Sinn Fein- Never forget

golden lane

Dirk Gently wrote: »

certainly nothing polarises a community like voilence. Hurt one person and you turn their family and friends against you. hurt lots of people and lots of people rally in numbers behind a banner to fight whats percieved as the other side. It's simplistic though to say everything would be hunky dory without the PIRA or even that the PIRA would have become a credible force without first the conditions having been created to allow it to grow.

I think Dev's backward sectarian regieme done alot to polarise the island and enhance partition. What is it about so called republicans ensuring that our differences are highlighted and not celebrated or tolerated. FF are a publican party more than a republican party. FF created a nationalistic authorian state, economically unviable, socially conservatitive and religiously dominated by the catholic church. FF did more to push unionists away than any other party tbh. They ensured that hardliners and small minds previled south of the boarder and reactionary bigatory prevailed north of it. People didnt just wake up one morning in the late 60's and decide to start a 30 year war for the craic. The island spent decades divided and building up intolerance of each other fueling hatred long before the spark that ignited it all. To blame everything on the provos is to blame a symptom rather than address any cause.

My eye still twitches a little every time I see "the republican party" on a FF banner. They were very much anti-republican in that they done more to divide the island than unite it.

the swinging sixties...the world knew nothing about what was going on in northern ireland.

then there were people in the british isles, marching for civil rights. the headlines all over the world, put the british government in an untenable position.

the downtrodden had world sympathy...then the word terrorist was applied to those people.....

the rest is history.

Crooked Jack

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There was an option. You've heard of John Hume, right? A true nationalist hero, now seemingly forgotten as he was never in position to stop murdering people, never having started.

It has already been covered how much attention Stormont and the brits gave to peaceful protest. Just in case you missed it, it was none, short of taking a few minutes to beat people off the street or send their thugs in to shoot them dead.
I asked the question earlier and I'll ask it again. Can anyone name one concession Ireland got from England without the use or threat of force.

Dirk Gently

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Can anyone name one concession Ireland got from England without the use or threat of force.

they usually throw us a few points at eurovision.

Crooked Jack

JustinDee wrote: »

They have never condemned the perpetrators. Never.

http://www.laois-nationalist.ie/tabId/153/itemId/12317/The-IRA-did-not-kill-Brian-Stack.aspx

There's SF condemning the Clerkin killing. Other two you mentioned were by the INLA. Cant find specific condemnation but seeing as SF would condemn all INLA actions given that they wouldnt see them as a legitimate force it can be assumed they condemn those as well.
So now that you've been proven wrong I assume you'll latch on to some other name and attempt to exploit it.

Crooked Jack

Dirk Gently wrote: »

they usually throw us a few points at eurovision.

Only because we threaten to release Jedward back on them

JustinDee

Crooked Jack wrote: »

http://www.laois-nationalist.ie/tabId/153/itemId/12317/The-IRA-did-not-kill-Brian-Stack.aspx

There's SF condemning the Clerkin killing. Other two you mentioned were by the INLA. Cant find specific condemnation but seeing as SF would condemn all INLA actions given that they wouldnt see them as a legitimate force it can be assumed they condemn those as well.
So now that you've been proven wrong I assume you'll latch on to some other name and attempt to exploit it.

I haven't specified any murders, fella. Re-read who you're replying to in this weak apologetic of yours.

The link you give is of McG attempting to absolve himself and the IRA. He never once condemns the perpetrators. Why? Because he attempts to portray that the PIRA didn't do it and that he wasn't in charge at the time anyway.
Not even close to contrition, condemnation or even regret.

Laminations

A few points:

1. As Einhard and others have tried to clarify, questioning SFs links to violence and support of IRA perpetrators in no way means we think they were alone in the conflict. The reason they are singled out is that there is no British or loyalist party in the republic canvassing for votes. If SF want to represent us we should look at what they've stood over in the recent past - economically speaking too but that's a separate thread.

So it doesn't matter what others did during the Troubles, in this context

2. Again as Einhard has explained very well (but it ain't sinking in) accepting an unpalatable process such as the GFA does not mean you have to support and petition for every IRA member - nor welcome them upon release. It is like the recent unconstitutionality of certain warrants. If I was in the legal profession I'd recognise that many criminals would now have to be released (retried) on a technicality. I may even petition for this technicality to be applied to some (in a civil rights kinda vibe) but recognising that a process has to be applied does not mean I support these criminals. Welcoming them out at the gates and chauffeuring them away? That would show support/not condemnation of their acts and goes far beyond recognising something like the GFA.

3. Someone was refusing to deal with hypotheticals from Monty Burnz - so here's a reality: is it ever right for an elected TD to support, collect and chauffeur Garda killers from prison? If so why?

4. It is very debatable whether the GFA should've applied to these Garda killers and shows a lack of respect from SF that they even tried to get them early release. To me a (supposedly) unsanction murder of a Garda during the commission of a robbery is no more a political crime as a man murdering his wife is a political prisoner just because he is a member of the IRA. The GFA was not and never should have been a diplomatic immunity /get out of jail free card to absolve the crimes of any IRA member, whether their crime was related to their 'war with Britain' or not.

4. @ crooked jack re targeting civilians. You say the IRA committed tens of thousands of attacks, and seem to commend them for murdering so 'few' (800) civilians. Firstly that many attacks sound like more than the Brits were committing? Seconding you insist the Brits were targetting civillians and the IRA weren't (and it is so convient that any civilian deaths were accidents or rogue) but if you look at the numbers during the Troubles the Brits murdered a little over 1000 civilians to the IRAs 800. So either the Brits were rubbish at killing civilians and the IRA were rubbish at not killing civilians or maybe you ate just wrong with your attribution of malice to the Brits and sainthood to the IRA - they both had very dirty hands. Also if you look at total murdered you see the IRA are front runners there.

Source for figures.

5. The worst thing about the IRA is that they claimed to be acting in our name - with no democratic mandate and without recognising the government or courts of Ireland. SFers embarrass me. The party needs to clean ranks to properly distance themselves from violence and start condemning the perpetrators of terrorism and Garda killing (not partying with them).

nua domhan

Seems to be an awful lot of experts here who never lived or experienced the north. They talk about terrorists in government but how many "terrorists" around the world are now lauded for their work? I'm thinking of one fella from the ANC in particular.

The IRA were the first organisation to put all weapons beyond use - independently verified. Did they just accidentally concrete up their arms dumps or did Sinn Fein have a hand in working towards this peaceful gesture? You'll note that many loyalist paramilitaries have yet to enjoy the same verification and some blatantly refuse to give up their arms.

As for the statement made in ignorance that the PIRA destroyed the chance of a united Ireland - have a read up on the sunningdale agreement of 1973 and how unionist workers and the british governments reluctance to stop the strikes brought it down - only for it to work decades later as the good friday agreement.

Laminations

SFers are stuck making a cognitive error.

When the Brits did something bad it was because they were bad. When the IRA/or SF did something bad it was because of circumstance. Likewise when the Brits did something good it was because of circumstance (e.g. They were forced to) but when the IRA/or SF did something good it's because they are good.

Fundamental attribution error

Laminations

nua domhan wrote: »

The IRA were the first organisation to put all weapons beyond use - independently verified. Did they just accidentally concrete up their arms dumps or did Sinn Fein have a hand in working towards this peaceful gesture? You'll note that many loyalist paramilitaries have yet to enjoy the same verification and some blatantly refuse to give up their arms.
.

While they are to be credited for their steps towards peace it does not make them saints. Where did RIRA, CIRA and other splinter groups get their weapons? A real commitment to peace would be the naming of every known member in these splinter terrorist groups and cooperation with the gardai and PSNI.

Also the IRAs hand was forced somewhat from the gun after 9/11 when the american financiers of SF realised that terrorism ain't so pretty.

Crooked Jack

JustinDee wrote: »

I haven't specified any murders, fella. Re-read who you're replying to in this weak apologetic of yours.

The link you give is of McG attempting to absolve himself and the IRA. He never once condemns the perpetrators. Why? Because he attempts to portray that the PIRA didn't do it and that he wasn't in charge at the time anyway.
Not even close to contrition, condemnation or even regret.

In relation to garda Clerkin’s death, he said: “I would condemn it. Whoever is responsible needs to be condemned and should be. My heart goes out to the loved ones. Two of my own cousins are members of the gardai."

That's funny, that bit sounds an awful lot like condemnation. Especially the bit where he says "I condemn it."
Im just presenting the facts, why is it that anything short of joining in with the hysterical screaming of the what-about-brigade gets you labeled as an apologist?

Crooked Jack

Laminations wrote: »

4. @ crooked jack re targeting civilians. You say the IRA committed tens of thousands of attacks, and seem to commend them for murdering so 'few' (800) civilians. Firstly that many attacks sound like more than the Brits were committing? Seconding you insist the Brits were targetting civillians and the IRA weren't (and it is so convient that any civilian deaths were accidents or rogue) but if you look at the numbers during the Troubles the Brits murdered a little over 1000 civilians to the IRAs 800. So either the Brits were rubbish at killing civilians and the IRA were rubbish at not killing civilians or maybe you ate just wrong with your attribution of malice to the Brits and sainthood to the IRA - they both had very dirty hands. Also if you look at total murdered you see the IRA are front runners there.

Source for figures.

I was referring specifically to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and made that quite clear.
Nor did I deify the IRA. Any actions that were outside the rules of the Green book i have condemned. I just refuse to join in with this fence-sitting pontificating about "how everyone was as bad as everyone else," when that is clearly not the case. (Cue "yea the IRA was the worst bullshit)

junder

nua domhan wrote: »

Seems to be an awful lot of experts here who never lived or experienced the north. They talk about terrorists in government but how many "terrorists" around the world are now lauded for their work? I'm thinking of one fella from the ANC in particular.

The IRA were the first organisation to put all weapons beyond use - independently verified. Did they just accidentally concrete up their arms dumps or did Sinn Fein have a hand in working towards this peaceful gesture? You'll note that many loyalist paramilitaries have yet to enjoy the same verification and some blatantly refuse to give up their arms.

As for the statement made in ignorance that the PIRA destroyed the chance of a united Ireland - have a read up on the sunningdale agreement of 1973 and how unionist workers and the british governments reluctance to stop the strikes brought it down - only for it to work decades later as the good friday agreement.

There does indeed seem to be alot of 'experts' on northern Ireland who have never set foot in the country. Have you ever set foot in northern Ireland, or more importantly lived here for a significant amount of time before the ceasefires were declared? If you have then you would indeed see how the republican paramiltarys groups destroyed the chance a united Ireland, likewise loyalist paramiltarys alienated the catholic community from wanting to be part of the union. However since the gfa us unionists do have an easier job since northern is fact not concept line a united Ireland, while he British economy is in diffs it's in better shape then the republics therefore northern Ireland is better of staying part of the union. Irish culture in general is being more accepted as a fact of life in northern Ireland has been for decades across the rest of the uk while unionist culture is stil to this day ( and within that I include the very important aspects of our / my culture of the bands and the loyalism orders) not welcomed / respected or in anyway considered legitimate ( even on this site people have made statements that the unionists have no culture) which for me atleast as a unionist is evidence that republicans are still undermining the chances of thier united Ireland which on reflection for me is a good thing

golden lane

nua domhan wrote: »

Seems to be an awful lot of experts here who never lived or experienced the north. They talk about terrorists in government but how many "terrorists" around the world are now lauded for their work? I'm thinking of one fella from the ANC in particular.

The IRA were the first organisation to put all weapons beyond use - independently verified. Did they just accidentally concrete up their arms dumps or did Sinn Fein have a hand in working towards this peaceful gesture? You'll note that many loyalist paramilitaries have yet to enjoy the same verification and some blatantly refuse to give up their arms.

As for the statement made in ignorance that the PIRA destroyed the chance of a united Ireland - have a read up on the sunningdale agreement of 1973 and how unionist workers and the british governments reluctance to stop the strikes brought it down - only for it to work decades later as the good friday agreement.

by taking up arms........the unionists gained the high ground, and the nationalist cause lost it's support in the uk establishment.....

Crooked Jack

Laminations wrote: »

While they are to be credited for their steps towards peace it does not make them saints. Where did RIRA, CIRA and other splinter groups get their weapons? A real commitment to peace would be the naming of every known member in these splinter terrorist groups and cooperation with the gardai and PSNI.

Also the IRAs hand was forced somewhat from the gun after 9/11 when the american financiers of SF realised that terrorism ain't so pretty.

9/11? 9/11 2001. Three years after the GFA. Seven years after the first Ceasefire. 30 years after the IRA had first demonstrated a willingness to negotiate with the brits and look for a peaceful solution. Yeah, 9/11.

Laminations

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I was referring specifically to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and made that quite clear.
Nor did I deify the IRA. Any actions that were outside the rules of the Green book i have condemned. I just refuse to join in with this fence-sitting pontificating about "how everyone was as bad as everyone else," when that is clearly not the case. (Cue "yea the IRA was the worst bullshit)

Look at the figures for civilians killed and total killed and explain to me how to interpret that in any other way than 'they were all bad'.

Secondly you saying something is wrong because it's outside the green book is missing the point. It's wrong because it's against the law and if you recognise these actions are wrong please show me the meaningful sanctions. An anonymous man or men being anonymously expelled from an anonymous organisation is not a fitting punishment for murder of civilians.

Laminations

Crooked Jack wrote: »

9/11? 9/11 2001. Three years after the GFA. Seven years after the first Ceasefire. 30 years after the IRA had first demonstrated a willingness to negotiate with the brits and look for a peaceful solution. Yeah, 9/11.

When did full decommissioning happen Einstein?

Crooked Jack

golden lane wrote: »

by taking up arms........the unionists gained the high ground, and the nationalist cause lost it's support in the uk establishment.....

So nationalists should have just sat silently and twiddled their thumbs while they were shot dead, beaten off the streets and burned out of their homes.
I'd also be interested to hear what support the nationalist cause ever had in the "uk establishment."

golden lane

Crooked Jack wrote: »

So nationalists should have just sat silently and twiddled their thumbs while they were shot dead, beaten off the streets and burned out of their homes.
I'd also be interested to hear what support the nationalist cause ever had in the "uk establishment."

the whole of the labour party.....but they could not deal with ""terrorists""....

the label made it impossible at that time...

thecommietommy

Two things get me regarding the " what about Jerry McCabe " brigade -

(a) Why does McCabe's death as unfortunate as it was, count above the 3,200+ otherskilled in the troubles ? What makes him so special above all the others ? Here is the list http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/

(b) Why doesn't the biggest murder in the history of the state the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in which 33 people were murdered, in which no one was ever caught and the investigation wound down after a few weeks, not register the same anger of McCabe ?

(c) How come there isn't the same amount of attention paid to the murder of say, Ritchie Barron and the actions of the guards in trying to frame up a completey innocent family, the McBrearty's ? Is it because Jerry McCabe's colleague's could very well be respondcible ?

Crooked Jack

Laminations wrote: »

When did full decommissioning happen Einstein?

The second half of 2005 Einstein. Yeah, that was cause of events in America 4 years prior, not the gradual construction of a peace process here over 20 years

Crooked Jack

golden lane wrote: »

the whole of the labour party.....but they could not deal with ""terrorists""....

the label made it impossible at that time...

The whole of the labour party did not and does not support the nationalist cause. Do you know what the nationalist cause is? Break up of the UK. Establishment of a United Ireland.
Perhaps there may have been some of them in favour of simple human rights like equality and one man one vote but they didnt do much about it. At least not until the war started.

Laminations

thecommietommy wrote: »

Two things get me regarding the " what about Jerry McCabe " brigade -

(a) Why does McCabe's death as unfortunate as it was, count above the 3,200+ otherskilled in the troubles ? What makes him so special above all the others ? Here is the list http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/

He was killed in an operation that no way could be linked to paramilitary polilical activities? Yet his killers were covered by the GFA after much arguing and support from SF. His killers were collected from prison by a SF TD?

It is not his killing but the treatment of his killers (who were unsanctioned yet still protected by SF) that makes his case somewhat special.

In truth what a weak counter argument you have if all you can say is 'but the IRA killed lots of people?'

Laminations

Laminations wrote: »

When did full decommissioning happen Einstein?

@ Crooked Jack

http://m.csmonitor.com/2001/0921/p7s2-woeu.html

Well? I'm waiting for you to admit there were major situation influences/pressures on the IRA giving up the gun for good.

Crooked Jack

Laminations wrote: »

@ Crooked Jack

http://m.csmonitor.com/2001/0921/p7s2-woeu.html

Well? I'm waiting for you to admit there were major situation influences/pressures on the IRA giving up the gun for good.

You'll be waiting a while. The importance of 9/11 in IRA decomissioning is far too overstated to say the least. The IRA was committed to peace at that stage and destroying dumped weapons was only a matter of time lest they fall into the hands of dissidents/criminals.

golden lane

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The whole of the labour party did not and does not support the nationalist cause. Do you know what the nationalist cause is? Break up of the UK. Establishment of a United Ireland.
Perhaps there may have been some of them in favour of simple human rights like equality and one man one vote but they didnt do much about it. At least not until the war started.

i am aware what the nationalist cause is....that is my dream, a united ireland......not a disunited ireland.

the human rights issue was not even thought about, the british public had no idea what went on in northern ireland, nor did the british politicians.....by the time it was brought to their attention, it was too late........terrorism had already entered the mind of people.....

Laminations

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You'll be waiting a while. The importance of 9/11 in IRA decomissioning is far too overstated to say the least. The IRA was committed to peace at that stage and destroying dumped weapons was only a matter of time lest they fall into the hands of dissidents/criminals.

Yeah continue to ignore the circumstances beyond their control that expedited decommissioning.
"The world changed last week. We need to close a chapter in our own history, on the armed struggle of the IRA, and move on," says Mairtin O'Muilleoir, an ex-councilor of Sinn Fein, the IRA's political wing. "There's a global debate under way, and we need to be on the right side."

Anyway, don't you think, in the spirit of true peace, cooperation and reconciliation, the seniors in the IRA should name the members who splintered??

Also, you haven't answered this yet - is it ever right for a sitting TD to collect and chaffeur Garda killers from prison? And celebrate their release?

granturismo

thecommietommy wrote: »

Two things get me regarding the " what about Jerry McCabe " brigade -

(a) Why does McCabe's death as unfortunate as it was, count above the 3,200+ otherskilled in the troubles ? What makes him so special above all the others ? Here is the list http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/?

He was killed while the PIRA were on ceasefire. Not that that makes life any easier for the thousands of other berieved families.

While FF, FG trace their origins back to the IRA, the link between SF and the PIRA is relatively more recent and 'recent' breaches like the McCabe murder dont instil my trust in SF in addition to their 'voodoo' economic policies and 'down with that sort of thing, Ted' which seems to be their default policy without giving any viable alternatives.

Elmer Blooker

nua domhan wrote: »

Seems to be an awful lot of experts here who never lived or experienced the north. They talk about terrorists in government but how many "terrorists" around the world are now lauded for their work? I'm thinking of one fella from the ANC in particular.

The IRA were the first organisation to put all weapons beyond use - independently verified. Did they just accidentally concrete up their arms dumps or did Sinn Fein have a hand in working towards this peaceful gesture? You'll note that many loyalist paramilitaries have yet to enjoy the same verification and some blatantly refuse to give up their arms.

As for the statement made in ignorance that the PIRA destroyed the chance of a united Ireland - have a read up on the sunningdale agreement of 1973 and how unionist workers and the british governments reluctance to stop the strikes brought it down - only for it to work decades later as the good friday agreement.

Not entirely true, the Labour British Govt led by Harold Wilson wanted a political solution but had no control over the situation in NI at the time of the Sunningdale agreement, right wing elements in the British military orchestrated the Ulster workers strike for their own ends which was to successfully destabilize the Wilson government who had to "resign" in a "very British coup". The Dublin and Monaghan bombings coincided with this strike.
Of course you are correct in saying that the opportunity for a political solution was missed and many more were to die needlessly.

Laminations

@ Crooked Jack

There is still the matter of post 317. You want to explain how based on the figures they weren't all bad? And how unsanctioned murderers in the IRA were punished?

JustinDee

Crooked Jack wrote: »

9/11? 9/11 2001. Three years after the GFA. Seven years after the first Ceasefire. 30 years after the IRA had first demonstrated a willingness to negotiate with the brits and look for a peaceful solution. Yeah, 9/11.

One would normally be able to say "you couldn't make it up" but you can and you do. You believe that secret meetings with Heath and Thatcher governments were attempts at consolidatory peace? Lol
Would take far more than that to make up for PIRA's hijacking of the civil rights movement and slaughter of innocents on a muddled agenda.

nua domhan

junder wrote: »

There does indeed seem to be alot of 'experts' on northern Ireland who have never set foot in the country. Have you ever set foot in northern Ireland, or more importantly lived here for a significant amount of time before the ceasefires were declared? If you have then you would indeed see how the republican paramiltarys groups destroyed the chance a united Ireland, likewise loyalist paramiltarys alienated the catholic community from wanting to be part of the union. However since the gfa us unionists do have an easier job since northern is fact not concept line a united Ireland, while he British economy is in diffs it's in better shape then the republics therefore northern Ireland is better of staying part of the union. Irish culture in general is being more accepted as a fact of life in northern Ireland has been for decades across the rest of the uk while unionist culture is stil to this day ( and within that I include the very important aspects of our / my culture of the bands and the loyalism orders) not welcomed / respected or in anyway considered legitimate ( even on this site people have made statements that the unionists have no culture) which for me atleast as a unionist is evidence that republicans are still undermining the chances of thier united Ireland which on reflection for me is a good thing

Yeah i have lived in the north for a significant amount of time thanks. I remember a british soldier pointing a gun at me because i was a 12 year old wearing a catholic school uniform, i remember standing at the side of the road with my family a 4 yr old sister as the army searched our car because we had a catholic name and i remember our whole secondary school french class cheering when we heard a bomb go off (thinking it was in the army barracks which just happened to be built right next to our school - amazing that.)

To me the republican paramilitaries were the ones who were fighting against the treatment we received at the hands of the british - internment, harassment, violence and collusion. And protected us from loyalist paramilitaries (Killing billy wright springs to mind)

While a lot of things that were done are awful, it is commendable where they are now, and that applies to loyalists as well. I still have more respect for those who would take arms and fight for their beliefs than the ones who pontificate from afar and suggest that things would all be great if one side hadn't have done this or the other that.

David Irvine was a great man and spent a lot of his time working towards peace despite his paramilitary history, if he was alive and standing for election in the Republic i would vote for him in a heartbeat over Bertie, Cowen or the laughable Noonan.

I agree with you that an United Ireland will now be predicated on economics, it should never have been about religion anyway, unfortunately the refusal of civil rights to a particular religion by the hierarchy made it that way.

Your point about culture is an interesting one, unionists do of course have a cultural significance in the north, and it bothers me not if they march or beat their drums, or indeed, where it's done. Your history is our history, and we have to move on. We're going in the right direction, there is little support for dissidents on both sides of the community and things are better than they have ever been due to the work of Sinn Fein, the PUP, DUP, UUP and SDLP despite of their history/affiliations.

It suits FF and FG well to demonise political partys that threaten their status quo and there will plenty more armchair experts on the troubles rolled out before the next election.

JustinDee

Crooked Jack wrote: »

That's funny, that bit sounds an awful lot like condemnation. Especially the bit where he says "I condemn it."
Im just presenting the facts, why is it that anything short of joining in with the hysterical screaming of the what-about-brigade gets you labeled as an apologist?

To summarise your hero:
"I and the PIRA had nothing to do with it. If I knew who did though, I'd condemn the action . . . "

Thats basically all he said. As I mentioned, not an ounce of contrition or regret. Just a laughable denial while on a laughable scramble to take an office he does not recognise.

Laminations

nua domhan wrote: »

Yeah i have lived in the north for a significant amount of time thanks. I remember a british soldier pointing a gun at me because i was a 12 year old wearing a catholic school uniform, i remember standing at the side of the road with my family a 4 yr old sister as the army searched our car because we had a catholic name and i remember our whole secondary school french class cheering when we heard a bomb go off (thinking it was in the army barracks which just happened to be built right next to our school - amazing that.)

To me the republican paramilitaries were the ones who were fighting against the treatment we received at the hands of the british - internment, harassment, violence and collusion. And protected us from loyalist paramilitaries (Killing billy wright springs to mind)

While a lot of things that were done are awful, it is commendable where they are now, and that applies to loyalists as well. I still have more respect for those who would take arms and fight for their beliefs than the ones who pontificate from afar and suggest that things would all be great if one side hadn't have done this or the other that.

David Irvine was a great man and spent a lot of his time working towards peace despite his paramilitary history, if he was alive and standing for election in the Republic i would vote for him in a heartbeat over Bertie, Cowen or the laughable Noonan.

I agree with you that an United Ireland will now be predicated on economics, it should never have been about religion anyway, unfortunately the refusal of civil rights to a particular religion by the hierarchy made it that way.

Your point about culture is an interesting one, unionists do of course have a cultural significance in the north, and it bothers me not if they march or beat their drums, or indeed, where it's done. Your history is our history, and we have to move on. We're going in the right direction, there is little support for dissidents on both sides of the community and things are better than they have ever been due to the work of Sinn Fein, the PUP, DUP, UUP and SDLP despite of their history/affiliations.

It suits FF and FG well to demonise political partys that threaten their status quo and there will plenty more armchair experts on the troubles rolled out before the next election.

So you were a catholic in the Troubles with a very myopic view? Did you ever experience an IRA punishment beating? Or were you a loyalist burned from their home? I think you are far more biased than an observer who could see attacks and atrocities on both sides. The IRA protected you? They exacerbated your problems, they killed catholics, they engaged in punishment beatings, they provoked counter attacks and retaliation. They killed 800 civilians!! They killed more people during the Troubles than the British. They engaged in indiscriminate violence and targeted civilian streets and businesses. They were not your saviours, peace has been your saviour.

At least you recognise that the progress made (by both sides) is what is to be commended.

golden lane

nua domhan wrote: »

Yeah i have lived in the north for a significant amount of time thanks. I remember a british soldier pointing a gun at me because i was a 12 year old wearing a catholic school uniform, i remember standing at the side of the road with my family a 4 yr old sister as the army searched our car because we had a catholic name and i remember our whole secondary school french class cheering when we heard a bomb go off (thinking it was in the army barracks which just happened to be built right next to our school - amazing that.)

To me the republican paramilitaries were the ones who were fighting against the treatment we received at the hands of the british - internment, harassment, violence and collusion. And protected us from loyalist paramilitaries (Killing billy wright springs to mind)

While a lot of things that were done are awful, it is commendable where they are now, and that applies to loyalists as well. I still have more respect for those who would take arms and fight for their beliefs than the ones who pontificate from afar and suggest that things would all be great if one side hadn't have done this or the other that.

David Irvine was a great man and spent a lot of his time working towards peace despite his paramilitary history, if he was alive and standing for election in the Republic i would vote for him in a heartbeat over Bertie, Cowen or the laughable Noonan.

I agree with you that an United Ireland will now be predicated on economics, it should never have been about religion anyway, unfortunately the refusal of civil rights to a particular religion by the hierarchy made it that way.

Your point about culture is an interesting one, unionists do of course have a cultural significance in the north, and it bothers me not if they march or beat their drums, or indeed, where it's done. Your history is our history, and we have to move on. We're going in the right direction, there is little support for dissidents on both sides of the community and things are better than they have ever been due to the work of Sinn Fein, the PUP, DUP, UUP and SDLP despite of their history/affiliations.

It suits FF and FG well to demonise political partys that threaten their status quo and there will plenty more armchair experts on the troubles rolled out before the next election.

i am pleased you mentioned david irvine......he deserves to be remembered.....

he put the whole unionist situation into context by saying.........

they want the british out of norther ireland........i am the british, it is my country...

Elmer Blooker

JustinDee wrote: »

One would normally be able to say "you couldn't make it up" but you can and you do. You believe that secret meetings with Heath and Thatcher governments were attempts at consolidatory peace? Lol
Would take far more than that to make up for PIRA's hijacking of the civil rights movement and slaughter of innocents on a muddled agenda.

The IRA didn't have to "hijack" the Civil Rights movement.
Here a quote from Ivan Cooper (to the British govt after bloody Sunday) who was a leading figure in the C.R. movement and a founding member of the SDLP.
"you know what you've done don't you? you've destroyed the civil rights movement and you've given the IRA the biggest victory it will ever have. All over this city tonight young men and boys will be joining the IRA and you will reap the whirlwind"

JustinDee

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The IRA didn't have to "hijack" the Civil Rights movement.
Here a quote from Ivan Cooper (to the British govt after bloody Sunday) who was a leading figure in the C.R. movement and a founding member of the SDLP.
"you know what you've done don't you? you've destroyed the civil rights movement and you've given the IRA the biggest victory it will ever have. All over this city tonight young men and boys will be joining the IRA and you will reap the whirlwind"

I saw the TV movie that you quote . . .

An all-important civil rights movement was long forgotten (much with the ludicrous marxist-leninist tripe being bandied about) once the unrealistic agenda of an all-island Ireland and tit-for-tat sectarianism took the table.

Laminations

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I just refuse to join in with this fence-sitting pontificating about "how everyone was as bad as everyone else," when that is clearly not the case. (Cue "yea the IRA was the worst bullshit)

Come on Jack, interpret these figures in a way that supports your case, especially looking at the number of Catholics killed.

golfball37

Just out of interest how do people feel about Michael Collins planned invasion of NI post the treaty and the potential ethnic cleansing of Protestants? The act carried out at Altnaveigh is as bad as anything the Provos did, and the man responsible was Tanaiste of this country many years later.

Surely that can't sit well with all the posters here decrying the modern SF or will it just be denied and ignored as per usual. We Irish are hypocrits, its no wonder we were colonised for half our existence as we are very easily led. We turn on each other at the drop of a hat. Informers were the biggest scourge of both the old IRA and the PIRA, the same sort of Irish insecure mindset that ensures we'll never be a free nation.

I have no problem with people not wanting to vote for SF because of their murky past, I do have a problem with hypocrisy however. Until an alternative party comes along to the 3 parties that have returned this free state back to dominion status, I will vote for the new SF anyway. They have blood on their hands but so do the rest of em. They at least have not destroyed this country unlike the rest of them.

The real irony is I grew up hating the Provos and loving the Old IRA, its only when you read what went in NI that you actually realise the Provos had more of a reason to take up arms than the former against the British.

nua domhan

Laminations wrote: »

So you were a catholic in the Troubles with a very myopic view? I cannot experience someone else's perception - we're not in the matrix yet.

Did you ever experience an IRA punishment beating? No.

Or were you a loyalist burned from their home? Stupid question.

I think you are far more biased than an observer who could see attacks and atrocities on both sides. I think i am far more qualified to talk about the troubles and have a better understanding than someone "observing" from a far. UN observers don't do it from their desk, why should you?

The IRA protected you? They exacerbated your problems, they killed catholics, they engaged in punishment beatings, they provoked counter attacks and retaliation. So the IRA in your view are to blame for Bloody Sunday, The Dublin and Monaghan pub bombs, the killing of Pat Finuacaine and Rosemary Nelson, the Murder of Robert Hamill...the list goes on. Afterall, if they hadn't started it etc.....

They killed 800 civilians!! They killed more people during the Troubles than the British. It's not a competition to see who killed the most, taking 10 lives from one side does not excuse the other taking even 1.

They engaged in indiscriminate violence and targeted civilian streets and businesses. While there may have been mistakes, or some over zealous individuals i don't believe that targeting civilians was a systemic policy. Many warnings were given before bombs and the leadership were smart enough to know that killing indiscriminately did not bring you support. There may have been some idiots who believed that all protestants were the enemy (and i have met and been disgusted by some) as there are those who daub KAT on walls.

They were not your saviours, peace has been your saviour. Peace didn't magically fall from the sky - it was worked for by "murderers" from both sides

At least you recognise that the progress made (by both sides) is what is to be commended.

Can i ask you now, what expertise you bring to the table? are you a historian or have you lived in the troubles? I only ask because, while you're entitled to your opinion, the weight of which it carries is directly related to your experience or research. I could give you an opinion on how to milk a cow because i saw it on tv, doesn't mean i know what i'm talking about or that anyone should give value to what i say.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

So you were a catholic in the Troubles with a very myopic view? Did you ever experience an.......... is what is to be commended.

Hysteria and handwringing. Theres no such thing as a clean war, or a nice one. The armed struggle resulted from (a)the sectarian statelet of NI and (b) the violence employed against peaceful attempts to change that statelet.

Elmer Blooker

JustinDee wrote: »

I saw the TV movie that you quote . . .

An all-important civil rights movement was long forgotten (much with the ludicrous marxist-leninist tripe being bandied about) once the unrealistic agenda of an all-island Ireland and tit-for-tat sectarianism took the table.

Eh? it wasn't a movie, it actually happened.
The Civil Rights movement organized the Bloody March on January 31st 1972 so they were hardly "long forgotten"

Laminations

nua domhan wrote: »

Can i ask you now, what expertise you bring to the table? are you a historian or have you lived in the troubles?

Living in the troubles would only serve to give me a one sided view - you admit this yourself, we are not in the matrix. So you saying 'you don't know how is was man' is easily countered by me saying 'neither do you'.

I only ask because, while you're entitled to your opinion, the weight of which it carries is directly related to your experience or research.

While experience is highly informative it is also highly biasing especially in a situation of such strongly opposed in-group/out-group. So I stick to research. Objectivity and subjectivity and important distinctions

If you want to explain how the figures on who killed who paints the IRA as better, then go ahead - but I hope you don't try and argue that every murder of a civilian was in their case a mistake or a rogue element.

I could give you an opinion on how to milk a cow because i saw it on tv, doesn't mean i know what i'm talking about or that anyone should give value to what i say.

Sometimes you could be milking a cow for so long you are sure you are doing it the right way and the best way. I could watch you do it and then go and watch others do it (research as you mention) and conclude that you are in fact pulling on the penis. My observation would be correct and trump your years of experience.

Finally if you want to tell me how your experience of the troubles in any way justifies the support and collection of Garda killers (which is the crux of this thread) please do explain

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

Hysteria and handwringing. Theres no such thing as a clean war, or a nice one. The armed struggle resulted from (a)the sectarian statelet of NI and (b) the violence employed against peaceful attempts to change that statelet.

War?

Hannibal

Laminations wrote: »

Come on Jack, interpret these figures in a way that supports your case, especially looking at the number of Catholics killed.

These figures need to be elaborated on further, to simply define everyone as either "Catholic", "Protestant" or not from "NI" is ridiculous.

Take the Lost Lives study has a total of 1,781 dead caused by the IRA. 944 of the dead by the IRA were from British security forces, 644 civilians, 28 loyalists paramilitary, 6 Gardaí and 1 Irish army a further 163 were republican paramilitary members although this includes IRA members killed by their own actions.

The CAIN study at UU has slightly different figures with a total of 1,824. 928 from British security forces, 621 civilians, 35 loyalists paramilitary, 6 Gardaí and 1 Irish army, 80 republican paramilitary

Laminations

Also nua domhan, did you live through WW2? I doubt it.

so you couldn't possibly comment on the atrocities committed by the Nazis or you couldn't possibly after researching events make any conclusion as to who was in the wrong? I mean we'd get a more truthful account listening to a Nazi recount how the Jews did xyz and the allies bombed abc. Living through something that is highly charged makes you highly biased. Objective observation is always the better approach.

This example is in no way trying to equate the Troubles with the Holocaust before anyone gets trigger-happy with the Godwin button

golden lane

well, the unionist position in northern ireland......is, as it would have been without the troubles.......but they now hold the high ground....

Laminations

Dotsey wrote: »

These figures need to be elaborated on further, to simply define everyone as either "Catholic", "Protestant" or not from "NI" is ridiculous.

Take the Lost Lives study has a total of 1,781 dead caused by the IRA. 944 of the dead by the IRA were from British security forces, 644 civilians, 28 loyalists paramilitary, 6 Gardaí and 1 Irish army a further 163 were republican paramilitary members although this includes IRA members killed by their own actions.

The CAIN study at UU has slightly different figures with a total of 1,824. 928 from British security forces, 621 civilians, 35 loyalists paramilitary, 6 Gardaí and 1 Irish army, 80 republican paramilitary

Can you quote the other side of those figures so we can compare total killings by IRA against total by British?

I was responding to nua domhan who believes the IRa were protecting him as a catholic - pointing out how many catholics they killed refutes his point (regradless of the background of those catholics) and makes it more likely that they were protecting him (if thats even the right word) because he didn't disagree with them - had he joined the British forces or publicly criticised the IRA I think he'd find his catholicism would not be a shield or uniting characteristic for long.

whitelines

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It's quite well known that British agents (working on behalf of who else but the british government) were involved in the planning an execution of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.

No it's not. What you mean is Republicans 'know it'.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

............

I was responding to nua domhan who believes the IRa were protecting him as a catholic - pointing out how many catholics they killed refutes his point (regradless of the background of those catholics) and makes it more likely that they were protecting him (if thats even the right word) because he didn't disagree with them - had he joined the British forces or publicly criticised the IRA I think he'd find his catholicism would not be a shield or uniting characteristic for long.

....so? If you join a force thats actively working against a faction, then its obvious you'll be considered an enemy of that faction.