The Northern Ireland Troubles and the Irish War of Indepedence

Fake News

In terms of casualties and engagements, would you agree that those two conflicts were on a par? What strikes me about the Ulster troubles is the amount sectarian massacres that took place, especially by the UVF and UDA. It's as though they were embarking on a campaign of ethnic cleansing.


Mod Note:
Please keep any responses within the forum's charter and civility.

Esel

*gets popcorn and awaits the usual posters

Del.Monte

What's the point of this sort of thread - more suited to AH.

Fake News

I'm trying to put the past into context.

BalcombeSt4

Fake News wrote: »

I'm trying to put the past into context.

Yes, well the whole MO of the UVF & UDA was sectarian attacks on civilians. About 10% (probably less) of their attacks were aimed at known Republican paramilitaries.

There was also plenty of sectarian massacres by both sides in the 1920's. One of the most shocking was probably a UVF grenade attack on Catholic children in a playground, they were a lot more liberal about murdering children in the 20's than the 70's & 90's.

And of course a lot of the nutjob leaders of the UVF in the 1910's & 20's went on to become leaders of the Northern state so it's not that strange that the the UVF of 1966 - 98 was quit similar in it's outlook & MO.

In terms of casualties the two conflicts were on par from 1971 - 1976, but from 77 onwards the Northern conflict was a lot less intense except for one or two select years like 81 or 93.

piplip87

The IRA of the late 10s had a mandate as the election firmly showed there was an appetite for a free Ireland except in Ulster

The problem with the troubles is they had no mandate as the SDLP were the biggest party throughout the 60s 70s 80s and 90s.


PIRA, UDA, UVF and the British army all committed deplorable acts and deliberately targeted innocent civilians.

What really cracks me up is this "Your killing of our innocents" is more important than "our killing of your innocents".

Your use of shoot to kill was wrong but we will commerate those who blew up pubs.

At the end of day there will be nothing but whataboutary in this thread from all sides..... But;

People on all sides done very well financially from the troubles.
It does not matter if you are IRA or UDA killing innocent people is wrong.
If the British Army killed some of your groups on official operations well then they kind of deserved it.

Personally in think just build a wall and let them at it

One More Toy

In your heeeaddd in your heeeaddd zaaambie zaaambie zombie-e-eh

Dr.Nightdub

In the thirty years from 1968-98, roughly 3500 people were killed across the whole of the North.

In just two years from 1920-22, 498 people were killed in Belfast alone.

Do the maths...

BalcombeSt4

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

In the thirty years from 1968-98, roughly 3500 people were killed across the whole of the North.

In just two years from 1920-22, 498 people were killed in Belfast alone.

Do the maths...

But in 1972 around the same number was killed in the North.

BalcombeSt4

piplip87 wrote: »

The IRA of the late 10s had a mandate as the election firmly showed there was an appetite for a free Ireland except in Ulster

The problem with the troubles is they had no mandate as the SDLP were the biggest party throughout the 60s 70s 80s and 90s.


PIRA, UDA, UVF and the British army all committed deplorable acts and deliberately targeted innocent civilians.

What really cracks me up is this "Your killing of our innocents" is more important than "our killing of your innocents".

Your use of shoot to kill was wrong but we will commerate those who blew up pubs.

At the end of day there will be nothing but whataboutary in this thread from all sides..... But;

People on all sides done very well financially from the troubles.
It does not matter if you are IRA or UDA killing innocent people is wrong.
If the British Army killed some of your groups on official operations well then they kind of deserved it.

Personally in think just build a wall and let them at it

I don't remember the Irish people voting to go to war in 1919.

If it was just a morale question I belive the Provisional IRA of 1969 - 1998 had a better case for taking up arms. But that doesn't mean i agree with every single action they took like bombing pubs (even if thats all their enemies ever did), just like I don't agree with every single action of the IRA of 1917 - 1923, like the Dunmanway killings for example.

TA little bit back on topic. There is a really good interview by George Galloway here with Stephen Travers of the Miami Showband.

The Glennane gang was an alliance of UVF members, British soldiers & RUC officers who carried out dozens of attacks around South Armagh and South Down and across the Irish border between 1972 - 1977 along with the Miami attack they are also believed to have carried out:
The the Dublin & Monaghan bombings
The Hillcreast Bar bombing which killed 4 people & injured 50
The coordinated attacks at Kays Tavern in Dundalk & Donelly's bar in Silverbridge which killed 5 people & injured 30.
The Gilford killings which were a carbon copy of the Miami Showband attack in which 3 people were killed.
The Castleblaney bombing in Monaghan which left 1 man dead & 20 people injured.
The Stepp Inn pub bomb which left 2 teenagers dead & 20 people injured.
The Reavey & O'Dowd family killings which left 6 people dead & 1 injured between 2 families.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRp-Y75fDWE

BalcombeSt4

Also should point out that the Loyalist paramilitaries didn't have the same support as the Republican guerrillas.
Loyalists were very strong in parts of Belfast & large parts of Armagh. But they only had like 3 Brigade areas, the Belfast Brigade, The Mid-Ulster Brigade (which covered all of Armagh, Down & Tyrone) and a small (London)Derry brigade.
Where as the IRA had very strong Brigades in Belfast, Derry, South Armagh & East Tyrone and had fairly strong brigades in South Down, West tyrone, South & West Fermanagh with supporting brigades in Monaghan, Louth & Donegall.

This helps explain a small bit why the UVF & UDA were so brutal & sectarian as Belfast was their main base of operations with 90% of attacks happening in Belfast, they couldn't expand like the IRA or even the INLA did so they had to make up for it by being brutal in the places they did control.

craicfiend

l always found it disturbingly ironic that the Loyalist paramilitaries and the british army which did colluded with each other killed vastly more civilians during the troubles then the various republican paramilitary groups . but we must also not forget the atrocities committed by the british army and the uvf in the republic one thinks of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.

of course its horrible to compare them as it makes light of one over the other, but the loyalist paramilitaries were far worse then the republican paramilitaries .this post will cause a **** stir no doubt about it .

Del.Monte

craicfiend wrote: »

l always found it disturbingly ironic that the Loyalist paramilitaries and the british army which did colluded with each other killed vastly more civilians during the troubles then the various republican paramilitary groups . but we must also not forget the atrocities committed by the british army and the uvf in the republic one thinks of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.

of course its horrible to compare them as it makes light of one over the other, but the loyalist paramilitaries were far worse then the republican paramilitaries .this post will cause a **** stir no doubt about it .

It might if it weren't such a blatant lie. You need AH for this sort of nonsense.

MrJones1973

piplip87 wrote: »

The IRA of the late 10s had a mandate as the election firmly showed there was an appetite for a free Ireland except in Ulster

The problem with the troubles is they had no mandate as the SDLP were the biggest party throughout the 60s 70s 80s and 90s.


PIRA, UDA, UVF and the British army all committed deplorable acts and deliberately targeted innocent civilians.

What really cracks me up is this "Your killing of our innocents" is more important than "our killing of your innocents".

Your use of shoot to kill was wrong but we will commerate those who blew up pubs.

At the end of day there will be nothing but whataboutary in this thread from all sides..... But;

People on all sides done very well financially from the troubles.
It does not matter if you are IRA or UDA killing innocent people is wrong.
If the British Army killed some of your groups on official operations well then they kind of deserved it.

Personally in think just build a wall and let them at it

I roughly agree with most of this except the last bit. The North as a political entity should never have been created. It was a very British solution-which we have copious examples the World over. If the North had been part of some African Colony they -the unionists would have been left to be slaughtered or an exodus like India /Pakistan would have ensued.
Im also not sure if the 1918 Election was really a mandate for the War Of Ind. A Mandate for Ind yes but not sure if the violence that ensued was mandated. Throw into the mix the conscription crisis and voters could be said to be full of hybrid of emotions.
I never accepted the Violence of the North but would be slow to condemn those who drifted into it as there was much provocation and social injustice.
Its those who stayed the course and kept it going for 30 years that I really condemn.
Its true the SDLP were the biggest nationalist party for most of this period but they dragged their feet on power sharing in the 1980s . They would not commit to it- with the IRA violence going on and I wonder was that the right choice?
Nobody has the right to take a human life unless yours is directly under threat ie-a gun in your face.

craicfiend

Del.Monte wrote: »

It might if it weren't such a blatant lie. You need AH for this sort of nonsense.

l find when someone accuses someone of lying they normally have evidence to back up their claims and must know what they are talking about , lm not trying to start something here but its been accepted that the loyalist paramilitaries killed more civilians for years now , and if you rightfully include the british army which were in bed together ,theres no doubt about it, thus the british killed more civilians than all the republican paramilitaries combined . l know the british are refusing to give up the Dublin and Monaghan bombing files which to me screams of clear guilt .

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.

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


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.

you can look up Sutton Index of Deaths in the troubles for more information .

craicfiend

l think the british collusion with the loyalist paramilitaries should not be ignored why is no one talking about that issue ? its very clear the british were supplying the uvf and giving them crucial information for their attacks . of course the british government will never admit it unless they are caught but its very clear . disgraceful behavior tbh . one wonders how many of these so called soldiers who served in the british army during the troubles should be tried as war criminals .

there was a RTÉ documentary on collusion between the loyalists and british army a couple of years ago ironically the RTE were one of the biggest cover up artist propaganda machines when it came to the collusion between the british army and the uvf .

BalcombeSt4

MrJones1973 wrote: »

I roughly agree with most of this except the last bit. The North as a political entity should never have been created. It was a very British solution-which we have copious examples the World over. If the North had been part of some African Colony they -the unionists would have been left to be slaughtered or an exodus like India /Pakistan would have ensued.
Im also not sure if the 1918 Election was really a mandate for the War Of Ind. A Mandate for Ind yes but not sure if the violence that ensued was mandated. Throw into the mix the conscription crisis and voters could be said to be full of hybrid of emotions.
I never accepted the Violence of the North but would be slow to condemn those who drifted into it as there was much provocation and social injustice.
Its those who stayed the course and kept it going for 30 years that I really condemn.
Its true the SDLP were the biggest nationalist party for most of this period but they dragged their feet on power sharing in the 1980s . They would not commit to it- with the IRA violence going on and I wonder was that the right choice?
Nobody has the right to take a human life unless yours is directly under threat ie-a gun in your face.

Well this was sort of the point I was making earlier between mandates for the Old IRA & the Provos. But no wars really have mandates, populations don't vote to go to war or not, either governments decide to bring their countries to war or guerrillas with popular support start an insurgency against the ruling power.

BalcombeSt4

Del.Monte wrote: »

It might if it weren't such a blatant lie. You need AH for this sort of nonsense.

Well for a start it's not a lie, it's fact that from 1966 with the UVF & UPV up until around 2001/02 with the Orange Volunteers & Red Hand Defenders that Loyalist Paramilitaries killed about 200 more civilians than Republican paramilitaries.

BalcombeSt4

craicfiend wrote: »

l think the british collusion with the loyalist paramilitaries should not be ignored why is no one talking about that issue ? its very clear the british were supplying the uvf and giving them crucial information for their attacks . of course the british government will never admit it unless they are caught but its very clear . disgraceful behavior tbh . one wonders how many of these so called soldiers who served in the british army during the troubles should be tried as war criminals .

there was a RTÉ documentary on collusion between the loyalists and british army a couple of years ago ironically the RTE were one of the biggest cover up artist propaganda machines when it came to the collusion between the british army and the uvf .

Individual Loyalist paramilitaries themselves are record as saying they could not have killed the people they did without the vital help from the security forces.
Collusion allegtions go as far to McGurks bar bombing which killed 15 people in 1971 with Mlitary Reaction Force and the following disinformation campaign by the RUC to try and make people believe it was a Republican "own goal". And all the way as recent as Billy Wright's Mid-Ulster UVF slaughtering teenage girls in the Drumbeg estate of Craigavon in 1991 or Johnny Adair's UDA C-Company massacring people in betting shops in 1992.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Reaction_Force#McGurk's_Bar_bombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Drumbeg_killings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Graham_bookmakers%27_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_James_Murray%27s_bookmakers

craicfiend

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Well for a start it's not a lie, it's fact that from 1966 with the UVF & UPV up until around 2001/02 with the Orange Volunteers & Red Hand Defenders that Loyalist Paramilitaries killed about 200 more civilians than Republican paramilitaries.

isn't it quite sad that the majority of those killed during the troubles are catholics the most ignored section of the population ,l wonder why no one knows about the loyalist paramilitaries outside of ireland l suspect the reason is because of the british media and their propaganda ,The IRA will always be presumed to be the cause of every terrorist attack regardless of the facts because of that propaganda despite looking damn near benevolent compared to the uvf , of course im in no way glorifying the ira just important that we speak of facts when talking about this sensitive issue .the more objective the better .

Dublin and Monaghan bombings was the biggest and most horrible terroist attack in the history of the troubles it killed 34 people no one was ever held to account for those bombings.

Manach

Mod Note.
As per forum charter and original warning of this thread, please keep the discussion within the realm of History and not veer into soapboxing.

pilgrim pat

I don't want to get of topic but when I read these coments and see people saying things like build a wall and let them at it thats basically what the republic did. what did you do for your fellow irish men during the so called troubles , the ira where defending there families from the irish hating loyalists .the IRA only exsist on this island to fight for freedom and independence now that the shooting stoped could you come out and support the native irish in the north get behind the momentum that brexit started stired up call for a vote for uniting the island for a peacful future

riffmongous

Manach wrote: »

Mod Note.
As per forum charter and original warning of this thread, please keep the discussion within the realm of History and not veer into soapboxing.

pilgrim pat wrote: »

I don't want to get of topic but when I read these coments and see people saying things like build a wall and let them at it thats basically what the republic did. what did you do for your fellow irish men during the so called troubles , the ira where defending there families from the irish hating loyalists .the IRA only exsist on this island to fight for freedom and independence now that the shooting stoped could you come out and support the native irish in the north get behind the momentum that brexit started stired up call for a vote for uniting the island for a peacful future

Mod:Pilgrim Pat do not post in this thread again. This is not the forum for soapboxing

BalcombeSt4

craicfiend wrote: »

isn't it quite sad that the majority of those killed during the troubles are catholics the most ignored section of the population ,l wonder why no one knows about the loyalist paramilitaries outside of ireland l suspect the reason is because of the british media and their propaganda ,The IRA will always be presumed to be the cause of every terrorist attack regardless of the facts because of that propaganda despite looking damn near benevolent compared to the uvf , of course im in no way glorifying the ira just important that we speak of facts when talking about this sensitive issue .the more objective the better .

Dublin and Monaghan bombings was the biggest and most horrible terroist attack in the history of the troubles it killed 34 people no one was ever held to account for those bombings.

Well I'm an atheist myself so I don't care about religion but you are right Catholics were treated as second class citizens before the conflict started and they were pretty much treated like that during the whole conflict as well. The Falls Curfew were the people were treated like animals for two days and four people were shot dead, Bally Murphy, Bloody Sunday, etc...even tho Loyalists were out killing Republicans during the 1974 - 1976 period.
There was a documentary about the Shankill Butchers by the guy who does the Nolan Show (forget his last name) and when he was interviewing a relative of one of the throat cut killings and she said this would never have been allowed to go on as long as it did if it was happening in a Protestant community , and sadly I have to agree with her. Nolan interviewed the guy in charge of the investigation and he pressed with some hard questions and he came with some sloppy excuses.
Dublin/Monaghan brought the slaughter to a whole different level, and the reaction from the Free State government was disgusting.
The UVF was made legal during the time of the bombings as well and the UDA who killed over 400 people were still a legal organization until 1992.

And the funny thing is over & over again commentators, experts, historians etc... said violence would never work. Well it did work, when the Loyalists killed enough civilans everyone gave into them, they brought Sunningdale down with Dublin & Monaghan, they got every demand they wanted after Adair's murder campaign in Belfast & Billy Wright's murder campaign in Armagh & Tyrone. The sad truth is if you murder enough civilians you get what you want, people aren't as afraid if your targeting soldiers but when you target a whole community people are terrorized as any normal person walking to the shops could be a victim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbrUFBrqbDc&t=27s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBG6MHMjfps

What a brave bunch of lads.

BalcombeSt4

pilgrim pat wrote: »

I don't want to get of topic but when I read these coments and see people saying things like build a wall and let them at it thats basically what the republic did. what did you do for your fellow irish men during the so called troubles , the ira where defending there families from the irish hating loyalists .the IRA only exsist on this island to fight for freedom and independence now that the shooting stoped could you come out and support the native irish in the north get behind the momentum that brexit started stired up call for a vote for uniting the island for a peacful future

As a Republican & Democratic Socialist I don't really like that extreme Nationalist view point of "were all Celtic Irish & everyone else can f off". I want to build a state that includes all the traditions of the people on this island & people who may emmigrate to this island. A country of equality, without thousands sleeping rough every night, were ordinary people have a say in how their country and community is run and without bigotry or fascism. I don't consider myself a Nationalist, I don't care about tri-colors or Union Jacks, my flag is red. There is no such as a "Native Irish" we all immigrated from somwhere.

Del.Monte

@ BalcombeSt4

Where is the Irish Free State that you refer to in your second last post?

BalcombeSt4

Del.Monte wrote: »

@ BalcombeSt4

Where is the Irish Free State that you refer to in your second last post?

It's close to the Middle East. Close to Iran, about a 2 hour boat trip away..

pedroeibar1

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

It's close to the Middle East. Close to Iran, about a 2 hour boat trip away..

Your sense of direction is about as accurate as the nonsense you post.:rolleyes:

BalcombeSt4

You must be my long lost twin brother then, because your nonsense is even worse, you can't even make a point.

Your afraid to state your position & your afraid to debate me on the Troubles subjects because you I could make you look foolish.

pedroeibar1

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

You must be my long lost twin either the, because your nonsense is even worse, you can't even make a point.

Your afraid to state your position & your afraid to debate me on the Troubles subjects because you know I'll leave looking silly.

I never debate with people who soapbox in this forum, particularly when the topic is suited to After Hours. The fact that you have an agenda, cannot spell and have no idea of syntax does little to recommend you or the nonsense you post. You final four words sum up your contributions.

BalcombeSt4

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I never debate with people who soapbox in this forum, particularly when the topic is suited to After Hours. The fact that you have an agenda, cannot spell and have no idea of syntax does little to recommend you or the nonsense you post. You final four words sum up your contributions.

Wow, I left one word out, I'm sorry if were not all as perfect like perfect Peter pedroeibar, the perfect priest.

Why is the Irish War of independence or The Troubles an After Hours subject? If this topic is suited to After hours why did you bother posting in a topic that's beyond the great pedro?
I'll tell you why it's because you know if we start debating an actual topic I will make you look foolish, because I've actually read up on this topic by respected published writers & journalists, not just a bit of Kevin Myers & Jim Cusack hyperbole on a Sunday morning.

And if you were trying to imply that I didn't know where Iran was with my sense of direction you are also wrong. If you read my post carefully I said Iran was close to the Middle East not in it, which is true infact it borders several countries of the M/E & tension with Iran and Middle Eastern countries has been infamously high over the past few decades, i.e. the Iran-Iraq of the mid 1980's, when the US supported Saddam Hussien with at least millions ( possibly billions) in US dollars & US made weaponary, and just a few years later they slapped Saddam on the hand for using the weapons and money they supplied him with when he used it to kill Kurds. They also have a strained relationship with Lebanon over Hezbollah & Iran's support for Palestine and a number of other things. They also have a very strained relationship with Saudi Arabia as both are big players in the region, the Saudi's want to spread their Islamic Fundamentalist ideology and Iran their more secular brand of Islam. Which is why Israel & the US support Saudi Arabia in this case, as Islamic Fundamentalism is a challenge to secular pan-Arab nationalism.

So maybe check your own sense of direction.