Giving some of N.I. back to the Republic

tdv123

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ultimately, it's their decision to make, even they will be under pressure from the UVF, or equally from dissident republican groups. Or economic arguments (personally, I suspect it'll come down to this on both sides of the border). Or whatever. Otherwise it sounds more like you're worried they won't make the 'right' decision, rather than an unbiased one.

Unfortunately, it's comments like that that make me pretty certain that no matter which way such a vote goes, it's still going to turn out badly because some fanatical idiot on either side will be convinced that the Will of the People wasn't properly served.

But it's not really all the Irish people together making the decision to reunify or not than is it? I thought most people in the South were against a United Ireland anyway so why can't we make the decision acting as a single unit to decide the future of the Island just like the people in Scotland are acting as a single unit to decide their future. I should be able to have a say in the North's affairs just as much as someone from Down or Armagh should be able to have a say in the Free Sates affairs.

I would rather unify the island under British rule if I thought the people of the island could genuinely prosper rather the keep the county divided & for all the divisions that separate us to remain. So it's nothing to do with being anti-British which is what I think your hinting at. I don't care about nationalism my flag is red.

tdv123

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure and how many lives would have been saved if the archduke Franz Ferdinand had asked "look honey, is that guy up ahead carrying a pistol?"

Well you might think it's funny that nearly 10,000 Irish people died & 10's of 1000's more were injured as a result of partition but I don't.

The Corinthian

tdv123 wrote: »

But it's not really all the Irish people together making the decision to reunify or not than is it? I thought most people in the South were against a United Ireland anyway so why can't we make the decision acting as a single unit to decide the future of the Island just like the people in Scotland are acting as a single unit to decide their future. I should be able to have a say in the North's affairs just as much as someone from Down or Armagh should be able to have a say in the Free Sates affairs.

What on Earth are you on about? Are you suggesting that southern Ireland should have a say in whether NI is independent of the UK (separate from the question of whether we're unified)? That we in the south should have a say in whether the UK governs them (not us), rather than allowing them, the people of NI to decide for themselves? Unification is a separate matter, where naturally the south should have a say.

You'll have to explain what you mean, because either what you're saying comes across as very confused, or as mad as a bicycle.

tdv123 wrote: »

Well you might think it's funny that nearly 10,000 Irish people died & 10's of 1000's more were injured as a result of partition but I don't.

Clearly my point wooshed over your head. Hint; it happened 100 years ago, it involved more than 10,000 people and going over it now ain't going to make much of a difference today.

tdv123

The Corinthian wrote: »

What on Earth are you on about? Are you suggesting that southern Ireland should have a say in whether NI is independent of the UK (separate from the question of whether we're unified)? That we in the south should have a say in whether the UK governs them (not us), rather than allowing them, the people of NI to decide for themselves? Unification is a separate matter, where naturally the south should have a say.

You'll have to explain what you mean, because either what you're saying comes across as very confused, or as mad as a bicycle.

Clearly my point wooshed over your head. Hint; it happened 100 years ago, it involved more than 10,000 people and going over it now ain't going to make much of a difference today.

Did you actually bother reading my post at all? You said you agreed all the people of the Ireland should be able to decide their own future acting as a single unit.

Karl Stein

It'd be interesting to know how our resident British Empire Apologists, and by extension, acquiescers to the threat of Unionist terrorism, would view a partition of Scotland analogous to that which befell Ireland.

Consider if there were a minority in Scotland concentrated around, say, Glasgow and surrounding environs, who armed themselves and threatened to conduct mass terrorism if Scotland was voted out of the 'Union'.

What would the usual suspects think of the threats of terrorism from Scots Unionists in the face of the democratic aspirations of the people of Scotland?

ancapailldorcha

tdv123 wrote: »

Did you actually bother reading my post at all? You said you agreed all the people of the Ireland should be able to decide their own future acting as a single unit.

I think The Corinthian is trying to say that the Republic should have no say on whether or not NI remains in the Union. That's a decision for the Northern Irish and them alone. Whether or not an independent NI is welcomed to join the Republic is a decision for the electorate of the 26 counties.

The Corinthian

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think The Corinthian is trying to say that the Republic should have no say on whether or not NI remains in the Union. That's a decision for the Northern Irish and them alone. Whether or not an independent NI is welcomed to join the Republic is a decision for the electorate of the 26 counties.

Close, I believe that unification should be a decision for the electorate of the 32 counties (in two separate votes); that's normally how such referenda work elsewhere.

Why separate the issues of independence from the UK and unification with the Republic? Well, it's a bit of unfair if they're only given a choice of being part of one country or of another and however unlikely it may be that they would choose independence from both, it's only fair to give that option as it could also be used in the event that they just don't like the deal offered by Dublin for unification.

TBH, I'm not sure why tdv123 is so up in arms about this or what he's proposing himself, because if he is proposing that the 32 counties should vote on NI independence, then there's no rational reason why England, Wales and (if it's still in the UK) Scotland should not also be allowed to vote, using the same logic. It would also make a mockery of self-determination by NI, because they would no longer be determining their own fate - the south would as we could outvote them with ease - imagine the six counties voted overwhelmingly for independence and the twenty-six overwhelmingly against, what then? Makes no sense.

Except for some argument about past wrongs somehow making such a collective vote valid (not to sure what the logic was; something like because of all the deaths in the Troubles as a result of partition, that part of the island that didn't suffer much gets a say in the future of that part that did). Truth of the matter, is shìt happens throughout history and sometimes you have to let it go or it just will pin you down and stop you from moving forward.

So unless I've misunderstood, tdv123's position appears a bit, well, odd, to be polite about it.

R P McMurphy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Close, I believe that unification should be a decision for the electorate of the 32 counties (in two separate votes); that's normally how such referenda work elsewhere.

Why separate the issues of independence from the UK and unification with the Republic? Well, it's a bit of unfair if they're only given a choice of being part of one country or of another and however unlikely it may be that they would choose independence from both, it's only fair to give that option as it could also be used in the event that they just don't like the deal offered by Dublin for unification.

TBH, I'm not sure why tdv123 is so up in arms about this or what he's proposing himself, because if he is proposing that the 32 counties should vote on NI independence, then there's no rational reason why England, Wales and (if it's still in the UK) Scotland should not also be allowed to vote, using the same logic. It would also make a mockery of self-determination by NI, because they would no longer be determining their own fate - the south would as we could outvote them with ease - imagine the six counties voted overwhelmingly for independence and the twenty-six overwhelmingly against, what then? Makes no sense.

Except for some argument about past wrongs somehow making such a collective vote valid (not to sure what the logic was; something like because of all the deaths in the Troubles as a result of partition, that part of the island that didn't suffer much gets a say in the future of that part that did). Truth of the matter, is shìt happens throughout history and sometimes you have to let it go or it just will pin you down and stop you from moving forward.

So unless I've misunderstood, tdv123's position appears a bit, well, odd, to be polite about it.

That ship has sailed in 1998 though. The agreement is a border poll which essentially boils down to remaining in the UK or becoming part of an all Ireland government. There is no legal basis for an independence poll. That is what was decided and agreed upon to end the conflict. to undo the GFA would be unthinkable at this stage and practically unworkable

When one border poll is called, it is likely that there will be one every seven years

ancapailldorcha

The Corinthian wrote: »

Close, I believe that unification should be a decision for the electorate of the 32 counties (in two separate votes); that's normally how such referenda work elsewhere.

Knew I forgot something.

Anyway, I can't imagine an independent Northern Ireland would be viable as a country so I think joining the Republic would be one of the first things they'd do or at least seriously consider in that scenario.

The Corinthian

R P McMurphy wrote: »

That ship has sailed in 1998 though. The agreement is a border poll which essentially boils down to remaining in the UK or becoming part of an all Ireland government. There is no legal basis for an independence poll. That is what was decided and agreed upon to end the conflict. to undo the GFA would be unthinkable at this stage and practically unworkable

So you're in essence saying that, according to the GFA, NI would have a Hobs son's choice of either saying with London or joining Dublin? Hurrah for freedom!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Anyway, I can't imagine an independent Northern Ireland would be viable as a country so I think joining the Republic would be one of the first things they'd do or at least seriously consider in that scenario.

I agree, but I was speaking more on the principle of democratic choice rather than the financial reality of it.

NI could in theory be viable, as an independent nation, but to do so would require sacrifices from the population that it would highly unlikely to bare. Even were NI to unify with the Republic, the level of UK funding there simply could not be maintained by the Republic and it's uncertain whether the population of NI could bare the necessary cutbacks.

Nor would such funding levels be tolerated by the citizens of the Republic, for that matter; more taxes in the south so the north can keep it's free/cheap dental care and public sector jobs that we don't have? Not f**king likely, a chara.

Personally, I think that any referenda will ultimately be decided on economic grounds. As much as people may claim to stand for their principles, time and time again, you'll find that they'll vote with their wallets - hence Nice 2 and even the failed reunification of Cyprus. Those who vote on principle alone, and damn the cost, are, always have been and always shall remain a minority.

And given the social and economic state of both NI and the Republic, I suspect that the socio-economic conditions necessary could take a while.

sopretty

They have as much in common with Irish people ('southerners') as have the Chinese. Most of them only wish to be seen as their own entity, neither with allegiance to Ireland nor England. That would be the best outcome really as they have a particular identity and history. Why would they or we decide to be one again? Too much pain and hatred and bloodshed and bombs and death over it all.

maccored

sopretty wrote: »

They have as much in common with Irish people ('southerners') as have the Chinese. Most of them only wish to be seen as their own entity, neither with allegiance to Ireland nor England. That would be the best outcome really as they have a particular identity and history. Why would they or we decide to be one again? Too much pain and hatred and bloodshed and bombs and death over it all.

so as a northerner living in the south I have as much in common with irish people as a chinese person. what bollocks.

R P McMurphy

sopretty wrote: »

They have as much in common with Irish people ('southerners') as have the Chinese. Most of them only wish to be seen as their own entity, neither with allegiance to Ireland nor England. That would be the best outcome really as they have a particular identity and history. Why would they or we decide to be one again? Too much pain and hatred and bloodshed and bombs and death over it all.

So someone from Fermanagh has nothing in common with someone 500m away in Cavan?

You may also have missed the protests over the flags issue, seems unionists have a great deal of allegience

sopretty

While some may wish to see themselves as being connected to Ireland (the republic), in reality, in my experience, we are like chalk and cheese. I lived there. Two very very different histories, leading to two very very different cultures. Just my own opinion of course.

The Corinthian

maccored wrote: »

so as a northerner living in the south I have as much in common with irish people as a chinese person. what bollocks.

Chinese may be exaggerating, but be seen much the same as a Welsh, English or Scott, would not be an exaggeration. After all, after almost a century with very different histories, educational systems, legal systems, economies and even demographics, you're bound to see divergence - east and west Germans are quite different culturally, even after twenty years after reunification and half the amount of time divided.

Of course this is not to say that northern and southern should not be united into a single nation, but neither can you deny that the two are not exactly homogeneous.

R P McMurphy wrote: »

So someone from Fermanagh has nothing in common with someone 500m away in Cavan?

Much the same difference as someone in Sittard, Netherlands, has with someone 500m away in Selfkant, Germany. Still, I wouldn't try referring to them as German to their face.

sopretty wrote: »

While some may wish to see themselves as being connected to Ireland (the republic), in reality, in my experience, we are like chalk and cheese. I lived there. Two very very different histories, leading to two very very different cultures. Just my own opinion of course.

Irrelevant. Nationalism, national identity is an invention. A product of the Enlightenment and later Romanticism. A cohesive social force designed to replace the divine right of kings that preceded it. It's not supposed to make sense. Pointing out the blatantly obvious is thus irrelevant.

If it did you could argue against it and that would defeat it's purpose to bind together a community who would otherwise not give a crap about each other.

sopretty

whether nationalism was invented and is romantic etc. is completely IRRELEVANT to the peculiar Republic of Ireland/Northern Irish issue.
There is no romanticism/enlightenment/common identity/cohesive social force between the north and the south.
War kills all of the above.

The Corinthian

sopretty wrote: »

whether nationalism was invented and is romantic etc. is completely IRRELEVANT to the peculiar Republic of Ireland/Northern Irish issue.
There is no romanticism/enlightenment/common identity/cohesive social force between the north and the south.
War kills all of the above.

I disagree. How else can you get young idiots to die for an idea, if not to sell it as a romantic ideal?

Well, religion, sure. But let's not go there.

sopretty

"Romantic Ireland's dead and gone,
It's with O'Leary in the grave."
Yeats.....


Pain, grief, money, power, revenge, hatred, protection, being included, being part of a group, having a purpose - nothing romantic about any of the crap that 'inspired' the 'soldiers' in the 'fight for freedom'. On neither side.

Dr.Tank Adams

The Corinthian wrote: »

Chinese may be exaggerating, but be seen much the same as a Welsh, English or Scott, would not be an exaggeration. After all, after almost a century with very different histories, educational systems, legal systems, economies and even demographics, you're bound to see divergence - east and west Germans are quite different culturally, even after twenty years after reunification and half the amount of time divided.

Of course this is not to say that northern and southern should not be united into a single nation, but neither can you deny that the two are not exactly homogeneous.

Much the same difference as someone in Sittard, Netherlands, has with someone 500m away in Selfkant, Germany. Still, I wouldn't try referring to them as German to their face.

Irrelevant. Nationalism, national identity is an invention. A product of the Enlightenment and later Romanticism. A cohesive social force designed to replace the divine right of kings that preceded it. It's not supposed to make sense. Pointing out the blatantly obvious is thus irrelevant.

If it did you could argue against it and that would defeat it's purpose to bind together a community who would otherwise not give a crap about each other.

I would have thought the Union, or better yet the Northern Irish state, would be a better example of "an invention". And that's without even mentioning irrelevance...

maccored

The Corinthian wrote: »

Chinese may be exaggerating, but be seen much the same as a Welsh, English or Scott, would not be an exaggeration. After all, after almost a century with very different histories, educational systems, legal systems, economies and even demographics, you're bound to see divergence - east and west Germans are quite different culturally, even after twenty years after reunification and half the amount of time divided.

Im irish - or maybe you disagree?

ancapailldorcha

Most of the Northern Irish I've met would describe themselves as being Irish regardless of their Unionist/Nationalist/Neutral stances. Anecdotal of course, but when I was living there, they saw themselves as a section of Ireland under British rule as opposed to being a part of the UK. Most of the people I met took offence to being labelled as being British and the country didn't feel that different culturally to me compared to living in various parts of England.

norrie rugger

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How can you get something "back" that you never "had" in the first place?

Ireland, as an island, was a whole country when the treaty was signed. The North then exercised a clause to leave Ireland and set up NI.

ancapailldorcha

Actually, the country was partitioned as a result of the Government of Ireland act in 1920 by Lloyd-George.

norrie rugger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Actually, the country was partitioned as a result of the Government of Ireland act in 1920 by Lloyd-George.

You might want to look into that.
The wording of the secession treaty meant that the Irish Free State included the entire island, unless the North voted explicitly to return to the UK.
The Partition act allowed for this to occur, instead of it being an all Ireland vote.
This took place over the space of one month, in reality it was business as usual but, technically, there was an All Ireland Free State (even though the powers of Dublin, over NI, were suspended for one month)

The Corinthian

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

I would have thought the Union, or better yet the Northern Irish state, would be a better example of "an invention".

Of course it's an invention, much like any nationality at the end of the day.

maccored wrote: »

Im irish - or maybe you disagree?

TBH, I've no idea who you are, beyond an anonymous poster on an Internet forum.

If you're Northern Irish, then of course you're Irish (from Northern Ireland) and can call yourself whatever you fancy, but that doesn't magically mean you are any more homogeneous to southern Irish than a Scott or Englishman is. Much of your culture, what you grew up with, your education, politics, experiences and the like would be as alien to me as those of a bloke from Liverpool. In fact, if we want to go for the jus sanguinis argument of nationality, then Liverpool should be just as 'Irish', if not more-so than NI.

This isn't meant to offend you, but to point out the practical reality of two states that have been evolving separately for almost a century. Of course, were we to unify, after a generation or two we would become far more homogeneous (as occurred in places like Germany, Italy or even the UK), and that's in many respects why I consider nationalism to be little more than an often arbitrary invention.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Most of the people I met took offence to being labelled as being British and the country didn't feel that different culturally to me compared to living in various parts of England.

Depends who you met; I hired a chap from the north, who very conspicuously put his nationality down as British on his CV.

Dr.Tank Adams

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course it's an invention, much like any nationality at the end of the day.

TBH, I've no idea who you are, beyond an anonymous poster on an Internet forum.

If you're Northern Irish, then of course you're Irish (from Northern Ireland) and can call yourself whatever you fancy, but that doesn't magically mean you are any more homogeneous to southern Irish than a Scott or Englishman is. Much of your culture, what you grew up with, your education, politics, experiences and the like would be as alien to me as those of a bloke from Liverpool. In fact, if we want to go for the jus sanguinis argument of nationality, then Liverpool should be just as 'Irish', if not more-so than NI.

This isn't meant to offend you, but to point out the practical reality of two states that have been evolving separately for almost a century. Of course, were we to unify, after a generation or two we would become far more homogeneous (as occurred in places like Germany, Italy or even the UK), and that's in many respects why I consider nationalism to be little more than an often arbitrary invention.

Depends who you met; I hired a chap from the north, who very conspicuously put his nationality down as British on his CV.

Well if that's your logic then what's the point in there being any countries at all? Should we just have a world with no states or groups of people whatsoever and do away with thousands of years of culture and diversity? And if it's just an invention then what can be the justification for a United Kingdom or "Northern Ireland", they certainly have much less history behind them than Ireland as a whole does? Oh, and I believe the demonym you are looking for is Scot, not Scott, or maybe one of your friend's forms an ethnic grouping of his own...

The Corinthian

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Well if that's your logic then what's the point in there being any countries at all? Should we just have a world with no states or groups of people whatsoever and do away with thousands of years of culture and diversity?

I believe I outlined why earlier in the thread.

Oh, and I believe the demonym you are looking for is Scot, not Scott, or maybe one of your friend's forms an ethnic grouping of his own...

You do read a lot from a typo, don't you?

gallag

tdv123 wrote: »

The GFA was just a sop to the UVF, they were killing Catholics to keep NI in the Union they got what they wanted & then some by forcing the Free State to relinquish it's claim over the North.

Mabey, if you are correct that the GFA was a "sop" to a group killing catholics, mabey it was the IRA they were sopping to as they killed far more catholics than the UVF?

Dr.Tank Adams

The Corinthian wrote: »

I believe I outlined why earlier in the thread.

You do read a lot from a typo, don't you?

"Scit" would be a typo, Scott suggests a genuine lack of knowledge as to the correct spelling of the word "Scot". As for that so called outline, I'm still not entirely sure what you are saying, is it that nationalism is only wrong if it's romantic? Isn't nationalism of all sorts romantic by it's very nature though? It wouldn't appeal to anyone if there wasn't a certain romantic element to it. And tbh I don't believe that Irishness is significantly more romantic that most other identities, it certainly has more genuine substance to it than a unionists Britishness which most of them struggle to articulate in anything more than flag-waving and siege mentality paranoia.

Dr.Tank Adams

gallag wrote: »

Mabey, if you are correct that the GFA was a "sop" to a group killing catholics, mabey it was the IRA they were sopping to as they killed far more catholics than the UVF?

Don't mean to get it involved in this argument, but I'm not sure that statement is correct. The PIRA killed about 650 civilians in total, maybe 350-400 were catholics , the UVF killed around 500, of which the vast majority were catholics. Either way there wouldn't be as much a difference as you might think.

gallag

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Don't mean to get it involved in this argument, but I'm not sure that statement is correct. The PIRA killed about 650 civilians in total, maybe 350-400 were catholics , the UVF killed around 500, of which the vast majority were catholics. Either way there wouldn't be as much a difference as you might think.

Nope, the IRA killed 493 civilians, the UVF killed 353.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl
The IRA killed 340 catholics, the UVF 276.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

Personally there is no "winner" here, I am not making the argument the UVF were better or have a moral high ground but I get annoyed with the level of ignorance by many irish people as to how murderous the IRA were. Many were bounced on there daddy's knee hearing rebel songs about the IRA being the guardians of catholics yet the cold has truth is that the IRA killed more catholics than any other group.

Dr.Tank Adams

gallag wrote: »

Nope, the IRA killed 493 civilians, the UVF killed 353.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl
The IRA killed 340 catholics, the UVF 276.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

Personally there is no "winner" here, I am not making the argument the UVF were better or have a moral high ground but I get annoyed with the level of ignorance by many irish people as to how murderous the IRA were. Many were bounced on there daddy's knee hearing rebel songs about the IRA being the guardians of catholics yet the cold has truth is that the IRA killed more catholics than any other group.

"Republican paramilitaries combined are responsible for 2060 casualties during the Troubles:

727 Civilians
1080 British Security Forces
187 Republican paramilitaries (inclusive of accidents, informers and feuds)
56 Loyalist paramilitaries.
10 Irish security.

(http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html Enter "Status Summary" as the first variable & "Organisation Summary" and the second.)

35% of the people killed by Republicans were civilians. The designation civilian in this summary is inclusive of politicians (25 killed), prison officers (22 killed), suspected informers (who weren’t members of Republican paramilitaries) and accused criminals who were killed by Republicans acting as vigilantes. However the majority of civilians are those completely uninvolved who were caught up in bombings/shootings.

The above figures are inclusive of all Republican groups up to 1999 (PIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO, IPLO Belfast and the RIRA) Omagh is included. By 1999 the CIRA had killed no one. The figures also include all civilians deaths perpetrated by Republican’s using cover names such as Direct Action Against Drugs, Republican Action Force, Catholic Reaction Force ect.

---

The figures for the Provisional IRA are as follows. The PIRA caused the deaths of 1711 people:

512 Civilians
1012 British Security Forces
141 Republican paramilitaries
39 Loyalist Paramiltaries
7 Irish security

(http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html enter "Status" as the first variable and "Organisation" as the second)

29.9% of the people killed by the PIRA were civilians.

---

Loyalist paramilitaries killed 1016 people during the Troubles:

868 Civilians
14 British Security
41 Republican paramilitaries.
93 Loyalist paramilitaries (mostly feuds, some accidents)

85.43% of people killed by Loyalists were civilians. 4.7% of the people killed by Loyalists were Republican paramilitaries. That figure includes Republicans who were ex-paramilitaries. Loyalists killed more civilians then anyone during the Troubles.

The overwhelming majority of these (684) were Catholic civilians who Loyalists intentionally and wilfully murdered. Of the remainder, the largest minority were Protestant civilians who were murdered when mistaken for being Catholics. A smaller minority were Protestant civilians killed by Loyalists for personal/criminal reasons.

The Loyalists and British Security Forces combined killed 1055 civilians during the Troubles. That's 328 more civilians then all Republican groups combined and more then double the number civilians who were killed by the PIRA."

That's the list I'm working off, taken from a thread on this site which backs up roughly most of the figures I used. And tbh I don't think the IRA claimed to be "protectors of Catholics", protectors of Nationalists yes, but they were never big on bringing religion into their objectives. Either way, your original statement was that the IRA killed way more Catholics than the UVF, and even using your statistics which I would dispute it still doesn't equate to way more, especially when you take into account the percentages that these people would have represented in the groups overall kill count, ie. the IRA 15-20% compared to the UVF 75% or more.

marienbad

Hard to believe this stuff- WHO CARES who killed most ! Each death is a story and tragedy of itself .Can we leave it at that and move on.

Angels on the head of a pin stuff

gallag

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

"Republican paramilitaries combined are responsible for 2060 casualties during the Troubles:

727 Civilians
1080 British Security Forces
187 Republican paramilitaries (inclusive of accidents, informers and feuds)
56 Loyalist paramilitaries.
10 Irish security.

(http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html Enter "Status Summary" as the first variable & "Organisation Summary" and the second.)

35% of the people killed by Republicans were civilians. The designation civilian in this summary is inclusive of politicians (25 killed), prison officers (22 killed), suspected informers (who weren’t members of Republican paramilitaries) and accused criminals who were killed by Republicans acting as vigilantes. However the majority of civilians are those completely uninvolved who were caught up in bombings/shootings.

The above figures are inclusive of all Republican groups up to 1999 (PIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO, IPLO Belfast and the RIRA) Omagh is included. By 1999 the CIRA had killed no one. The figures also include all civilians deaths perpetrated by Republican’s using cover names such as Direct Action Against Drugs, Republican Action Force, Catholic Reaction Force ect.

---

The figures for the Provisional IRA are as follows. The PIRA caused the deaths of 1711 people:

512 Civilians
1012 British Security Forces
141 Republican paramilitaries
39 Loyalist Paramiltaries
7 Irish security

(http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html enter "Status" as the first variable and "Organisation" as the second)

29.9% of the people killed by the PIRA were civilians.

---

Loyalist paramilitaries killed 1016 people during the Troubles:

868 Civilians
14 British Security
41 Republican paramilitaries.
93 Loyalist paramilitaries (mostly feuds, some accidents)

85.43% of people killed by Loyalists were civilians. 4.7% of the people killed by Loyalists were Republican paramilitaries. That figure includes Republicans who were ex-paramilitaries. Loyalists killed more civilians then anyone during the Troubles.

The overwhelming majority of these (684) were Catholic civilians who Loyalists intentionally and wilfully murdered. Of the remainder, the largest minority were Protestant civilians who were murdered when mistaken for being Catholics. A smaller minority were Protestant civilians killed by Loyalists for personal/criminal reasons.

The Loyalists and British Security Forces combined killed 1055 civilians during the Troubles. That's 328 more civilians then all Republican groups combined and more then double the number civilians who were killed by the PIRA."

That's the list I'm working off, taken from a thread on this site which backs up roughly most of the figures I used. And tbh I don't think the IRA claimed to be "protectors of Catholics", protectors of Nationalists yes, but they were never big on bringing religion into their objectives. Either way, your original statement was that the IRA killed way more Catholics than the UVF, and even using your statistics which I would dispute it still doesn't equate to way more, especially when you take into account the percentages that these people would have represented in the groups overall kill count, ie. the IRA 15-20% compared to the UVF 75% or more.

I always laugh when people use percentage to try to paint the IRA in a better light, the loyalist paramilitarys did not target the security forces, this does not make them worse. They are all as bad as each other ffs. Why are people so determined to paint one side in a better light?

Dr.Tank Adams

gallag wrote: »

I always laugh when people use percentage to try to paint the IRA in a better light, the loyalist paramilitarys did not target the security forces, this does not make them worse. They are all as bad as each other ffs. Why are people so determined to paint one side in a better light?

Because there are different levels of wrongdoing. Personally my opinion is that they IRA were set up for understandable reasons and did a lot of justifiable things, however they dirtied their bibs with some catastrophically stupid and misjudged actions and a few downright disgraceful acts. That means that they'll never be acceptable to most people and that's something I can understand. Loyalist paramilitaries on the other hand are hard to find anything justifiable in, they had no real aims other than to kill random Catholics, and the statistics back that up. For that reason I believe they were worse, although that of course isn't suggesting that the IRA weren't bad too, just not quite so sectarian or directionless.

gallag

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Because there are different levels of wrongdoing. Personally my opinion is that they IRA were set up for understandable reasons and did a lot of justifiable things, however they dirtied their bibs with some catastrophically stupid and misjudged actions and a few downright disgraceful acts. That means that they'll never be acceptable to most people and that's something I can understand. Loyalist paramilitaries on the other hand are hard to find anything justifiable in, they had no real aims other than to kill random Catholics, and the statistics back that up. For that reason I believe they were worse, although that of course isn't suggesting that the IRA weren't bad too, just not quite so sectarian or directionless.

What statistics back that up? Are you blind? Can you not see the republicans were every bit as harmful to civilians as the loyalists were? How can you for example say that the UVF just targeted random civilians (correct, they did) and not see the very simple fact that the IRA targeted even more random civilians? ? You think that the IRA also killing lots of non civilians therefore having a lower % of civilians killed makes them any better?? It's mental gymnastics.

I grew up in rathcoole during the troubles, my father is a convicted UDA member, he tells me about the times when for months every night after work he and his team manned road blocks protecting their communities from IRA attack, in their minds they were acting as guardians. You and me have both been indoctrinated, told the story's and feed propaganda about how one side was better than the other, the difference is only one of us fell for it. The Loyalists were every bit as ruthless as the republicans, the republicans every bit as bad as the loyalists. Have you ever applied your own critical thought? Look at the cold hard facts and numbers, both our community's would have been better of without them all.

The Corinthian

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

"Scit" would be a typo, Scott suggests a genuine lack of knowledge as to the correct spelling of the word "Scot".

"Scit" would be a typo? Fair enough, I expect you know you're shìt there.

As for that so called outline, I'm still not entirely sure what you are saying, is it that nationalism is only wrong if it's romantic? Isn't nationalism of all sorts romantic by it's very nature though? It wouldn't appeal to anyone if there wasn't a certain romantic element to it.

Wow. Talk about missing the point.

Dr.Tank Adams

The Corinthian wrote: »

"Scit" would be a typo? Fair enough, I expect you know you're shìt there.

Wow. Talk about missing the point.

Scit would be a typo as "i" is located beside "o" on a keyboard... As for missing the point, it's two lines without much context, not exactly clear cut. Also, "your sh*t" perhaps?

Dr.Tank Adams

gallag wrote: »

What statistics back that up? Are you blind? Can you not see the republicans were every bit as harmful to civilians as the loyalists were? How can you for example say that the UVF just targeted random civilians (correct, they did) and not see the very simple fact that the IRA targeted even more random civilians? ? You think that the IRA also killing lots of non civilians therefore having a lower % of civilians killed makes them any better?? It's mental gymnastics.

I grew up in rathcoole during the troubles, my father is a convicted UDA member, he tells me about the times when for months every night after work he and his team manned road blocks protecting their communities from IRA attack, in their minds they were acting as guardians. You and me have both been indoctrinated, told the story's and feed propaganda about how one side was better than the other, the difference is only one of us fell for it. The Loyalists were every bit as ruthless as the republicans, the republicans every bit as bad as the loyalists. Have you ever applied your own critical thought? Look at the cold hard facts and numbers, both our community's would have been better of without them all.

The statistics in the quote that demonstrate that Loyalists were responsible for more civilian deaths than Republicans despite the fact that they only killed half as many people overall. The fact that most of the civilians killed by Loyalists were singled out and executed rather than the majority of the IRA's who were caught in bombings not meant for them.

The IRA were not "good", there's no such thing as a violent group that is "good", however just because a group is not "good" doesn't mean that their objectives aren't more justifiable than other violent groups. At the end of the day I just think they receive an unfair rep from the media and people in general, looking at the way the Troubles is covered you'd think the IRA were the only group killing anyone, when the fact is that the people who suffered the most fatalities in the Troubles were Catholics killed by Loyalists. Most of the time you just never get that sense from the media or in discussions and I believe Loyalist groups tend to get off softly.

Finally, as for your father, maybe he did genuinely believe he was protecting his area, but how often did the IRA actually attempt to drive into unionist areas and just start shooting them up randomly? Not all that often I'd guess..

Anyway, this isn't the topic this thread is meant for so I'll leave it there.

ancapailldorcha

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

The IRA were not "good", there's no such thing as a violent group that is "good", however just because a group is not "good" doesn't mean that their objectives aren't more justifiable than other violent groups.

It does when the objective involves killing innocent people. Speaking of which, nobody seems too bothered about all the protestants murdered during the troubles, some of whom would have held nationalistic views.

junder

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It does when the objective involves killing innocent people. Speaking of which, nobody seems too bothered about all the protestants murdered during the troubles, some of whom would have held nationalistic views.

Your right nobody is bothered about the murder of us prods, bur sure we where just collateral damage, weren't we?

IrishProd

gallag wrote: »

both our community's would have been better of without them all.

It is a pity that the loyalist/unionist community did not have that foresight in the 60s when their "guardians" started burning their neighbours out of their homes and went around killing & bombing innocent people who were only looking for the same civil rights.

IrishProd

junder wrote: »

Your right nobody is bothered about the murder of us prods, bur sure we where just collateral damage, weren't we?

Bullsh*t.

And if I recall correctly, you said the Bloody Sunday inquiries were a waste of money on a thread before.

What do you think of Parachute regiment flags being flown around on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday?

junder

IrishProd wrote: »

Bullsh*t.

And if I recall correctly, you said the Bloody Sunday inquiries were a waste of money on a thread before.

What do you think of Parachute regiment flags being flown around on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday?

Did I? Care to show me when and where I made such a comment?

Dr.Tank Adams

junder wrote: »

Your right nobody is bothered about the murder of us prods, bur sure we where just collateral damage, weren't we?

No, not at all. The death of any civilian is equally bad not matter what their creed, background or political views are. But for the purpose of this argument we were just talking about Catholics, that's not to demean the lives of the Protestants who died, I was just making a point.

Dr.Tank Adams

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It does when the objective involves killing innocent people. Speaking of which, nobody seems too bothered about all the protestants murdered during the troubles, some of whom would have held nationalistic views.

If their objective was to kill civilians they would have killed a hell of a lot more than they did over the course of the Troubles, there would have been thousands of civilian deaths rather than hundreds as is the case.

gallag

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

If their objective was to kill civilians they would have killed a hell of a lot more than they did over the course of the Troubles, there would have been thousands of civilian deaths rather than hundreds as is the case.

It's here that I lose your logic, try to understand, for example you say the UVF just targeted random civilians, yet even though the IRA killed many more civilians than the UVF you maintain they would have killed "a hell of a lot more" over the coarse of the troubles if they had targeted civilians.

Can you understand my confusion?

The Corinthian

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Scit would be a typo as "i" is located beside "o" on a keyboard...

Glad I know what a typo is now.

As for missing the point, it's two lines without much context, not exactly clear cut.

What is confusing you?

Also, "your sh*t" perhaps?

Perhaps.

gallag wrote: »

It's here that I lose your logic, try to understand, for example you say the UVF just targeted random civilians, yet even though the IRA killed many more civilians than the UVF you maintain they would have killed "a hell of a lot more" over the coarse of the troubles if they had targeted civilians.

I think what he is trying to convey is that the UVF purposely targeted and killed civilians, while the PIRA did not purposely target and kill civilians and any that were killed were collateral damage. And if the PIRA had been purposely targeting civilians they would have been far more successful at it than the UVF.

Don't know about you, but it makes me feel a lot safer at night to know.

gallag

The Corinthian wrote: »

Glad I know what a typo is now.

What is confusing you?

Perhaps.

I think what he is trying to convey is that the UVF purposely targeted and killed civilians, while the PIRA did not purposely target and kill civilians and any that were killed were collateral damage. And if the PIRA had been purposely targeting civilians they would have been far more successful at it than the UVF.

Don't know about you, but it makes me feel a lot safer at night to know.

Yeah , I guess, but that's like saying the UVF at their worst were still less harmful to civilians than the IRA at there best?

The Corinthian

gallag wrote: »

Yeah , I guess, but that's like saying the UVF at there worst were still less harmful to civilians than the IRA at there best?

I just said what I believe he's trying to convey, I never said it wasn't incredibly stupid.