Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

downcow

downcow wrote: »

Could you explain how the data you presented explains how the IRA were sometimes sectarian?
You don’t accept others posting data with explaination

I have not presented data because you have stated that even I demonstrated that the vast majority of IRA bombs planted in businesses were in Protestant businesses, and that in 100% of these cases the drove past catholic business premises to get to the Protestant premises. And that in some of these case the catholic premises the drove past were bigger economic targets.

That’s my problem Francie. There is no data that can be presented to you that you will accept.

But I appreciate some acceptance this morning that they were sectarian.

How about Francie if I took the trouble of gathering together data of my own town, and what about if that data demonstrated eg
(Bearing in mind it is a 90+% catholic town)
1) the only civilians the IRA killed were Protestants
2)The only premises the ira attacked were Protestant (with two exceptions - the catholic owned pub where local Protestants drank and a catholic owned guesthouse when a family member joined the ruc)
3)The only homes bombed were Protestant homes
4) the only churches attacked and burned down were Protestant churches
5) the only school attacked and burned was the only non-catholic school
6) there is only one street where Protestants live and no Catholics - and surprise surprise the only residential street in town to get a car bomb (no businesses next or near it) and no security force targets
7) the only factories attacked and destroyed were factories owned by Protestants
8) the only factory to get workmen shot at leaving was a protest owned factory and Protestant workmen

I could go on. 100s of incidents and the catholic community left untouched.

Would you accept, if evidenced, that that would prove the IRA was inherently sectarian

Ps you could claim there is no evidence that points 4&5 were authorised by the IRA command but it was a Sinn Fein election worker carried out at least one of them.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I have not presented data because you have stated that even I demonstrated that the vast majority of IRA bombs planted in businesses were in Protestant businesses, and that in 100% of these cases the drove past catholic business premises to get to the Protestant premises. And that in some of these case the catholic premises the drove past were bigger economic targets.

That’s my problem Francie. There is no data that can be presented to you that you will accept.

But I appreciate some acceptance this morning that they were sectarian.

How about Francie if I took the trouble of gathering together data of my own town, and what about if that data demonstrated eg
(Bearing in mind it is a 90+% catholic town)
1) the only civilians the IRA killed were Protestants
2)The only premises the ira attacked were Protestant (with two exceptions - the catholic owned pub where local Protestants drank and a catholic owned guesthouse when a family member joined the ruc)
3)The only homes bombed were Protestant homes
4) the only churches attacked and burned down were Protestant churches
5) the only school attacked and burned was the only non-catholic school
6) there is only one street where Protestants live and no Catholics - and surprise surprise the only residential street in town to get a car bomb (no businesses next or near it) and no security force targets
7) the only factories attacked and destroyed were factories owned by Protestants
8) the only factory to get workmen shot at leaving was a protest owned factory and Protestant workmen

I could go on. 100s of incidents and the catholic community left untouched.

Would you accept, if evidenced, that that would prove the IRA was inherently sectarian

Ps you could claim there is no evidence that points 4&5 were authorised by the IRA command but it was a Sinn Fein election worker carried out at least one of them.

PRESENT the data. Jesus christ...if it is factual and incontrovertible WHAT difference does it make what I say

Have the courage of your conviction, publish and let the truth fall where it may.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

PRESENT the data. Jesus christ...if it is factual and incontrovertible WHAT difference does it make what I say

Have the courage of your conviction, publish and let the truth fall where it may.

Francie. Better we just leave it. I need to learn that there is a very small minority on here who will defend the actions of the IRA whether or not

I guess I should regard it as a move forward when someone as intransigent as you accepts that the IRA were sometimes sectarian- sure that’s what I believe to.

I think most genuine posters on here can see what’s happening.

Now if we could just get republican leaders to say what you have said this morning it would be another move forwards.
Then just an admission around the extent of the horror and torture committed by them, which I am confident you accept, and we’d be nearly there.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

PRESENT the data. Jesus christ...if it is factual and incontrovertible WHAT difference does it make what I say

Have the courage of your conviction, publish and let the truth fall where it may.

So what's the criteria to be considered Sectarian?

downcow

jh79 wrote: »

So what's the criteria to be considered Sectarian?

A really clear simple question, but not one Francie et al are likely to answer

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Francie. Better we just leave it. I need to learn that there is a very small minority on here who will defend the actions of the IRA whether or not

I guess I should regard it as a move forward when someone as intransigent as you accepts that the IRA were sometimes sectarian- sure that’s what I believe to.

I think most genuine posters on here can see what’s happening.

Now if we could just get republican leaders to say what you have said this morning it would be another move forwards.
Then just an admission around the extent of the horror and torture committed by them, which I am confident you accept, and we’d be nearly there.

We can take it from all that that you have zero data or back up you are prepared to allow be scrutinised.

Good luck if you ever get to mount an inquiry into this.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So what's the criteria to be considered Sectarian?

Your primary targets were a religious group.

The IRA's primary target was the British state and those who facilitated it. As we know they killed protestant and catholic alike for that.
I have never (despite downcow trying to claim a 'victory') denied that in some instances people were killed just because they were protestant.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Your primary targets were a religious group.

The IRA's primary target was the British state and those who facilitated it. As we know they killed protestant and catholic alike for that.
I have never (despite downcow trying to claim a 'victory') denied that in some instances people were killed just because they were protestant.

Less sectarian but still a "sectarian murder gang" just like the UVF/UDA etc.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Less sectarian but still a "sectarian murder gang" just like the UVF/UDA etc.

Well no. No use of the figures on the CAIN or Wesley Johnson sites would support that.

Same challenge to you as the one downcow didn't rise to. If I am wrong, prove me wrong. Back up what you say with the data.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well no. No use of the figures on the CAIN or Wesley Johnson sites would support that.

Same challenge to you as the one downcow didn't rise to. If I am wrong, prove me wrong. Back up what you say with the data.

You agreed that they carried out Sectarian acts so why the need for figures?

You need to set the criteria first. No point in providing evidence if your standard is whatever the IRA did plus 1.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

You agreed that they carried out Sectarian acts so why the need for figures?

You need to set the criteria first. No point in providing evidence if your standard is whatever the IRA did plus 1.

I set the criteria as I see it. You didn't argue with it.

To say that a group was 'sectarian' then you have to show that. Who was their primary target.

In the case of the IRA, I have said/claimed that their primary target was the British state and those who facilitated it, be they Catholic or Protestant.

If you can show different, have at it.

The primary target of the UVF's etc were Catholics, evidenced by the number of innocent Catholics they killed/injured.
The primary target of the British was Catholic Irish nationalists, evedenced by the numbers they killed....that we so far know about.


*Members of FG were corrupt...that does not for a second mean FG are corrupt...or does it? Same thing with sectarianism.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I set the criteria as I see it. You didn't argue with it.

To say that a group was 'sectarian' then you have to show that. Who was their primary target.

In the case of the IRA, I have said/claimed that their primary target was the British state and those who facilitated it, be they Catholic or Protestant.

If you can show different, have at it.

The primary target of the UVF's etc were Catholics, evidenced by the number of innocent Catholics they killed/injured.
The primary target of the British was Catholic Irish nationalists, evedenced by the numbers they killed....that we so far know about.


*Members of FG were corrupt...that does not for a second mean FG are corrupt...or does it? Same thing with sectarianism.

Francie, i agree with you that the UVF were worse but that doesn't mean the IRA were not sectarian. They carried out sectarian murders so therefore were a "sectarian murder gang" too.

In reality you are saying the amount of sectarian murders carried out by the IRA is at a level you are comfortable with.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, i agree with you that the UVF were worse but that doesn't mean the IRA were not sectarian. They carried out sectarian murders so therefore were a "sectarian murder gang" too.

In reality you are saying the amount of sectarian murders carried out by the IRA is at a level you are comfortable with.

Well then, we can say FG and FF are corrupt as members have carried out corruption. Would you agree that is a fair summation?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well then, we can say FG and FF are corrupt as members have carried out corruption. Would you agree that is a fair summation?

Not at all. Were members of FF/FG ordered to carry out this corruption?

What is the threshold for you? CAIN says 151 murders by Republicans were sectarian (some could be INLA).

If they got to 200 would that have been enough?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Not at all. Were members of FF/FG ordered to carry out this corruption?

What is the threshold for you? CAIN says 151 murders by Republicans were sectarian (some could be INLA).

If they got to 200 would that have been enough?

What do you mean were they ordered?
What difference would that make?
How many of the sectarian killings do you know were ordered?
If the IRA were sectarian using that definition it would have been a sectarian bloodbath.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What do you mean were they ordered?
What difference would that make?
How many of the sectarian killings do you know were ordered?
If the IRA were sectarian using that definition it would have been a sectarian bloodbath.

Again Francie i'm not questioning that they were less sectarian, i questioning the logic that the IRA needed to state they were sectarian or hit a magic number before i can judge them on the acts they carried out.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Again Francie i'm not questioning that they were less sectarian, i questioning the logic that the IRA needed to state they were sectarian or hit a magic number before i can judge them on the acts they carried out.

Some members of the IRA carried out sectarian acts = the IRA was sectarian.

Some members of FG were corrupt = FG were not corrupt.

Does not compute.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Some members of the IRA carried out sectarian acts = the IRA was sectarian.

Some members of FG were corrupt = FG were not corrupt.

Does not compute.

No because it assumes that they all worked independently from their organisation.

Unless you can show that all sectarian murders were carried out without the knowledge of the Army Council then sectarian is appropriate.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

No because it assumes that they all worked independently from their organisation.

Unless you can show that all sectarian murders were carried out without the knowledge of the Army Council then sectarian is appropriate.

Ditto FG. Please show how you know they were not acting with the knowledge and approval of their organisation.

V8 Interceptor

jh79 wrote: »

Unless you can show that all sectarian murders were carried out without the knowledge of the Army Council....

I've heard of someone having the burden of proof but that's ridiculous!

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ditto FG. Please show how you know they were not acting with the knowledge and approval of their organisation.

Are you really equating sectarian murder with political corruption?

I somehow doubt someone was keeping minutes when they were deciding which protestants deserved to die.

Are you saying that the IRA leadership never ordered a sectarian murder or that they didn't kill enough to be considered Sectarian or that the number doesn't matter because it wasn't a stated aim of theirs?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Are you really equating sectarian murder with political corruption?

No. I am equating your evaluation standards.

I somehow doubt someone was keeping minutes when they were deciding which protestants deserved to die.

Are you saying that the IRA leadership never ordered a sectarian murder or that they didn't kill enough to be considered Sectarian or that the number doesn't matter because it wasn't a stated aim of theirs?

Do you know if they ordered sectarian killings or not?

Can you dispute that the primary target of the IRA was the British apparatus in NI and elsewhere and they killed Catholic and protestant alike in the pursuit?

Can you dispute that the primary target of Loyalist groups was innocent catholics whether they were ordered or not?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No. I am equating your evaluation standards.



Do you know if they ordered sectarian killings or not?

Can you dispute that the primary target of the IRA was the British apparatus in NI and elsewhere and they killed Catholic and protestant alike in the pursuit?

Can you dispute that the primary target of Loyalist groups was innocent catholics whether they were ordered or not?

Again i never said their primary was anything else. They were just less sectarian than the UVF.

My evaluation method is that if the IRA ordered these murders then they were a Sectarian organisation.

So are you saying none were ordered?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Again i never said their primary was anything else. They were just less sectarian than the UVF.

My evaluation method is that if the IRA ordered these murders then they were a Sectarian organisation.

So are you saying none were ordered?

I don't know and nor do you.

And it makes no difference.

You cannot say the IRA were sectarian...all you can say is some IRA made sectarian killings.

Otherwise the FG analogy holds true...holds true of any organisation.

declanflynn

jh79 wrote: »

Less sectarian but still a "sectarian murder gang" just like the UVF/UDA etc.

Could you also describe the British security forces as a 'sectarian murder gang' ?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know and nor do you.

And it makes no difference.

You cannot say the IRA were sectarian...all you can say is some IRA made sectarian killings.

Otherwise the FG analogy holds true...holds true of any organisation.

If i went on the CAIRN website or the other one would i find any that have been attributed to the IRA?

As for your FG analogy are you saying that each organisation is just a collection of individuals with no collective responsibility for their action?

If a single FG member does something corrupt then they are corrupt if they are instructed by the leadership then the organisation is corrupt.

If an IRA member murders a Protestant for their religion then they are Sectarian if they were carrying out orders then the organisation is sectarian.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I set the criteria as I see it. You didn't argue with it.

To say that a group was 'sectarian' then you have to show that. Who was their primary target.

In the case of the IRA, I have said/claimed that their primary target was the British state and those who facilitated it, be they Catholic or Protestant.

If you can show different, have at it.

The primary target of the UVF's etc were Catholics, evidenced by the number of innocent Catholics they killed/injured.
The primary target of the British was Catholic Irish nationalists, evedenced by the numbers they killed....that we so far know about.


*Members of FG were corrupt...that does not for a second mean FG are corrupt...or does it? Same thing with sectarianism.

It’s all falling down around you Francie.

By calling Protestants killed by Ira as those facilitating the british state is exactly the same as the sectarian scum who killed Catholics because the were part of the ‘pan-nationalist front’. You are excusing horrible sectarian crimes.

And I agree with your FG analogy about individuals being corrupt does not mean the organisation is corrupt. But you have been quite clear today the the IRA were sectarian (sometimes). In the past you have claimed it was renegade members

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

If i went on the CAIRN website or the other one would i find any that have been attributed to the IRA?

As for your FG analogy are you saying that each organisation is just a collection of individuals with no collective responsibility for their action?

If a single FG member does something corrupt then they are corrupt if they are instructed by the leadership then the organisation is corrupt.

If an IRA member murders a Protestant for their religion then they are Sectarian if they were carrying out orders then the organisation is sectarian.

So...I have no evidence in the case of FG...therefore I cannot call FG as an organisation - corrupt.

I'll let you work out the next bit yourself.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know and nor do you.

And it makes no difference.

You cannot say the IRA were sectarian...all you can say is some IRA made sectarian killings.

Otherwise the FG analogy holds true...holds true of any organisation.

Well Francie have it your way. No organisations in ni were sectarian, they just carried out sectarian crimes. You couldn’t make it up.
And you can stop accusing the ni state as being sectarian as well. They just done sectarian stuff. This is mad.

. And we have two SF MPs in the last week who have refused to condemn sectarian murders when asked directly. Listening to you I now understand why - it’s obviously very important to your mental health to never admit the ira were sectarian

declanflynn

declanflynn wrote: »

Could you also describe the British security forces as a 'sectarian murder gang' ?

That's a question for the tans