Unification?

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

No problem. Just highlighting your continued curious attempts to paint NI as somehow a place on another planet entirely considering your support for non-mandated violence in other eras etc etc.......

All I'm saying is that it's not a normal society and that until it is we can do without the problems it would bring to our society.

RED L4 0TH

Godge wrote: »

Yes, they are.

And that is good news, they have both achieved an equilibrium with their political models. Not a good idea to upset either by changes though?

Why would they be upset if there was change for the better? No system of government, or borders for that matter, are permanent. Just look at the map of Europe from 1914 on.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

How is it a loaded question? Northern Ireland IS dysfunctional. There is no other place in Europe where politics and religion are so closely linked that people are regarded as traitors if they change their religious denomination. There is no place in Europe where politics is so dysfunctional that a special system has to be maintained where both sides get permanent representation. It is a dysfunctional society.

It is a loaded question as the way you frame your qustions.

"Our society is far from perfect but why would we want to make it even worse?"


In this question you phrase your question as making society even worse. That is a loaded question as you have inserted your opinion into the question as a fact rather then a question or an opinion.

eire4

marienbad wrote: »

Realistically though we are to small to decentralise power. What we really need right now is to make government more accountable and more subject to freedom of information laws.

As a side note I have rarely met a local politician who was not in it for the 'expenses'

Actually the fact we are a small country should make it easier to dencentralize power. Totally agree we need to make our government more accountable that is an aspect of taking power away from the central authority which currently in Ireland has centralized power to a very dangerous degree.




Agree with you about local politicans currently in Ireland. That is a function of the lack of any real and meangingful local government system in Ireland not the concept of local government itself which does not exist in a meangful way in Ireland.

eire4

Godge wrote: »

It is not so simple as majority/minority.

For example you could have 3% of the settled community bigoted towards the traveller community and 3% of the traveller community bigoted towards the settled community and while it is worrying, it is not a serious problem.

Yet, in the North, you could have 40% of the unionist community bigoted towards the nationalist community and 40% of the nationalist community bigoted towards the communist community and it is a serious problem.

In both cases, it is only a minority but in one case, it is a serious problem. If you cannot see the difference between bigotry on one side of the border from the order, you are like an ostrich in viewing a united Ireland.

I can see the difference I never said that bigotry was not a problem in the north. Absolutely it is and a serious problem at that. However Katy when challenged to recognise bigotry that was alive and well in Ireland was very dismissive and played it off like it was no big deal.
No question bigotry is a major problem in the north so save your ostrich insult I never said it wasn't.


As an aside I have no idea what percentage of Irish people are bigoted in their behaviour and views towards travellers but I am willing to guess it is a lot higher then the 3% and I am pretty sure it means a lot to them and is not something to dismiss as no big deal.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

I can see the difference I never said that bigotry was not a problem in the north. Absolutely it is and a serious problem at that. However Katy when challenged to recognise bigotry that was alive and well in Ireland was very dismissive and played it off like it was no big deal.
No question bigotry is a major problem in the north so save your ostrich insult I never said it wasn't. .

I did nothing of the sort. I simply said it is light years away from the kind of bigotry they have there

RED L4 0TH

eire4 wrote: »

but I am willing to guess it is a lot higher then the 3% and I am pretty sure it means a lot to them and is not something to dismiss as no big deal.

Indeed. 1 in 5 would deny citizenship to a traveller if this 2010 survey is accurate. Plus, the Citizen Traveller survey from 2000, found that 42% were negatively disposed towards travellers.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

This is just not correct Happyman , the Irish government protested every step of the way on all these issues , and they did hold to a trenchant position.

If memory serves they became the first state to take another before the ECHR and never let up on it ,and even requested the court to revisit their earlier decision. A view deeply unpopular in UK and US power circles.

And they raised these issues at every opportunity in the following years .

The GFA is a wonderful achievement and would not have happened without certain key players ,of which the Irish Government is one .

The men involved in The Hooded Men case had to threaten to take the Fg/Lab government to court if they didn't challenge the ECHR ruling that let Britain off the hook on torture.
IMO they have an appalling record on publicly calling out the British for wrongdoing and exacerbating the conflict.
They chose to baton charge ordinary citizens off the streets (the genisis of which you can plainly see in those transcripts) when they quite naturally protested what was happening.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

The men involved in The Hooded Men case had to threaten to take the Fg/Lab government to court if they didn't challenge the ECHR ruling that let Britain off the hook on torture.
IMO they have an appalling record on publicly calling out the British for wrongdoing and exacerbating the conflict.
They chose to baton charge ordinary citizens off the streets (the genisis of which you can plainly see in those transcripts) when they quite naturally protested what was happening.

The original case was taken by Ireland way back in the 70's and pursued for years . And they raised the issue unrelentingly at every forum possible .

What alternatives do you suggest they could have used ?

As for the rest of it , what baton charges are you talking about ?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

The original case was taken by Ireland way back in the 70's and pursued for years . And they raised the issue unrelentingly at every forum possible .

What alternatives do you suggest they could have used ?

As for the rest of it , what baton charges are you talking about ?

I don't see Shannon 'thanking' the Irish government for their efforts here, do you?

The decision averted a high court case that had been due to begin, brought by one of the hooded men, Liam Shannon, in an attempt to compel the Fine Gael-Labour coalition to challenge the 1978 ruling.

Shannon said: “We’re absolutely delighted by this. We’ve waited 43 years and we want to thank everyone involved – our legal team and all the researchers who turned up the relevant information in order that we could make a case, and we’d particularly like to thank Amnesty International for their assistance.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/02/ireland-european-court-hooded-men

43 years...much the same amount of time that the victims of Bloody Sunday waited for an apology but are still waiting for justice.
What's Enda doing about that I wonder?

Saintleger

eire4 wrote: »

Fair enough Saint Ledger. It's nice to actually be able to have a sane chat even though I am guessing we probably do not agree on too much in terms of this topic.


I totally hear you about incompetent representatives. But it is up to us to not accept and vote them out and demand competence from our represetatives. I do think that we need to really significantly change thr structure of our system of government and move as much real power as possible away from the central authority. The almost complete centralization of power in Ireland is flat out dangerous and it is not in the best interests of the country as a whole.

Very much agreed

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't see Shannon 'thanking' the Irish government for their efforts here, do you?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/02/ireland-european-court-hooded-men

43 years...much the same amount of time that the victims of Bloody Sunday waited for an apology but are still waiting for justice.
What's Enda doing about that I wonder?

You can't be serious . You are quoting events from 2014 to castigate a country for a case that they set in train in the 70's ?


And when constantly asked what else they could have done all you suggest is that they could have expelled the ambassador, Lynch could have been more forceful, and they could have followed up quicker on the ECHR case in 2014 !

You keep saying things like '' The Irish Government chose the lazy, cowardly and uncaring route and they stand forever indicted for that. They too have blood on their hands.''

And despite saying the Republic behaved in a cowardly way since the 20's you have yet to give an example from any time other than Bloody Sunday and its aftermath.

Karl Stein

marienbad wrote: »

And despite saying the Republic behaved in a cowardly way

The spineless clowns couldn't even bring themselves to stand up for the Birmingham Six or Guilford families. No, it was English people who fought their cause.

English people were more affective at standing up to the British establishment that the mealy-mouthed cowards who were voted into the Dail.

For shame.

marienbad

Karl Stein wrote: »

The spineless clowns couldn't even bring themselves to stand up for the Birmingham Six or Guilford families. No, it was English people who fought their cause.

English people were more affective at standing up to the British establishment that the mealy-mouthed cowards who were voted into the Dail.

For shame.

What is with this hatred of the Irish Republic ? And if this is what you think why would you want to join ?

Karl Stein

marienbad wrote: »

What is with this hatred of the Irish Republic ?

Why are you purposefully conflating calling out the mealy-mouthed cowards who governed us with hatred of the Irish Republic?

And if this is what you think why would you want to join ?

Join? I live in the Irish republic.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

You can't be serious . You are quoting events from 2014 to castigate a country for a case that they set in train in the 70's ?


And when constantly asked what else they could have done all you suggest is that they could have expelled the ambassador, Lynch could have been more forceful, and they could have followed up quicker on the ECHR case in 2014 !

You keep saying things like '' The Irish Government chose the lazy, cowardly and uncaring route and they stand forever indicted for that. They too have blood on their hands.''

And despite saying the Republic behaved in a cowardly way since the 20's you have yet to give an example from any time other than Bloody Sunday and its aftermath.

Here again is the deficit in knowledge that I was talking about earlier, I have shown examples of transcripts and comments from people who challenged rulings from the ECHR and all you do is say 'that isn't the case', without any back-up.
As Karl Stein said their support of the Birmingham Six and the Guilford Four was also appalling as they continued to doff the hat and cower in their corners.
You also seem to have no idea of what state forces where up to during the conflict - at the behest of government they colluded with the British in the oppression of republican and nationalist communities all along the border, all you had to do was voice support or in a lot of cases, sympathy, with the plight of those north of the border and you incurred the vicious and brutal wrath of an out of control force. The Heavy Gang where reprimanded by Ammesty, the report citing 'Systematic maltreatment” of arrested persons was going on, with some detectives specialising in “the use of oppressive methods of extracting statements'.
Add to that, state censorship and a mealy mouthed refusal to listen to the concerns and complaints from nationalists in favour of kowtowing to the British and you have all the evidence you need for what I am talking about.

marienbad wrote: »

What is with this hatred of the Irish Republic ? And if this is what you think why would you want to join ?

It isn't hatred, it is fact based knowledge of what went on and a realisation that our system of governance is long overdue an overhaul, with the balance being swung in favour of The People of the country, not the selfish interests of an elite few.

Godge

marienbad wrote: »

You can't be serious . You are quoting events from 2014 to castigate a country for a case that they set in train in the 70's ?


And when constantly asked what else they could have done all you suggest is that they could have expelled the ambassador, Lynch could have been more forceful, and they could have followed up quicker on the ECHR case in 2014 !

You keep saying things like '' The Irish Government chose the lazy, cowardly and uncaring route and they stand forever indicted for that. They too have blood on their hands.''

And despite saying the Republic behaved in a cowardly way since the 20's you have yet to give an example from any time other than Bloody Sunday and its aftermath.

I don't know why they keep mentioning the Ambassador.

Are the forgetting they took out the Ambassador and his staff a couple of years later in another unnecessary atrocity?

marienbad

Karl Stein wrote: »

Why are you purposefully conflating calling out the mealy-mouthed cowards who governed us with hatred of the Irish Republic?



Join? I live in the Irish republic.

Was there an alternative ?

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Here again is the deficit in knowledge that I was talking about earlier, I have shown examples of transcripts and comments from people who challenged rulings from the ECHR and all you do is say 'that isn't the case', without any back-up.
As Karl Stein said their support of the Birmingham Six and the Guilford Four was also appalling as they continued to doff the hat and cower in their corners.
You also seem to have no idea of what state forces where up to during the conflict - at the behest of government they colluded with the British in the oppression of republican and nationalist communities all along the border, all you had to do was voice support or in a lot of cases, sympathy, with the plight of those north of the border and you incurred the vicious and brutal wrath of an out of control force. The Heavy Gang where reprimanded by Ammesty, the report citing 'Systematic maltreatment” of arrested persons was going on, with some detectives specialising in “the use of oppressive methods of extracting statements'.
Add to that, state censorship and a mealy mouthed refusal to listen to the concerns and complaints from nationalists in favour of kowtowing to the British and you have all the evidence you need for what I am talking about.


It isn't hatred, it is fact based knowledge of what went on and a realisation that our system of governance is long overdue an overhaul, with the balance being swung in favour of The People of the country, not the selfish interests of an elite few.

Sorry Happyman , no knowledge deficit at all . I actually lived through those years and would have a very different reading of history than you .

You don't seem to think that PIRA were a treat to this state ( a state they didn't recognise ,by the way) and regarded the Guards as legitimate targets. Most of us disagree with you.

When citizenry is being kidnapped and banks being robbed and security forces being shot at ,what do you think the response would be ?

The original case was brought before the UCHR and pursued until the bitter end by the Irish Government . You are calling them to book for events in 2014 when a completely different climate prevailed .

Every single Irish Government pursued the British Government on the issues in the north and had notable success along the way , and all of which was essential in leading to the GFA.

You had Lemeas and O'Neill in 65 and Lynch and O'Neill in 67. Sunningdale in 74 ,Anglo Irish Agreement in 85 and culminating in the GFA a decade later .

I am still waiting for your alternatives ? And in the near 100 year history you can point to nothing outside Bloody Sunday and its aftermath .

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

Sorry Happyman , no knowledge deficit at all . I actually lived through those years and would have a very different reading of history than you .

You don't seem to think that PIRA were a treat to this state ( a state they didn't recognise ,by the way) and regarded the Guards as legitimate targets. Most of us disagree with you.

When citizenry is being kidnapped and banks being robbed and security forces being shot at ,what do you think the response would be ?

The original case was brought before the UCHR and pursued until the bitter end by the Irish Government . You are calling them to book for events in 2014 when a completely different climate prevailed .

Every single Irish Government pursued the British Government on the issues in the north and had notable success along the way , and all of which was essential in leading to the GFA.

You had Lemeas and O'Neill in 65 and Lynch and O'Neill in 67. Sunningdale in 74 ,Anglo Irish Agreement in 85 and culminating in the GFA a decade later .

I am still waiting for your alternatives ? And in the near 100 year history you can point to nothing outside Bloody Sunday and its aftermath .

The IRA where not the only people involved here. There where many ordinary people (on both sides of the border) that where being oppressed and our government, bar paying lip service, did very little for them.
They could have filled the gap and the IRA, at the time of the crisis in Derry, almost a spent force, would not have re-emerged. Again, read the history of that time which wasn't written by spin doctors for either government and you will see that. The IRA where reluctant to get involved, inaction by the two governments led to society completely sundering and the IRA filling a vacuum that shouldn't have been there.
Lynch and successive governments where more concerned about challenges to their positions than they where about Irish people. Much the same as now.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

The IRA where not the only people involved here. There where many ordinary people (on both sides of the border) that where being oppressed and our government, bar paying lip service, did very little for them.
They could have filled the gap and the IRA, at the time of the crisis in Derry, almost a spent force, would not have re-emerged. Again, read the history of that time which wasn't written by spin doctors for either government and you will see that. The IRA where reluctant to get involved, inaction by the two governments led to society completely sundering and the IRA filling a vacuum that shouldn't have been there.
Lynch and successive governments where more concerned about challenges to their positions than they where about Irish people. Much the same as now.

What could they have done ? You can saying there could have done more but refuse to say what .

Would you suggest arming the IRA and waging a proxy war or what ?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

What could they have done ? You can saying there could have done more but refuse to say what .

Would you suggest arming the IRA and waging a proxy war or what ?

After Widgery, which everyone knew was a sham and a cover-up they should have had no trucck with the British (at whatever cost) until they agreed to hold a proper independent inquiry.
Instead of beating protestors of the streets and harassing them they should have been the loudest voice of protest, internationally.
Instead of censoring opinion they should have had an always open door to negotiation. They sided with un-involved parties (the SDLP and Hume) who couldn't bring a solution even if they wanted to and utterly failed in that regard.
And they shouldn't have assisted the British in securing the border, that pressure should have been laid at Britain's door.
Did a border chekpoint ever achieve anything (I don't think they ever caught anybody going through) more than increasing the tensions and harassing ordinary Irish citizens. It crazy and expensive sop to Unionists.

That was just some of what they could have one.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

After Widgery, which everyone knew was a sham and a cover-up they should have had no trucck with the British (at whatever cost) until they agreed to hold a proper independent inquiry.
Instead of beating protestors of the streets and harassing them they should have been the loudest voice of protest, internationally.
Instead of censoring opinion they should have had an always open door to negotiation. They sided with un-involved parties (the SDLP and Hume) who couldn't bring a solution even if they wanted to and utterly failed in that regard.
And they shouldn't have assisted the British in securing the border, that pressure should have been laid at Britain's door.
Did a border chekpoint ever achieve anything (I don't think they ever caught anybody going through) more than increasing the tensions and harassing ordinary Irish citizens. It crazy and expensive sop to Unionists.

That was just some of what they could have one.

They never stopped raising these issues internationally , so much so that it was am international embarrassment for Britain at every Un and EU meeting , no more lecturing other countries on their civil rights record etc.

How can you class Hume/SDLP as uninvolved parties !

What you are effectively saying is they should have sided with PIRA , is that correct ?

By the way I am still waiting on all those other examples of what we could have done in the 50 years prior to Bloody Sunday .

DarkyHughes

marienbad wrote: »

You can't be serious . You are quoting events from 2014 to castigate a country for a case that they set in train in the 70's ?


And when constantly asked what else they could have done all you suggest is that they could have expelled the ambassador, Lynch could have been more forceful, and they could have followed up quicker on the ECHR case in 2014 !

You keep saying things like '' The Irish Government chose the lazy, cowardly and uncaring route and they stand forever indicted for that. They too have blood on their hands.''

And despite saying the Republic behaved in a cowardly way since the 20's you have yet to give an example from any time other than Bloody Sunday and its aftermath.

That's very much true in the wake of the biggest massacre of of the troubles. They folded & gave in to loyalist terrorism.

marienbad

DarkyHughes wrote: »

That's very much true in the wake of the biggest massacre of of the troubles.

What alternative actions that could have been taken ? Thanks

DarkyHughes

marienbad wrote: »

What could they have done ? You can saying there could have done more but refuse to say what .

Would you suggest arming the IRA and waging a proxy war or what ?

Maybe but against who & why?

marienbad

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Maybe but against who & why?

I am not suggesting any such action should have been taken . I am asking Happyman is that one of his alternatives ?

I am seeing plenty criticism of how the Government could have done more but no ideas as to what .

eire4

katydid wrote: »

I did nothing of the sort. I simply said it is light years away from the kind of bigotry they have there

And once again you fail to acknowledge that bigotry is alive and well in Ireland and is an issue we have to address within our own society as well. That is being dismissive. I mentioned as examples the Iona Institute, discrimination against those in the the travelling community and against homosexuals as examples of bigotry sadly alive and well in Ireland that need to be addressed.

circadian

Happyman42 wrote: »

They sided with un-involved parties (the SDLP and Hume) who couldn't bring a solution even if they wanted to and utterly failed in that regard.

Nice re-write of history there.

DarkyHughes

marienbad wrote: »

What alternative actions that could have been taken ? Thanks

They could have kept the political will to see Sunningdale implemented fully but instead the political will was sapped out of them after the loyalist terrorist attacks.

The Golden Miller

Pathetic an Irish person would try to disingenuously argue the case that the Irish government did everything in it's power to help the Irish men and women in the north. For 80 years they left Irish men, women and children at the complete mercy of loyalists and anyone who colluded with them. Irish men and women could have been dragged to the streets and shot in their hundreds and the Irish government would still not have directly intervened. Infact they validated everything that happened, validated orange rule and partition by working along side and assisting the very people discriminating and terrorising their fellow gaels. Spineless cowards

DarkyHughes

marienbad wrote: »

I am not suggesting any such action should have been taken . I am asking Happyman is that one of his alternatives ?

I am seeing plenty criticism of how the Government could have done more but no ideas as to what .

But people in the government like Haughey did help arm the IRA or "Citizens Defense Groups" which were basically just a nicer word for the IRA. I think it was a okay idea at the time because from 69 - 71 they were mainly in defensive mode. It was until they got arms from US supporters they went on the offensive.

marienbad

DarkyHughes wrote: »

They could have kept the political will to see Sunningdale implemented fully but instead the political will was sapped out of them after the loyalist terrorist attacks.

How could they have done that ? When the UK backed down what could Dublin have done that she didn't do ?

I keep seeing these generalised statements but in reality they mean very little .

And Sunningdale was still a watershed and there was no going back from it .

marienbad

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Pathetic an Irish person would try to disingenuously argue the case that the Irish government did everything in it's power to help the Irish men and women in the north. For 80 years they left Irish men, women and children at the complete mercy of loyalists and anyone who colluded with them. Irish men and women could have been dragged to the streets and shot in their hundreds and the Irish government would still not have directly intervened. Infact they validated everything that happened, validated orange rule and partition by working along side and assisting the very people discriminating and terrorising their fellow gaels. Spineless cowards

Another one ! Ok then I will ask you - what should they have done ? Invaded ,armed the IRA , what ?

How about less of the Monday morning quarterbacking and actual suggestions as to what more could have been done .

marienbad

DarkyHughes wrote: »

But people in the government like Haughey did help arm the IRA or "Citizens Defense Groups" which were basically just a nicer word for the IRA. I think it was a okay idea at the time because from 69 - 71 they were mainly in defensive mode. It was until they got arms from US supporters they went on the offensive.

And Haughey was rightfully turfed out of government for those actions .

DarkyHughes

I actually remember Rees saying in a interview that we couldn't put down the Ulster Workers Strike by force because it was a mass popular movement.

But they found it alright to try & put down CRM by force by slaughtering dozens of people between the summer of 1970 - around late 72/ early 73.

DarkyHughes

marienbad wrote: »

And Haughey was rightfully turfed out of government for those actions .

I think some nationalist areas did need to be armed because they were getting no protection from the state & the loyalists were armed to the teeth.

The Golden Miller

marienbad wrote: »

And Haughey was rightfully turfed out of government for those actions .

Would you be saying he was rightfully turfed out for those actions, if it was you, your wife and your children being burned and terrorised out of your house by mobs of loyalists backed by the British Army on Bombay Street with absolutely no line of defence? Doubt it. The Irish government half heartedly went down some avenues to criticise and moan about what was happening from the sidelines, without ever showing any real steel or conviction in anything they did.

Godge

eire4 wrote: »

And once again you fail to acknowledge that bigotry is alive and well in Ireland and is an issue we have to address within our own society as well. That is being dismissive. I mentioned as examples the Iona Institute, discrimination against those in the the travelling community and against homosexuals as examples of bigotry sadly alive and well in Ireland that need to be addressed.

Why do you keep ignoring the replies that have pointed out many times that the scale of bigotry is hugely different between North and South.

In fact, if you want to confine the bigotry discussion to homosexuals and travellers, you will find that bigotry towards both those groups is higher in the North than in the South. And that is before the religious bigotry of the North is added to the list.

There is no comparison.

Godge

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Pathetic an Irish person would try to disingenuously argue the case that the Irish government did everything in it's power to help the Irish men and women in the north. For 80 years they left Irish men, women and children at the complete mercy of loyalists and anyone who colluded with them. Irish men and women could have been dragged to the streets and shot in their hundreds and the Irish government would still not have directly intervened. Infact they validated everything that happened, validated orange rule and partition by working along side and assisting the very people discriminating and terrorising their fellow gaels. Spineless cowards

The primary responsibility of the Irish Government was to the people of the State, not to Northern Ireland.

Practically speaking, there was little else they could have done.

DarkyHughes

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Would you be saying he was rightfully turfed out for those actions, if it was you, your wife and young children being burned and terrorised out of your house by mobs of loyalists backed by the British Army on Bombay Street with absolutely no line of defence? Doubt it. The Irish government half heartedly went down some avenues to criticise and moan about what was happening from the sidelines, without ever showing any real steel or conviction in anything they did.

And a other thing the Irish government was guilty of was letting the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 & Maguire 7 rote in prison, they only jumped on the bandwagon in mid 80's.

The Golden Miller

Godge wrote: »

The primary responsibility of the Irish Government was to the people of the State, not to Northern Ireland.

Practically speaking, there was little else they could have done.

By that logic my primary responsibility is to my family, so I won't help someone outside my front gate if they are dying on the side of the street? So even if this state was the governments priority, so what? And again, you'd have a completely different view if it was you family left at the hands of loyalists. So hey, at least your ok, let the rest of the Irish people in 6 counties rot away

Practically speaking they didn't have to work with and collude with a bigoted sectarian orange state, and censor one side along with many of the things darkyhorse and happyman pointed out. Spineless cowards

Karl Stein

marienbad wrote: »

And Haughey was rightfully turfed out of government for those actions .

Whoever supplied arms to the beleaguered Nationalist people in the north at the time should be venerated for helping to prevent ethnic cleansing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUKy29ZhP5Q

The degenerates who carried out attacks like the above were only held back by people with guns.

Would you rather they didn't have weapons to defend themselves?

Get a grip.

Crooked Jack

Saintleger wrote: »

Have you any research studies to back that up?

Lost Lives will give you a detailed breakdown of civilian deaths in south Armagh, as will Bandit Country, both show IRA victims were overwhelmingly security forces. They also go some way to showing that sectarianism was not nearly as much an issue in south armagh as other areas.
Both books are packed away in the attic somewhere as I've only just moved home but a quick wiki search shows that of the 250 people killed in south Armagh during the conflict 165 were security forces, 10 were IRA volunteers and 75 were civilians. Take out those killed by brits, cops, loyalists such as the glennane gang and it quite clearly shows that the IRA in the area had little interest in attacking civilians of any religion so your claim about protestants being butchered is demonstrably bullsh!t.

Saintleger wrote: »

It was a time of tit for tat killing which the IRA where also hugely implicated in

Nope, like I just said, the IRA had little interest in attacking civilians, that was the modus operandi of loyalists and the security forces. The IRA fought the British Army and RUC, those groups responded by joining forces with loyalists to kill catholics. There was no "tit for tat" civilian killings. Like I said, Kingsmill was a total abberation. We can argue over interpretation of statements, motives for events etc... but there can be no arguing over the figures, the IRA clearly had zero interest in sectarian killings. If they had, given the power they had in the area, deaths would have been much much higher.

Saintleger wrote: »

I'm glad you're not trying to defend the indefensible. It was condemned by the IRA eventually certainly not immediately they denied they were eve involved for a long time.

Well the statement denying it came from the army council, who hadnt authorised the attack, even the HET report said it was not sanctioned by the IRA. Like I said, Bandit Country also shows that SF condemned it immediately, that the army council was outraged over the attack and that prisoners expressed deep shame over it.

Saintleger wrote: »

Regardless of weather it was condemned eventually it happened and it certainly wasn't a once off and you might write me off for saying it here as 'total drivel' but it's hugely relevant in this tread if you are ever going to have any hope of convincing Unionists who still feel so so aggrieved at what was done to them.

Name one other such attack carried out by south armagh IRA. Again, we cant argue over numbers, Kingsmill was a complete aberration. That said unionists have every right to feel aggrieved over such a despicable attack. No republicans have been found wanting when it comes to condemning Kingsmill, it's a pity the same cannot be said of unionist politicians or representatives when it comes to security forces or loyalist attacks.

Saintleger wrote: »

In doing so they coerced and extorted they community the pro-ported to be fighting for for their own means. That is my families experience and it's no fairy tale.

I can tell personal stories too. My father joined Sinn Fein when he and his brothers were sick of getting beaten up by brits and soldiers every time they left the house. He says increased IRA activity in the area kept the security forces either occupied or off the roads entirely, leaving them less able to harass locals. As such he claims people in the area were indeed protected from them by the IRA.
Either way, these are personal stories. You want to talk objectively, the figures once again prove you totally wrong.

Saintleger wrote: »

The forced civilians, in particular postal works to drive bombs in to barracks, blew towns to smithereens with the result that people's homes and businesses were destroyed time and time again under the guise of targeting fortified British Army barracks which hardly took a dent.
And deny it all you like but it played a huge part in tearing communities apart, and i believe setting back any chance of a United Ireland by generations.

Communities in the north were well torn apart by the time the IRA was forced back onto the stage. They were torn apart by a corrupt stormont regime that promoted hatred of catholics, a corrupt and violent police force and a british government that turned a blind eye to it all.
The IRA was a product of the situation in Ireland, not the cause.

Saintleger wrote: »

Regardless of what you believe his Father and Uncles did the point I was making was the reason he is the way he is is clear. He's a product of IRA aggression and I think he's a prime example of why a prolonged bloody conflict where it was civilians not the Army, IRA, Loyalist paramilitaries who took the worst hit psychologically and in terms of casualties.

His father and uncle were not civilians. It was their choice to get involved with a corrupt and brutal wing of the British army that got them killed. I have already demonstrated clearly that unlike security forces and loyalists the IRA had no interest in attacking civilians.

marienbad

Karl Stein wrote: »

Whoever supplied arms to the beleaguered Nationalist people in the north at the time should be venerated for helping to prevent ethnic cleansing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUKy29ZhP5Q

The degenerates who carried out attacks like the above were only held back by people with guns.

Would you rather they didn't have weapons to defend themselves?

Get a grip.

Any suggestions on what might have been done but wasn't , or just more venting after the fact ?

The Golden Miller

marienbad wrote: »

Any suggestions on what might have been done but wasn't , or just more venting after the fact ?

Send in the army in plain clothes, and place them around nationalist area's, only to attack if under attack

marienbad

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Send in the army in plain clothes, and place them around nationalist area's, only to attack if under attack

I think you need to think about that a bit more.

The Golden Miller

marienbad wrote: »

I think you need to think about that a bit more.

Why?

marienbad

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Why?

Because ,quite frankly it would have been insane .

The Golden Miller

marienbad wrote: »

Because ,quite frankly it would have been insane .

How? An armed civilian for all anyone knows. I must of missed the part where the British Army, RUC etc were psychics