stupid, which they were not - and it was a complicated situation.

Northern Ireland was a very young entity at the yime which fed into insecurity in the legitimacy of the state. Look at the mad sh*t Israel get up to today.

Whilst the Ulster covenant provided some legitamacy, the 6 county version was a deviation from that as it wasn't Ulster in its entirety. Republicans had the 1918 election which was fresher in the mind in the 60s than it is today, in addition to that it was an official vote for the whole of Ireland as one entity, which is what it was constitutionally considered as a home nation of the UK at the time. The Ulster covenant - whilst as I said, could be considered in my opinion as some grounds for separation from the rest of Ireland, was in legal or constitutional terms just a petition

So there was likely an intense fear Northern Ireland could be erased as quickly as it was formed. Fear and rationality don't go hand in hand.

trendyvicar

irishh_bob wrote: »

+1 , if the unionists had an an ounce of common sense , they would have saw it as in thier interest to woo , court and win over the minority catholic population after 1921 , equal access and opportunity with regards , employment , housing etc would have put paid to any significant republican rebellion taking shape , instead they chose to take the jackboot approach and mirror the botha types in south africa

You're not American are you bob? The reason I ask this, is because you have a hopeless grasp of both historical context and human nature. Partition created two states that were cold places for their respective national minorities - the pro-British minority in the south and the pro-Irish minority in the north. The only difference is that the minority in the south effectively got up and left, so no problems (at least violent ones) resulted. In the north the minority was much larger, stayed and thanks to it's slavish obedience to RC doctrine actually grew in size. This meant they were viewed as a threat to the majority community. In those days (and indeed today in most parts of the world), national minorities are not accorded equality because they are viewed as a threat to the state. So it was in Northern Ireland. The situation was not helped by the irredentist claim the southern state maintained towards the north until very recently and by the Republican campaigns that occurred in every decade of Northern Ireland's history (and which continue to this day).

The continuous attempts by Republicans and ill informed others to equate the situation in Northern Ireland with the situation in the American deep south ignores the fact that Blacks in the deep south were a racial minority and not a national minority and as such were not a potential threat to the state itself.

In addition, it should be noted that the difference in standard of living between NI's Catholics and Protestants was nowhere near the same as that existing between Blacks/Whites in The US southern states, let alone between Blacks/Whites in apartheid era South Africa.

Strangely, there was no mass slaughter entered into by Blacks in Alabama - perhaps because they had more brains, or perhaps they were aware of how The US State would have reacted.

irishh_bob

KeithAFC wrote: »

Some people would have probably taken offence if it was a Cromwell statue as he is a hero to some Protestants. But this did cause paranoia and strife in the Protestant community at the time.

some people are sensitive about butchers ( like cromwell ) being denigrated , that doesnt mean they should be indulged

irishh_bob

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I wouldn't put it like that because it implies unionists were inherently stupid, which they were not - and it was a complicated situation.

Northern Ireland was a very young entity at the yime which fed into insecurity in the legitimacy of the state. Look at the mad sh*t Israel get up to today.

Whilst the Ulster covenant provided some legitamacy, the 6 county version was a deviation from that as it wasn't Ulster in its entirety. Republicans had the 1918 election which was fresher in the mind in the 60s than it is today, in addition to that it was an official vote for the whole of Ireland as one entity, which is what it was constitutionally considered as a home nation of the UK at the time. The Ulster covenant - whilst as I said, could be considered in my opinion as some grounds for separation from the rest of Ireland, was in legal or constitutional terms just a petition

So there was likely an intense fear Northern Ireland could be erased as quickly as it was formed. Fear and rationality don't go hand in hand.

stupid was a poor choice of word , obtuse is more apt

KeithAFC

irishh_bob wrote: »

some people are sensitive about butchers ( like cromwell ) being denigrated , that doesnt mean they should be indulged

I could say the same about Wolfe Tone and his gang of butchers.

irishh_bob

trendyvicar wrote: »

You're not American are you bob? The reason I ask this, is because you have a hopeless grasp of both historical context and human nature. Partition created two states that were cold places for their respective national minorities - the pro-British minority in the south and the pro-Irish minority in the north. The only difference is that the minority in the south effectively got up and left, so no problems (at least violent ones) resulted. In the north the minority was much larger, stayed and thanks to it's slavish obedience to RC doctrine actually grew in size. This meant they were viewed as a threat to the majority community. In those days (and indeed today in most parts of the world), national minorities are not accorded equality because they are viewed as a threat to the state. So it was in Northern Ireland. The situation was not helped by the irredentist claim the southern state maintained towards the north until very recently and by the Republican campaigns that occurred in every decade of Northern Ireland's history (and which continue to this day).

The continuous attempts by Republicans and ill informed others to equate the situation in Northern Ireland with the situation in the American deep south ignores the fact that Blacks in the deep south were a racial minority and not a national minority and as such were not a potential threat to the state itself.

In addition, it should be noted that the difference in standard of living between NI's Catholics and Protestants was nowhere near the same as that existing between Blacks/Whites in The US southern states, let alone between Blacks/Whites in apartheid era South Africa.

Strangely, there was no mass slaughter entered into by Blacks in Alabama - perhaps because they had more brains, or perhaps they were aware of how The US State would have reacted.

keith is just irratating but your a real nasty piece of work , dont reply to me again and il pretend your not there either , put me down as a threat to the state which is boards , whatever you like , just dont converse with me directly

irishh_bob

KeithAFC wrote: »

I could say the same about Wolfe Tone and his gang of butchers.

you could but the comparison would be meaningless on almost every concievable level

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

In the north the minority was much larger, stayed and thanks to it's slavish obedience to RC doctrine actually grew in size.

A statement of monochromatic bigotry. To attribute large families solely to the RC church betrays your poor understanding of the situation. Poverty and large families go hand-in-hand.

This meant they were viewed as a threat to the majority community. In those days (and indeed today in most parts of the world), national minorities are not accorded equality because they are viewed as a threat to the state.

So what?

The continuous attempts by Republicans and ill informed others to equate the situation in Northern Ireland with the situation in the American deep south ignores the fact that Blacks in the deep south were a racial minority and not a national minority and as such were not a potential threat to the state itself.

'The state' is made up of people. When you talk about a threat to 'the state' you are in essence talking about a threat to privilege and power. The state does not exist outside those who control it.

The situation is analogous. Blacks were very much considered a threat to the status quo if not 'the state' in the US. Like Unionism southern states white's paranoia cost the black community dearly.

Strangely, there was no mass slaughter entered into by Blacks in Alabama - perhaps because they had more brains, or perhaps they were aware of how The US State would have reacted.

The constitution empowered Black people in the US. They had a right to bear arms and the Black Panthers exercised that right. Car loads of Black Panthers used to follow the the police around tooled up to the teeth.

Maybe if the Catholics in the Bogside had recourse to a similar constitution and a cheap and plentiful supply of weapons with a right to have them then they wouldn't been put under seige by Unionist militias.

Bottle_of_Smoke

trendyvicar wrote: »

You're not American are you bob? The reason I ask this, is because you have a hopeless grasp of both historical context and human nature. Partition created two states that were cold places for their respective national minorities - the pro-British minority in the south and the pro-Irish minority in the north. The only difference is that the minority in the south effectively got up and left, so no problems (at least violent ones) resulted. In the north the minority was much larger, stayed and thanks to it's slavish obedience to RC doctrine actually grew in size. This meant they were viewed as a threat to the majority community. In those days (and indeed today in most parts of the world), national minorities are not accorded equality because they are viewed as a threat to the state. So it was in Northern Ireland. The situation was not helped by the irredentist claim the southern state maintained towards the north until very recently and by the Republican campaigns that occurred in every decade of Northern Ireland's history (and which continue to this day).

I think this quite an intellectual and accurate analysis of the situation, and I think fits with what I said in the last post.

The bit I've highlighted though- I have to question your use of language. Its a bit condescending, serves no purpose etc. In the rest of the post you are being objective, whereas that is very opinionated. A contemptuous, resentful tone even.

As soon as you said that its likely most nationalist likely posters overlooked everything else you said and just thought "bigot"

In the context of your post, the "why" for that point is irrelevant, maybe they did it out of RC doctrine, maybe it was a big conspiracy to take over Ulster, or maybe people in certain demographics had more children in those times and in the RC population certain demographics were larger. Who knows, who cares. RCs had more children, that is the fact. You'll probably get more of an audience by sticking to that, and you should, because you otherwise explained the situation in a non-ambigious, accessible way.

trendyvicar

Chuck Stone said:

A statement of monochromatic bigotry. To attribute large families solely to the RC church betrays your poor understanding of the situation. Poverty and large families go hand-in-hand.

As did Roman Catholic doctrine until very recently in NI. I don't ignore facts because they make some people squirm.

The situation is analogous. Blacks were very much considered a threat to the status quo if not 'the state' in the US. Like Unionism southern states white's paranoia cost the black community dearly.

The fact you accept Blacks were not a threat to the state shows the situation was not analogous.

The constitution empowered Black people in the US. They had a right to bear arms and the Black Panthers exercised that right. Car loads of Black Panthers used to follow the the police around tooled up to the teeth.

You are American aren't you?

trendyvicar

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think this quite an intellectual and accurate analysis of the situation, and I think fits with what I said in the last post.

The bit I've highlighted though- I have to question your use of language. Its a bit condescending, serves no purpose etc. In the rest of the post you are being objective, whereas that is very opinionated. A contemptuous, resentful tone even.

As soon as you said that its likely most nationalist likely posters overlooked everything else you said and just thought "bigot"

In the context of your post, the "why" for that point is irrelevant, maybe they did it out of RC doctrine, maybe it was a big conspiracy to take over Ulster, or maybe people in certain demographics had more children in those times and in the RC population certain demographics were larger. Who knows, who cares. RCs had more children, that is the fact. You'll probably get more of an audience by sticking to that, and you should, because you otherwise explained the situation in a non-ambigious, accessible way.

As I said above, I don't ignore facts because they make some people squirm. High Catholic birth rate was a threat in the eyes of most Unionists. The most important thing in a discussion like this is truth.

karma_

trendyvicar wrote: »

As I said above, I don't ignore facts because they make some people squirm. High Catholic birth rate was a threat in the eyes of most Unionists. The most important thing in a discussion like this is truth.

Then perhaps you should have raised the point in a more civilised and eloquent manner, to avoid being provocative.

irishh_bob

karma_ wrote: »

Then perhaps you should have raised the point in a more civilised and eloquent manner, to avoid being provocative.

being provocative is a choice , the vicar is just nasty so he doesnt have a choice , its his way

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

As did Roman Catholic doctrine until very recently in NI. I don't ignore facts because they make some people squirm.

Even if this is a factor so what? Weren't the borders drawn with the intention of the N/C population demographically over-taking Unionists. If they really wanted a concentration of the Unionist tradition they would have perhaps had a 3 county state.

The fact you accept Blacks were not a threat to the state shows the situation was not analogous.

They were considered a threat to the status quo. The US is made up of multiple states within one country so the political and geographic situation is more complex. Black's quest for equality received much support in the Urban N.E. US and in universities across the country. The situation is analogous in that a minority was seeking equality.

You are American aren't you?

No I'm not American. Not that it's any of your business.

KeithAFC

trendyvicar wrote: »

As I said above, I don't ignore facts because they make some people squirm. High Catholic birth rate was a threat in the eyes of most Unionists. The most important thing in a discussion like this is truth.

That is the truth of it. Some people don't want to hear the truth but it is better to just say it as it is.

karma_

KeithAFC wrote: »

That is the truth of it. Some people don't want to hear the truth but it is better to just say it as it is.

I have yet to see a single poster contest, that the high Catholic birth rate was not deemed a threat by Unionists.

irishh_bob

KeithAFC wrote: »

That is the truth of it. Some people don't want to hear the truth but it is better to just say it as it is.

that it was a threat to unionists says a lot more about unionists themselves than it does about anything else

Bottle_of_Smoke

trendyvicar wrote: »

As I said above, I don't ignore facts because they make some people squirm. High Catholic birth rate was a threat in the eyes of most Unionists. The most important thing in a discussion like this is truth.

I agree with that. High birth rate among the RC community in previous generations is indisputable fact.

Why it was high is more complicated issue - as there's socioeconomic reasons as well as religious. I'm sure you won't disagree middle class RCs had smaller families than working class - or urban less than rural. Obviously in Protestant communities the middle class was larger and in RC the working classes were a bigger group. I don't know what thte breakdown is for Rural/Urban

When you tar every RC (they all adhere slavishly to doctrine) with the same brush and use offensive language people start to smell agenda.

A bit of pragmatism goes a long way

trendyvicar

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I agree with that. High birth rate among the RC community in previous generations is indisputable fact.

Why it was high is more complicated issue - as there's socioeconomic reasons as well as religious. I'm sure you won't disagree middle class RCs had smaller families than working class - or urban less than rural. Obviously in Protestant communities the middle class was larger and in RC the working classes were a bigger group. I don't know what thte breakdown is for Rural/Urban

When you tar every RC (they all adhere slavishly to doctrine) with the same brush and use offensive language people start to smell agenda.

A bit of pragmatism goes a long way

Most available data suggests that until quite recently Irish Catholics, North/South and Middle/Working Class were all devout. Nothing unique in that - all of Europe was the same. Of course there have been enormous changes in the behaviour of RCs across Europe. For example in Spain the birth rate collapsed following Franco's death. In Ireland too things have changed.

As regards NI, the situation was that the higher RC birth rate up until 'the troubles' was off set by higher RC immigration. This applied up until the huge increase in state aid to the poor across The UK in the seventies when RC immigration fell into line with Protestant trends. During the seventies and eighties the RC birth rate continued to outstrip the Protestant one but without the immigration differential. It was during these two decades that Unionism suffered the demographic onslaught much talked about today. It would appear that RC women in NI have now 'wised up' and birth rates within the two groups are now similar. Due to a larger RC middle class?. Sure, but also due to a collapse in respect for RC doctrine in all RC classes in NI.

This is a tricky subject, because Nationalists who hated The UK were effectively paid to have large families and ultimately threaten The Union. Protestants had the families they could afford. This does not seem just to many and reflects other 'nappy wars' elsewhere, such as Muslims in The UK.

On a separate subject, it is of note to me, that Nationalists are very sensitive about Catholicism - even those who have ditched it. There is a real embarrassment there, as if to say 'how could we have been so stupid for so long'. I guess they don't like others pointing this out to them. It would be ironic if The Papacy ended up delivering Irish unity where The IRA have so miserably failed - even if RCs no longer obey it's rules in the bed room. LOL

karma_

trendyvicar wrote: »

On a separate subject, it is of note to me, that Nationalists are very sensitive about Catholicism - even those who have ditched it. There is a real embarrassment there, as if to say 'how could we have been so stupid for so long'. I guess they don't like others pointing this out to them. It would be ironic if The Papacy ended up delivering Irish unity where The IRA have so miserably failed - even if RCs no longer obey it's rules in the bed room. LOL

I'm not aware of this phenomenon.

As for the 'How could we be so stupid' remark, well I would suggest that this is not limited to Catholics, I would suggest that it's Religion in general a lot of people have wised up to, it is after all the 21st Century.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Interesting post. Particularly on the effect of the welfare state.

Catholics of different faiths being devout? Yeah I'd agree. Though not quite as devout beyond the surface level......

From personal experience I know a good few RC families from northern Ireland who had kids between 1975-1995. Seem generally far more devout than ROI RCs. eg go to mass far more regularly - religious iconography in their homes etc

Big difference is the middle class ones have far smaller families than the working class. Could be coincidence but I would strongly suspect contraception use was higher in middle class RC groups during those decades. In many cases its possible the husbands didn't know - all the woman has to do is go to the doctor and get a pill. I would also expect epidemiological evidence to back that up

Does this mean the working class were more devout? no - just less likely to be educated on matters of contraception. Though because the RC middle class was smaller: to Protestants it would just look like all RCs were trying to outbreed them

trendyvicar

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Interesting post. Particularly on the effect of the welfare state.

Catholics of different faiths being devout? Yeah I'd agree. Though not quite as devout beyond the surface level......

From personal experience I know a good few RC families from northern Ireland who had kids between 1975-1995. Seem generally far more devout than ROI RCs. eg go to mass far more regularly - religious iconography in their homes etc

Big difference is the middle class ones have far smaller families than the working class. Could be coincidence but I would strongly suspect contraception use was higher in middle class RC groups during those decades. In many cases its possible the husbands didn't know - all the woman has to do is go to the doctor and get a pill. I would also expect epidemiological evidence to back that up

Does this mean the working class were more devout? no - just less likely to be educated on matters of contraception. Though because the RC middle class was smaller: to Protestants it would just look like all RCs were trying to outbreed them

I don't think most Protestants were so paranoid as to suspect a conspiracy, but nevertheless the outcome was the same. It begs the question, what Protestants could have done about the issue? Have more kids themselves and reduce themselves to poverty? Or do as they did, which was to happily waive some RCs goodbye because there weren't the jobs to go round.

It's easy for outsiders to preach equality in situations such as NI - after all, it isn't their sons who stand to lose their jobs in order to see equality reached. Like a New York lawyer telling poor whites to give equality to even poorer blacks in the name of equality. Limousine liberals I've heard them called. LOL.

irishh_bob

whats all this about devout catholics , compared to northern protestants , catholics ( im agnostic btw ) north and south are possitivley heathen by comparison with thier bible belt bretheren north in ulster

J Cheever Loophole

hoorsmelt wrote: »

The PIRA's campaign began in 1969 and didn't end until 2005. They were responsible for the deaths of about 1,800 people, mostly security service personnel, with smaller Republican groups like the INLA and the OIRA responsible for another 160-200 deaths on top of that. Could/should their actions be justified? Ireland was colonised by force centuries ago, to argue that anyone who resorts to armed action to put an end to that rule does not have the right to respond to the original violence by armed struggle is hypocritical imo, and the deaths of civilians are an unfortunate side-effect of war- most of the organisations listed above tried to minimise civilian casualties with phone warnings, etc, and the majority of their casualties were security forces, who might be classed as valid targets. I reckon they were justified, and I think that groups who continue to take action today do have the right to resort to force, just that it is tactically unviable at present.

I'm a sympathiser with the IRSP fwiw.

In my experience, people are happy to consider the deaths of civilians as 'an unfortunate side-effect of war', when they, or those belonging to them, are not the civilians in question.

As a Northern Nationalist, it is my belief that the absolute abuse of power by successive Unionist governments was the reason the genie was let out of the bottle, and the IRA was reborn, and what followed was thirty five years of misery.

However, despite this, there can be no justification for so much of what happened over the course of the troubles.

Liam Byrne

I think the whole religion angle is a red herring.

Firstly, true Catholics wouldn't have sex before marraige or use contraception.

Secondly, true Catholics (or Protestants, or any Christians for that matter) would abide by the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment.

So anyone who breaks those two is being hypocritical and "a la carte", and needs to have a look at whether they can indeed consider themselves Catholic.

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

I don't think most Protestants were so paranoid as to suspect a conspiracy, but nevertheless the outcome was the same. It begs the question, what Protestants could have done about the issue?

How about being civilised neighbours and realising that Catholics were looking for equality of opportunity, equal access to services and jobs rather than any highfalutin' notion of a United Ireland. Even if they had been looking for a united Ireland - so what?

Remember, there was support within the Unionist community for the anti-sectarian NICRA. The wider Unionist community made a total and unmitigated balls of the situation with their siege mentality.

Your apologism for the Unionist paranoia is, quite literally, stomach churning.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I think the whole religion angle is a red herring.

Firstly, true Catholics wouldn't have sex before marraige or use contraception.

so what. most of the people we're talking about would be married anyway

Secondly, true Catholics (or Protestants, or any Christians for that matter) would abide by the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment.

So anyone who breaks those two is being hypocritical and "a la carte", and needs to have a look at whether they can indeed consider themselves Catholic.

I think thats a mistranslation and its actually thou shalt not murder originally. Under the word kill no christian could join any army (other than the salvation army of course)

The Scientician

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I think the whole religion angle is a red herring.

Firstly, true Catholics wouldn't have sex before marraige or use contraception.

Secondly, true Catholics (or Protestants, or any Christians for that matter) would abide by the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment.

So anyone who breaks those two is being hypocritical and "a la carte", and needs to have a look at whether they can indeed consider themselves Catholic.

Being a "true" adherent of any faith doesn't mean obeying its edicts to the letter 100% of the time, it means striving to. We're all sinners.

The Scientician

trendyvicar wrote: »

This is a tricky subject, because Nationalists who hated The UK were effectively paid to have large families and ultimately threaten The Union. Protestants had the families they could afford. This does not seem just to many and reflects other 'nappy wars' elsewhere, such as Muslims in The UK.

This statement is based on several huge assumptions.

First, can you really say Nationalists/Catholics in the north hated the UK prior to 1969? NICRA wanted to change NI for the better, not dismantle it and indeed the fundamental misunderstanding of their aims by the Protestant élite and the wider Unionist community was the biggest spark of the Troubles. Captain O'Neill, not the sharpest knife out of the box, could feel the wind of change and tried to change NI peacefully with it, but darker, more belligerent forces were at work on all sides.

Even now, as I argued before in this thread, if push came to shove, I find it doubtful that all or even the vast majority of Nationalists/Catholics would vote to leave the Union. Especially anytime in the foreseeable future.

I'd also like to see a cite that welfare provision kept Catholic birthrates higher than they would have been. The poorer you are, the larger the family you tend to have. This is the case in most countries. Almost any Catholic I know from the north who comes from a big family comes from a rural, farming background and few of them have ever been on the dole. Their parents might have had a hardscrabble life, even went to England and elsewhere for a time, but they came back and quietly prospered. I also suspect that with a bit of googling I could find you plenty of large Protestant families dependent on the dole.

Secondly, your comment on Muslims in England smacks of EDL or BNP nonsense. Your implication that Muslims are a demographic timebomb that could undermine the British state is based on what exactly?

Liam Byrne

The Scientician wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I think the whole religion angle is a red herring.

Firstly, true Catholics wouldn't have sex before marraige or use contraception.

Secondly, true Catholics (or Protestants, or any Christians for that matter) would abide by the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment.

So anyone who breaks those two is being hypocritical and "a la carte", and needs to have a look at whether they can indeed consider themselves Catholic.

Being a "true" adherent of any faith doesn't mean obeying its edicts to the letter 100% of the time, it means striving to. We're all sinners.

We are, but not many of us murder innocent people, making a paraphrase of George Orwell pretty appropriate.

And apparently you have to confess and repent a sin in order to be forgiven, so since lots of the "Catholic Freedom Fighters" and their apoligists still excuse the murders, they're not exactly repenting.

JustinDee

A civil rights movement hijacked by murderers.
I can see a nationalist campaign as viable. Not a republican version which equates a similar goal via abhorrent, hypocritical and convenient violence.

trendyvicar

Chuck Stone said

How about being civilised neighbours and realising that Catholics were looking for equality of opportunity, equal access to services and jobs rather than any highfalutin' notion of a United Ireland. Even if they had been looking for a united Ireland - so what?

Unionists didn't want a United Ireland and feared that a growing RC population could bring that about.

Remember, there was support within the Unionist community for the anti-sectarian NICRA. The wider Unionist community made a total and unmitigated balls of the situation with their siege mentality.

A 'siege mentality' based upon the circumstances that existed at the time and which was historically rooted.

Your apologism for the Unionist paranoia is, quite literally, stomach churning.

A bizarre phrase to use. Unfortunately your views are embedded fully within the most grotesque of Irish Nationalist analysis. An analysis which allows for no interpretation of The Unionist position. You are firmly rooted within the grievances of your tribe and your tribe alone, whereas I attempt to look at the history in a more balanced manner. If I appear pro-unionist that is because I am attempting to balance out the comments of people like yourself.

JustinDee

The Scientician wrote: »

Secondly, your comment on Muslims in England smacks of EDL or BNP nonsense

It was a sick regurgitation of the monocular, myopic and xenophobic rhetoric of the typical deluded follower of those two populist organisations.

trendyvicar

The Scientician said:

This statement is based on several huge assumptions.

First, can you really say Nationalists/Catholics in the north hated the UK prior to 1969?

A proportion certainly did. But that's not the point - Unionists perceived it that way.

NICRA wanted to change NI for the better, not dismantle it and indeed the fundamental misunderstanding of their aims by the Protestant élite and the wider Unionist community was the biggest spark of the Troubles.

There were many Republicans involved in The Civil Rights movement. But again that's not the point. If civil rights were granted then the immigration balance would inevitably change, leading to more RCs in NI. Unionists feared this would lead to a United Ireland.

I'd also like to see a cite that welfare provision kept Catholic birthrates higher than they would have been. The poorer you are, the larger the family you tend to have. This is the case in most countries. Almost any Catholic I know from the north who comes from a big family comes from a rural, farming background and few of them have ever been on the dole.

'The dole' isn't and wasn't the only benefit at play. Large Catholic families were common in urban areas as well.

Their parents might have had a hardscrabble life, even went to England and elsewhere for a time, but they came back and quietly prospered. I also suspect that with a bit of googling I could find you plenty of large Protestant families dependent on the dole.

Of course you could. But I was discussing averages not anecdotes.

Secondly, your comment on Muslims in England smacks of EDL or BNP nonsense. Your implication that Muslims are a demographic timebomb that could undermine the British state is based on what exactly?

So you don't like The EDL or BNP? That's OK. I didn't say that Muslim birth rates would undermine The UK State. What I was implying is that in a multi-ethnic society the disproportionate growth in one ethnic group inevitably threatens other groups in that society. This is a reality and it's pointless to deny it.

irishh_bob

trendyvicar wrote: »

The Scientician said:



A proportion certainly did. But that's not the point - Unionists perceived it that way.



There were many Republicans involved in The Civil Rights movement. But again that's not the point. If civil rights were granted then the immigration balance would inevitably change, leading to more RCs in NI. Unionists feared this would lead to a United Ireland.



'The dole' isn't and wasn't the only benefit at play. Large Catholic families were common in urban areas as well.



Of course you could. But I was discussing averages not anecdotes.



So you don't like The EDL or BNP? That's OK. I didn't say that Muslim birth rates would undermine The UK State. What I was implying is that in a multi-ethnic society the disproportionate growth in one ethnic group inevitably threatens other groups in that society. This is a reality and it's pointless to deny it.

your rationalising of unionist paranoia is a sight to behold , usually when one person or group feels threatened by an increase in rights for other members of the community - country , thier dismissed as either being neurotic or simply being superemacists who see themselves as the rightfull top dog in society , in essence , equality naturally means a loss of previously assumed rightfull privelege

you seem to think any and every percieved threat is valid and credible

trendyvicar

irishh_bob wrote: »

your rationalising of unionist paranoia is a sight to behold , usually when one person or group feels threatened by an increase in rights for other members of the community - country , thier dismissed as either being neurotic or simply being superemacists who see themselves as the rightfull top dog in society , in essence , equality naturally means a loss of previously assumed rightfull privelege

you seem to think any and every percieved threat is valid and credible

I thought you didn't want to communicate with me? You couldn't even last 24 hours. Oh dear.

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

If I appear pro-unionist that is because I am attempting to balance out the comments of people like yourself.

You've long gone beyond 'pro-unionist'. You're an active apologist for the failure of those members of the Unionist community and it's militias who failed to respect the call for equality from their RC neighbours.

A noble cause indeed.

Also, your pseudo-scientific assumptions about the hive-mind of RC community are nothing less than thinly veiled bigotry.

Zombrex

realies wrote: »

The British preferred to call the everyday bombings, gunfights, murders, military funerals,thousand of troops and armoured cars on the streets “the Troubles”. It might look like a war, but to them that would be admitting that they have there own vietnam and cant go around preaching to the world what a great nation they are were.

Oh right. Odd the IRA didn't have that problem. They seem to boast about it being a war in a way to legitimize what they did.

realies wrote: »

The P.IRA had a very large & continuous amount of support through out the Island of Ireland,Without it they couldn't have mounted such a long campaign.

Er, I think you mean support throughout the country of Libya, right?

Zombrex

karma_ wrote: »

I did not.

I know you're trying to say to Republicans that is it was a war, then surely...

However, Bloody Sunday is a touchy subject in Derry to this day, and I will not tolerate revulsion to the events of that day described as 'ranting and raving'.

The analogy is also poor, the context of that day had little to do with an armed conflict, it was a protest march that was brutally attacked by the military.

That is why it is a perfect analogy karma.

What does blowing up an shopping centre have to to with legitimate armed activity. The IRA targeted civilians with no military legitimacy.

Or to put it another way the IRA regularly and consistently did the equivalent of firing blindly into a civilian crowd.

The revulsion you feel towards Bloody Sunday I hope is also felt towards what the IRA did day to day.

Zombrex

karma_ wrote: »

Yes, Loughgall or Edlingham Street would have been far better examples, there are many better ones she could have used.

I'm actually sorry I even entered the thread now, my only objection was about Bloody Sunday.

Loughgall was an attack on a RUC base (how is that equivalent to Bloody Sunday?)