should i be afraid?

oscarBravo

cdebru wrote:

yes i have read it but i still dont understand what your reference to arthur griffiths has to do with anything

So read my post again, and if all else fails read the book again.

cdebru wrote:

where do you get the idea that the majority of irish people wanted to remain in the UK or that a silent majority allowed themselves to be removed from the UK

What I actually said was that they were "quite content to be subjects of the United Kingdom". They voted for the Nationalist Party, whose aim was "...Home Rule, or the establishment of an Irish Parliament to deal with internal Irish affairs within the British connection and under the Crown."

cdebru wrote:

so your suggesting that the Irish people changed their minds about staying in the UK after 1916 is that what your saying

I'm saying the entire political landscape changed completely. It tends to happen when "freedom fighters" take matters into their own hands and screw up the painstaking processes democrats have worked hard to build.

cdebru wrote:

"never"
occupied countries never have the right to use force to remove an occupying force
what full force of the law could IReland have called on to remove the occupier
what legal courses could have been exhausted

Sigh. My "never" in that case was still talking about the original analogy.

Back to the historical situation, there was an ongoing Home Rule process underway. It was by no means exhausted. Although the majority of Irish people were happy to pursue that avenue, a small group of fanatics intervened.

cdebru wrote:

do you mean when unionist government resorted to violence or when the republicans responded to that violence

Both, naturally.

cdebru wrote:

that would be a question for john Hume(et al) it is unlikely that there would ever be a situation in which everybody would agree that the time for violent
resistance had arrived different people come to that decision at different times some people believe violent resistance can never be justified

My point is this: it's easy for people to imply that I'm some sort of defective Irishman because I don't agree with the need to herd the Brits off the north coast of Antrim. My question to them is: do they feel that John Hume is also some sort of traitor?

cdebru wrote:

the situation is the same today were some people namely CIRA RIRA still believe that violence is the only way where the PIRA hsa come to the conclusion apparently that violence is not needed at this time why do 3 different groups that not that long ago agreed onan armed struggle now disagree on the need for that struggle

My opinion? A combination of political and criminal opportunism, frankly. The agendas are different. Someone like john_grimm who believes that little trivia like housing entitlements and job security are secondary to the ideal of a united Ireland will be quicker to resort to force than someone who just wants a fair deal for everyone.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Lets face it OB, you are not going to change the fact that some Irishmen believed that the only course of action open to them, after the other avenues were closed, was to fight (as in physically fight) for Irish Independence.

It would be naive to believe I could change historical fact.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You may not have agreed with that option but you cannot change it. You can pontificate all night long about where the path of non-violence against an oppresser might take us but it ain't going to change the fact that fighting (as in physically fighting) got you Independence (as in the 26 county Repbublic).

Seems to me a combination of politicking, violence and diplomacy achieved independence. As to achieving it for me: I was born in an independent republic; no-one fought for anything for me.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I know it is hard to accept this when you would have loved it if the Republic had never been created.

I assume you'll be able to quote the post where I said I would have loved that. Failing that, I assume you'll be apologising - promptly.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Quite frankly, if the people who are being oppressed choose to fight (as in physically fight) rather than take more violence on the chin, I ain't in any position to judge their choice.

Seems to me you're judging, all right.

oscarBravo

john_grimm wrote:

I'm a Republican because i Want an Irish Republic and i want the connection with England gone. Not because i'm an anti-Brit.

I live in an Irish Republic. The only connection it has with England is a diplomatic relationship and several busy air and sea routes.

john_grimm wrote:

As have i but i can see the effects of the past hardship and cruelty that England did impose on us.

What effects are those?

john_grimm wrote:

Notice that you put the economy first ?

There are more important things then Money, there are reasons for war and i don't like hatred.

There's not a lot more important than human life.

john_grimm wrote:

In all fairness you are not going to honestly sit there and say that the Irish people were happy to remain under British rule ?

Padraic Pearse's first and only court case was defending an Irishman who wrote his name on his cart of business in Irish. Terrible terrible crime.

I'm sure he was happy to remain under British Rule.

I've made that assertion, and I've provided references to back it up. Got any references to support your assertion that the majority of Irish people wanted to violently force the Brits out?

john_grimm wrote:

Honestly i can't understand how anyone could say the Irish nation would be happy under British Rule.

Maybe you should work harder to understand other points of view. It's the first step to eliminating violent conflict.

john_grimm wrote:

How do you negotiate when you have nothing to negotiate with ? The nationalists had nothing so how could they negotiate for something ?

That's an utterly specious argument. How did nationalists almost achieve Home Rule? How did nationalists in Northern Ireland achieve universal suffrage?

john_grimm wrote:

Because they thought home rule was the best they were gonna get.

That's your source?

john_grimm wrote:

So now your blaming the Loyalist oppression of Catholics and the troubles and the violence from both sides on 1916 ?

Honestly, it's like shouting down a well...

john_grimm wrote:

You asked me to prove that peaceful means would not have worked. I'm asking you to prove it would have.

Pay attention: what I said was that your assertion that it would not have worked has no more - or less - validity than an assertion that it would have.

In fact, you're the one making the dogmatic assertion. I'm saying it might have worked. You're saying it definitely would not have worked. I can't prove it might have, but I can offer Ghandi as an example of what's possible. What evidence can you offer that it definitely would not have worked?

john_grimm wrote:

Hes a pacifist who knew violence would never solve the problem fully.

Is he wrong?

john_grimm wrote:

Could do WHAT ?

Get them civil rights they already deserved ? Sure he would have eventually achieved that. A united Ireland ? Not bloody likely.

And we're back to the dogma that a united Ireland is more important than the human rights of individuals. If that's your position, (a) we've nothing further to discuss, and (b) you need help.

john_grimm wrote:

God its so simple now. Jesus Don't i wish that Britain, France and America didn't fight Hitler. They could have negotiated with him and his troops as they landed on their soil.

U try a "peaceful" solution to a serial killer in your house and see how far it gets you.

Who is the serial killer and/or Hitler in your analogy? England? All English people? Some English people? Some Unionists? All Unionists? I'm confused.

john_grimm wrote:

Thats not the point!

He killed your family he deserves to die for that. So it makes you a murderer too so what ?

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. What do you achieve by killing a killer?

john_grimm wrote:

To Justice ? Justice in this state ? in this day and age ?

Some of those bloody prisons are like long Vacations and some aren't even that bloody long! There is no justice in this country or any other for that matter.

If your idea of justice is summary execution, I'll live with injustice, thanks.

cdebru

oscarBravo wrote:

So read my post again, and if all else fails read the book again. What I actually said was that they were "quite content to be subjects of the United Kingdom". They voted for the Nationalist Party, whose aim was "...Home Rule, or the establishment of an Irish Parliament to deal with internal Irish affairs within the British connection and under the Crown." .

obviuosly they were not content to accept home rule as a final settlement
while john redmond might have been happy with that kind of arrangement as a final and lasting settlement the Irish people were not
the Irish people were willing to accept home rule as the best settlement that they believed was available at the time.Once the oppurtunity of real independence came along and a party that was prepared to fight for real independence Irish people jumped at the chance and deserted the nationalist home rule party who were viewed as being completely out of touch with the wishes of the Irish People. i accept that had home rule been implemented in 1914 perhaps the easter rising would not have happened butI do not accept for one minute that Ireland would have continued as a part of the UK or that the majority of Irish people would have been happy with that

a simple look back through the history of this country shows that Ireland was never content to accept British Rule it is littered with rebellions and risings

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm saying the entire political landscape changed completely. It tends to happen when "freedom fighters" take matters into their own hands and screw up the painstaking processes democrats have worked hard to build..

it was what the irish people wanted that is real democracy 1916 only awoke a feeling that was always there it is nonsensical to suggest that somehow democracy was subverted just because you dont like the result

oscarBravo wrote:

Sigh. My "never" in that case was still talking about the original analogy..

so you do accept that violence is a legitimate means of winning freedom its just that you think you should decide when it is needed

oscarBravo wrote:

Back to the historical situation, there was an ongoing Home Rule process underway. It was by no means exhausted. Although the majority of Irish people were happy to pursue that avenue, a small group of fanatics intervened.
.

look the simple fact is that home rule was not enough for the Irish people
if it had of been they would haved voted for the home rule party in 1918
nobody forced the Irish people to vote for sinn fein in 1918 they did so because they were not content to accept home rule

oscarBravo wrote:

My point is this: it's easy for people to imply that I'm some sort of defective Irishman because I don't agree with the need to herd the Brits off the north coast of Antrim. My question to them is: do they feel that John Hume is also some sort of traitor?.

I don't thin k john hume is a traitor

as to wether you are I don't know if you are or are not

oscarBravo wrote:

My opinion? A combination of political and criminal opportunism, frankly. The agendas are different. Someone like john_grimm who believes that little trivia like housing entitlements and job security are secondary to the ideal of a united Ireland will be quicker to resort to force than someone who just wants a fair deal for everyone.

in fairness i believe that all of these people want a fair deal for everyone it is a matter of how best this can be achieved
i presume that john grimm believes like most republicans that the most important issue in this country is freedom and independence and as such everything takes second place to that once that has been achieved then you
worry about the other stuff

pogoń

FTA69 wrote:

Maybe, but it blows your assertion that Republicans wouldn't tolerate a Protestant in their areas out of the water. So on one hand we wouldn't have them even living near us but then yet we have one councillor and many activists within our party? That is very, very inconsistent pogón.

Sinn Fein have 1 Protestant councillor.

So this proves your assertion that 25% of the population in South Strand are Protestant does it?

Why?

The best evidence that SF are sectarian are the atrocities committed by their military wing the Provisional IRA against Protestants and the fact that SF has often refused to condemn such atrocities.

It would be extremely boring and tedious to drag up all these incidents, but if you feel it necessary to do so .............

BTW using your methodology the loyalist terror organisations are not sectarian:

www.ulster-scots.co.uk/docs/terrorism/catholicloyalists.htm

FTA69

Sinn Fein have 1 Protestant councillor.

Indeed they do, and many Protestant activists north and south.

So this proves your assertion that 25% of the population in South Strand are Protestant does it?

I never said it did, but the fact remains that there are many mixed marriages in the Short Strand and by some estimates a quarter of people there are either Protestant or of Protestant descent.

The best evidence that SF are sectarian are the atrocities committed by their military wing the Provisional IRA against Protestants and the fact that SF has often refused to condemn such atrocities.

I am not denying the fact that IRA members have engaged in sectarian attacks but the fact is that the IRA as a body does not condone or sanction these actions. Sinn Féin has condemned all sectarian actions no matter who they originated from.

BTW using your methodology the loyalist terror organisations are not sectarian:

The site you quoted stated the reason for Catholic-UDA co-operation was personal and criminal motives, not political, which is after all what we are discussing namely the political motives of Republicanism and Loyalism. Is Billy Leanord a Sinn Féin member owing to criminal and revenge motives? I don't think so somehow.

pogoń

FTA69 wrote:

Indeed they do, and many Protestant activists north and south.

I question 'many'.

I believe in NI there are more Catholic Unionists than Protestant Republicans.

Can you name one Protestant of real significance who was a member of Provisional SF/IRA ?

I never said it did, but the fact remains that there are many mixed marriages in the Short Strand and by some estimates a quarter of people there are either Protestant or of Protestant descent.

Whose estimates?

And what does 'of Protestant descent' mean?

Judging by their surnames the majority of the leadership of SF is 'of Protestant descent' but that doesn't make them Protestants.

I want a reference for your figure of 25% as I want pictoral evidence of the 'Combat 18' plaques in Cluan Place.

And if you seriously believe hard-line Republican areas to be non-sectarian are you going to take up my challenge of visiting them dressed in a Rangers shirt?

And if not why not?

I am not denying the fact that IRA members have engaged in sectarian attacks but the fact is that the IRA as a body does not condone or sanction these actions. Sinn Féin has condemned all sectarian actions no matter who they originated from.

This is untrue.

For example 'non-sectarian' SF councillors in Enniskillen refused to observe a minutes silence for the victims of a sectarian outrage by the IRA in the town.

Gerry Adams carried the coffin of the animal responsible for the Shankill bomb which killed a number of completely innocent Proteastants in a fish shop.

As I have stated it would be extremely tedious to list all such incidents ....

FTA69

I believe in NI there are more Catholic Unionists than Protestant Republicans.

Again what's your point? We're not arguing the statistical breakdown amount of Catholic Unionists or Protestant Republicans, rather whether Republicanism is a sectarian ideology as you have contended.

Can you name one Protestant of real significance who was a member of Provisional SF/IRA ?

Define significance. Activists are held in equal standing regardless of their religion. A leading Protestant in modern Republicanism would be Ronnie Bunting who was a prominent member of the Irish National Liberation Army, the son of Paisley aide Major Ronald Bunting.

And what does 'of Protestant descent' mean?

Protestants who marry Catholics and convert to Catholicism.

For example 'non-sectarian' SF councillors in Enniskillen refused to observe a minutes silence for the victims of a sectarian outrage by the IRA in the town.

Enniskillen was indeed a tragedy, it should not have happened but it was not "sectarian". The operation was not driven by a desire to kill Protestants, it was an attack on the UDR British Army contingent present that went drastically wrong.

Gerry Adams carried the coffin of the animal responsible for the Shankill bomb which killed a number of completely innocent Proteastants in a fish shop.

Just because Protestants died during an IRA operation does not make the organisation sectarian, they were attempting to kill the UDA leadership who had an office above that particular shop. The attack stemmed from a desire to curtail sectarian murderers, not to kill Protestants.

pogoń

FTA69 wrote:

Again what's your point? We're not arguing the statistical breakdown amount of Catholic Unionists or Protestant Republicans, rather whether Republicanism is a sectarian ideology as you have contended.

On this thread it has been argued that Unionism is in its essence sectarian, but Republicanism is not.

If my assertion is correct then this is not so.

Define significance. Activists are held in equal standing regardless of their religion. A leading Protestant in modern Republicanism would be Ronnie Bunting who was a prominent member of the Irish National Liberation Army, the son of Paisley aide Major Ronald Bunting.

In a position of leadership.

Ronnie Bunting was not a member of Provisional SF/IRA.

The Provisionals split from the Officials, as the then Dublin leadership was intenationalist and Marxist rather than psychopathic and sectarian, and had no desire to involve itself in a grubby ethnic 'war' of stiffing Prods.

The Inla were an offshoot of the 'Officials'.

Protestants who marry Catholics and convert to Catholicism.

Therefore people who are no longer Protestants.

As the tragic case of Jean McConville demonstrates conversion was not, however, always sufficient.

Enniskillen was indeed a tragedy, it should not have happened but it was not "sectarian". The operation was not driven by a desire to kill Protestants, it was an attack on the UDR British Army contingent present that went drastically wrong.

Completely and utterly wrong I'm afraid.

After the tragedy the IRA claimed that the device was radio detonated and that the army had accidentaly triggered the device causing a premature explosion.

Later, however, the timing device was found which showed the IRA claims to have been lies.

The bomb did exactly what it had been intended to do - kill people at a Rememberance day service.

In the unauthorised biography of Martin McGuiness 'From Guns to Government' it was claimed it was he who ordered the bomb to be placed.

Interestingly McGuiness has not attempted to take the authors to court.

I also have an interesting link to McGuiness blaming bystanders and not the IRA for getting themselves injured in car bombings.

Would you like to hear it?

Just because Protestants died during an IRA operation does not make the organisation sectarian, they were attempting to kill the UDA leadership who had an office above that particular shop. The attack stemmed from a desire to curtail sectarian murderers, not to kill Protestants.

Yes of course we all understand it wasn't their fault killing 10 completely innocent people in a fish shop was simply a mishap that could have happened to anyone and so on.

OK so in that case would you care to explain 'La Mon', Kingsmill and the fact that CAIN gives a 3 figure score to IRA murders that were purely sectarian, with no motive other than the religion of the victim.

I don't think you can.

FTA69

On this thread it has been argued that Unionism is in its essence sectarian, but Republicanism is not.

Unionism has a sectarian foundation and a sectariran reality in many cases but I don't believe it is inherently sectarian. As I pointed out above, there are many Catholic Unionists. Loyalism or Orangeism however, is ingerently sectariran as it is a culture based on the repression of those who are not Ulster Protestants ie Catholics, Chinese, Pakistanis etc.

Ronnie Bunting was not a member of Provisional SF/IRA.

Hence me pointing out he was an INLA member, you were the one asserting that "Republicans" (a term that encompasses more than the IRA) would not have a Protestant anywhere near them but as has been proved by the examples of Billy Leanord and Ronnie Bunting that is blatantly untrue.

Therefore people who are no longer Protestants.

As the tragic case of Jean McConville demonstrates conversion was not, however, always sufficient.

They are still from a Protestant background and as you well know tradition is often more important than current religion in the eyes of many people. McConville was not shot because she was Protestant, she was shot because she was an informer. The IRA have shot many Catholic touts as well, are they now discriminatory against Catholics?

The bomb did exactly what it had been intended to do - kill people at a Rememberance day service.

I am aware that the bomb was radio controlled but it was not aimed at massacering innocent Protestants, I notice you mention Martin McGuinness. Do you honestly think that the IRA have anything to gain by sectarian actions? Look at the damage that bomb caused to Republianism, do you honestly believe that McGuinness and Adams were pleased with the occurence on remembrance day.

Yes of course we all understand it wasn't their fault killing 10 completely innocent people in a fish shop was simply a mishap that could have happened to anyone and so on.

I was not attempting to belittle the suffering of those affected by the bomb, rather trying to clarify its intent and to point out it was not an operation designed to kill Protestants but to kill the UDA leadership.

OK so in that case would you care to explain 'La Mon', Kingsmill and the fact that CAIN gives a 3 figure score to IRA murders that were purely sectarian, with no motive other than the religion of the victim.

Individual IRA members have indeed committed sectarian attacks, I admitted that above and have no problem doing so. Most of these were committed during the 1975 ceasefire and it culminated in Kingsmills. However, we are not debating whether IRA members are above reproach in everything they do, they are most definitely not. What we are debating though, is whether Republicanism is a sectarian ideology which considering its founder and many of its practioners were Protestants, it is clearly not.

Sand

BTW John, please learn to use the quote function. Your >>>> thing doesnt have the same clarity as the quote tags provide.

John Grimm:

I think you misunderstood me.

If the NI state was a happy joyous place for Nationalists and everyone was treated equal and everything was dandy fair enough. But thats not what i mean by achieving something.

A United Ireland would be an achievement and that was never going to happen by peaceful means.

Okay so you originally said the NICRA wasnt working and violence was the only solution. Having been shown to be wrong, youve now retreated from that position. Now youre claiming that civil rights were only a sideshow and that discrimination was never a serious concern of the provos, but rather something they could exploit into support for their campaign? All their whinging about defending catholic communities and the unacceptable nature of the RUC/PSNI is just pious bull**** used to bolster support for their own cause?

And after 25 years of terrrorism which ahs served only to make NI one of the more militarised places in Western Europe and reinforced sectarian divisions between your supposed United Irishmen, SF/IRAs stunted political development has advanced a small bit farther where they now accept there will not be a united ireland without the consent of the majority. Well, obviously violence was the only solution :rolleyes:

I doubt Home Rule would have ever been passed in any real form that would have ever allowed us to get rid of Britian.

Yeah, and the anti-treaty IRA doubted that the Free State could ever be a stepping stone to an Irish Republic. Only a few pages back you doubted that the NICRA could have accomplished anything. And I have no doubt that SF/IRA do not see the current peace proccess as anything other than a stepping stone to a united ireland.

Really, havent provos ever learned that nothing is set in stone, that simply because its home rule today doesnt mean it wont be a free state in 20 years, and a republic 20 years after that. Irish nationalists have accomplished more through negotiation and constitutional democracy than any gang of thugs has ever achieved by threatening innocent families to force fathers and husbands to drive suicide car bombs

Doesn't make any real difference i suppose, i just want to know. I've never met an anti-Irish Irishman before.

Ive met a few. They disguise themselves and attempt to pretend theyre fighting for the interests of the people, but in reality theyre fighting for a geographic theology where the people are unimportant, and only the lines on the map are important.

john_grimm

>>What I actually said was that they were "quite content to be subjects of the United Kingdom". They voted for the Nationalist Party, whose aim was "...Home Rule, or the establishment of an Irish Parliament to deal with internal Irish affairs within the British connection and under the Crown."

Because they had been trying to get rid of the Brits for 700 years. When you think there is no hope of getting rid of them completely wouldn't you have taken anything that tried to shove them even a little further away ?

I know i would have voted for Home Rule if i was in that position.

Would you be happy to be a British Citizen Oscar ?

>>Back to the historical situation, there was an ongoing Home Rule process underway. It was by no means exhausted. Although the majority of Irish people were happy to pursue that avenue, a small group of fanatics intervened.

The Majority ? If the Majority of Irish people thought they could kick the British out they would have. If there were arms availible for them they would have, if there was a rebellion the majority of Irishmen would have fought.

>>My point is this: it's easy for people to imply that I'm some sort of defective Irishman because I don't agree with the need to herd the Brits off the north coast of Antrim. My question to them is: do they feel that John Hume is also some sort of traitor?

I have absolutely no problem with anyone who says the only way to get the North or even NOT get the north but to make things better for them is by peaceful means. I don't think anyone who thinks that way is in any way less an Irishman and i would be more then happy to call those people friends.

My problem with you is your statements about 1916 and the "Majority were happy to remain British citizens".

>>john_grimm who believes that little trivia like housing entitlements and job security are secondary to the ideal of a united Ireland will be quicker to resort to force than someone who just wants a fair deal for everyone.

I believe they are secondary considerations to me but thats me. I don't think the majority feel that way nor do i think the people in the north think that way. I feel that way.

I never said anything else.

john_grimm

>> I was born in an independent republic; no-one fought for anything for me.

If thats what you believe then thats your choice. It doesn't make it true.

>>I live in an Irish Republic. The only connection it has with England is a diplomatic relationship and several busy air and sea routes.

I said Ireland, not the Republic of Ireland.

>> What effects are those?

The destruction of Gaelic culture, of the Irish language. The confixcation of land by a foreign government, the large scale immigration of Irish people because of An Ocras mór and other reasons.

Ireland is a much different country then it would have been without the British here and those affects can still be seen today.

>> There's not a lot more important than human life.

No there isn't but there are things which people are willing to risk their lives for.

I have probably as much respect if not more then you for human life and thats why i have so much respect for someone who is willing to die for a cause that he believes in. Men like Wolfe Tone, Henry Monroe, Padraic Pearse, O'Donovan Rossa, Eoghan Ruadh.

Ireland has so many martyrs and men willing to sacrifice everything i find it an honour to call myself Irish.

>>Got any references to support your assertion that the majority of Irish people wanted to violently force the Brits out?

Now don't be changing things. You said "the majority of people were content to remain within the british empire". I said they did not. Now you have added "violently" to the equation.
Very sly.

I just made a post this minute that said the majority of Irish people would have forced the Brits out if they knew they could, if there was a large scale rebellion or if there was enough arms to arm them.

The simple fact is that after 700 years of history filled with such rebellions that failed people just didn't believe they could get rid of them.

Perhaps it might have been a different situation in Dublin and the larger towns but in the majority of the country people wanted them out. They were the enemy, they were the occupiers. They were the "Sasanach".

Any references ? So far you have referenced a book i haven't read and as a neighbour of mine always said, "paper won't refuse ink".

How does a rebellion every generation strike you as a reference ? Your saying the Irish people just decided to change their mind all of a sudden and decided the Brits are't that bad ?

>> Is he wrong?

No hes not wrong. But he also equally knows that a United Ireland would not be achieved only through peaceful means and thats unacceptable.

>>And we're back to the dogma that a united Ireland is more important than the human rights of individuals. If that's your position, (a) we've nothing further to discuss, and (b) you need help.

I want a United Ireland because i believe thats the best way for the human rights of Irish individuals to be kept safe.

Why do you think Wolfe Tone and all wanted a United Ireland ? For the craic ?

>>Who is the serial killer and/or Hitler in your analogy? England? All English people? Some English people? Some Unionists? All Unionists? I'm confused.

I'm not making an analogy to the NI question, i'm putting forth a question for you.

>> An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. What do you achieve by killing a killer?

What do you achieve by locking him up for a few years ?

The punishment should equal the crime. If someone purposedly goes out and murders someone for no real reason but a selfish motive then he deserves death in return.

john_grimm

>>I believe in NI there are more Catholic Unionists than Protestant Republicans.

Why do you believe that ?

Very sly btw how you used "catholic Unionists" but you used "Protestant Republicans".

Shoulds you be comparing Unionists and Nationalists ?

>>Can you name one Protestant of real significance who was a member of Provisional SF/IRA ?

Of course we can, the list of members is availible on http://www.ira-members.com

>>On this thread it has been argued that Unionism is in its essence sectarian, but Republicanism is not.

I believe your talking about me and i didn't say Unionist i said Loyalists.

>>Therefore people who are no longer Protestants.

You remind me of the kind of person who calls an IRA attack on the British Army sectarian if the soldiers were protestant.

>>Later, however, the timing device was found which showed the IRA claims to have been lies.

If the British Army say its true it has to be true!

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

Seems to me a combination of politicking, violence and diplomacy achieved independence.

Yep, the diplomacy of threatening all out war like the Irish would not have seen before.

As to achieving it for me: I was born in an independent republic; no-one fought for anything for me.

lol

john_grimm

BTW John, please learn to use the quote function. Your >>>> thing doesnt have the same clarity as the quote tags provide.

I know how to use it, i just use >>> out of habit sorry.

>>said the NICRA wasnt working and violence was the only solution

I never said it wasn't working, i said it wasn't going to achieve anything.

You seem to think that civil rights was the only issue. I believe the seperation of the 6 counties is the issue.

I never said they couldn't be gottten by peaceful means.

>>All their whinging about defending catholic communities and the unacceptable nature of the RUC/PSNI is just pious bull**** used to bolster support for their own cause?

I've posted about this and you clearly ignored it. Go read it.

>>where they now accept there will not be a united ireland without the consent of the majority. Well, obviously violence was the only solution

To get them this far ? Yes it was.

>>Yeah, and the anti-treaty IRA doubted that the Free State could ever be a stepping stone to an Irish Republic.

Yeah ? So thats what caused the civil war. Jaysus.

Wouldn't have something to do with the oath to a foreign King ?

sceptre

john_grimm wrote:

Wouldn't have something to do with the oath to a foreign King ?

The same oath that wasn't a problem for deValera in 1927? If it did, all it took was a mind-change for that to become insignificant - the wording of the oath hadn't changed.

pogoń

FTA69 wrote:

(Ronnie Bunting was not a Provo)

Hence me pointing out he was an INLA member, you were the one asserting that "Republicans" (a term that encompasses more than the IRA) would not have a Protestant anywhere near them but as has been proved by the examples of Billy Leanord and Ronnie Bunting that is blatantly untrue.

I asked you specifically to name a Provo of real signifcance

Bunting was not a Provo

I have also asked you to support your claims that the Short Strand is 25% Protestant, and that there is a Combat 18 plaque in Cluan Place.

I have never asserted, 'Republicans would never have a Protestant anywhere near them'.

This is your quotation, and your misrepresentation of my position.

McConville was not shot because she was Protestant, she was shot because she was an informer.

Even though this information appears in Moloney's book, this story has recently been shown to be Republican spin.

The suggestion that she was an informer has caused a lot of pain and anger within her family, and it is a claim they strongly dispute.

They have pointed out that prior to her death her husband had recently died and she herself was an extremely sick woman, with the responsibility of looking after a large number of children.

She simply wasn't in a fit state to do any spying.

The proof that she was a 'tout' was a radio receiver found in her flat.

Howeverit has been pointed out that the British Army has never issued radios for such purposes, and that this story is a fabrication.

Considering the IRA have invented a number of false stories about McConville, for example that she had run off with a British soldier, why should we believe their story that she was a spy?

Individual IRA members have indeed committed sectarian attacks, I admitted that above and have no problem doing so. Most of these were committed during the 1975 ceasefire and it culminated in Kingsmills. However, we are not debating whether IRA members are above reproach in everything they do, they are most definitely not. What we are debating though, is whether Republicanism is a sectarian ideology which considering its founder and many of its practioners were Protestants, it is clearly not.

Republicanism is not sectarian, the Provos are:

This is what caused their split with the Officials, the Officials wisely not wanting involve themselves in a grubby sectarian conflict with Northern Protestants.

If the Provos are not sectarian please explain:

(1) Why CAIN attributes 134 sectarian murders to the Provisional IRA. (Compared with 35 killings of loyalist paras).

This means that PIRA were more than 3 times more likely to kill a Protestant for sectarian reasons than they would be because of membership of a rival paramilitary organisation.

(2) Ethnic cleansing of Protestants in border areas by PIRA.

(Academic studies have shown such ideas to have a basis in fact).

(3) The intimidation and forced flight of Protestants from many towns and villages across NI, and PIRA complicity in such intimidation.

The most dramatic example being the abandonment of the West bank of Londonderry by Protestants; a decrease in percentage terms of over 90% over the last 30 years and confinment in one small heavily fortified estate, 'The Fountain'.

john_grimm

>>The same oath that wasn't a problem for deValera in 1927? If it did, all it took was a mind-change for that to become insignificant - the wording of the oath hadn't changed.

Oh come off it, there were several reasons for the civil war.

I doubt De Valera cared about the treaty enough to start the war in the first place, he had his own reasons for going against the treaty and when those reasons became unimportant he decided he could take it.

p.s > I'm not a dev fan so don't start that.

john_grimm

>>I asked you specifically to name a Provo of real signifcance

How can he ? even if a large portion of the Provos were Protestant how could he name them ?

Do you have a list somewhere of the members ? Is it online ? Can anyone see it ?

If the Provos do have Protestant members which i'm not saying because i frankly don't know then the only way we'd know about it is if they were ever caught. If they weren't caught then we wouldn't know about it.

Is it really that hard to understand ?

>>Bunting was not a Provo

No but he was a Republican and the INLA co-operated with the Provos infrequently.

>>Republicanism is not sectarian, the Provos are:

Why ?

If the IRA were Sectarian with one of their main objectives been to killing Protestants then explain why in South Armagh, the stronghold of the Provisionals, has there ever only been in the entire troubles 2 incidents which were blatantly sectarian that come to mind and neither of those incidents were claimed by the IRA.

If the IRA wanted to kill Protestants they would have absolutely no problem making that death figure 10 times what it is today.

I find that remark extremely ignorant of the whole situation.

>>This is what caused their split with the Officials, the Officials wisely not wanting involve themselves in a grubby sectarian conflict with Northern Protestants.

No.

The Officials were under a new leadership after 1962, this leadership decided that the military campaign could not be fought until both catholic and protestant Irishman could be united. They still remained militant but decided against any military action until such time as a large portion of Protestants could be convinced that they had much more in common with their Catholic neighbours then with the British.

The split occurred in 1969 because the new marxist lads decided that they would take their seats in Dublin if they were elected. This went against their history because to them Dublin was just as illegimate as Belfast. So they basically walked out and into a new hall and set up the Provisionals.

"We are the heirs of the men of 1916, we are the true Republicans. And we call ourselves Provisional Sinn Fein and Provisional IRA. And we will have an army counsel made up of seven men, just as it was seven man who signed the 1916 proclamation. We will differentiate ourselves from the other Republicans simply through a campaign of resistance. We will be on the streets defending our people, we will not be wasting our time with internal debates, we will be there to defend our people, we will be using the language that Republicanism always been using which is the language at the end of the barrel of a gun."

"We are now into what we believe is the long war. We believe in a war of attrition, we know we are not powerful enough as we stand now to defeat the might of the British army, but we will wear them down just as our ancestors wore them down in the past, and we will lead them to a stage where they will want to withdraw from Northern Ireland. And we will persuade our Protestant neighbors that they have been suffering from a form of false consciousness."

"We will not run away. Never again will it be said IRA equals, 'I run away.' We will show by our very actions that we are the essence of Irish manhood."

You forget why the PIRA were set up. They were set up because neither the British government nor Dublin would do anything to try and protect the Catholics from the Loyalists and the RUC and the British Army.

They were set up by the people who had suffered in these areas and they were set up to protect these people where the Official's and everyone else had failed.

sceptre

john_grimm wrote:

Oh come off it, there were several reasons for the civil war.

Of course there were. You offered one which is why I brought the above up.

Anyhoo, while you're still here, you appear to have neglected to answer the question posed by me to you in post 164 up the page. I really only want an answer if you're going to consider someone's nationality relevant at any point (as you didn't throw the question at me) in the future (as I'll only have to re-reference the question then) but I'm curious as to what it has to do with the price of peanuts anyway.

john_grimm wrote:

No but he was a Republican and the INLA co-operated with the Provos infrequently.

That's not what you were asked for though. So the answer to the original question is "no" then?

jbkenn

john_grimm wrote:

You forget why the PIRA were set up. They were set up because neither the British government nor Dublin would do anything to try and protect the Catholics from the Loyalists and the RUC and the British Army.
They were set up by the people who had suffered in these areas and they were set up to protect these people where the Official's and everyone else had failed.

I really dont know where you got this guff, this is a fairly accurate account of the events of August 1969
http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2005/01/29/background-to-bloody-sunday/

Tuesday 12 August 1969
As the Apprentice Boys parade passed close to the Bogside area serious rioting erupted. The Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), using armoured cars and water cannons, entered the Bogside, in an attempt to end the rioting. The RUC were closely followed by a loyalist crowd. The residents of the Bogside forced the police and the loyalists back out of the area. The RUC used CS gas to again enter the Bogside area. [What was to become known as the ‘Battle of the Bogside’ lasted for two days.]

Wednesday 13 August 1969
Serious rioting spread across Northern Ireland from Derry to other Catholic areas stretching the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). The rioting deteriorated into sectarian conflict between Catholics and Protestants and many people, the majority being Catholics, were forced from their homes.
Jack Lynch, then Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister), made a television address in which he announced that ‘field hospitals’ would be set up in border areas. He went on to say that: “… the present situation is the inevitable outcome of the policies pursued for decades by successive Stormont governments. It is clear also that the Irish government can no longer stand by and see innocent people injured and perhaps worse.”

Thursday 14 August 1969
After two days of continuous battle, and with the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) exhausted, the Stormont government asked the British government for permission to allow British troops to be deployed on the streets of Northern Ireland. Late in the afternoon troops entered the centre of Derry. [At this stage British Troops did not enter the area of the Bogside and the Creggan. There was a tacit understanding between the British Army and the Derry Citizens Defence Association (DCDA) that if the RUC and the army remained outside these areas there would be an end to the rioting. This effectively saw the setting up of the ‘no-go areas’ where the normal rule of law did not operate.]
John Gallagher, a Catholic civilian, was shot dead by the Ulster Special Constabulary (’B-Specials’) during street disturbances on the Cathedral Road in Armagh. [John Gallagher was recorded, by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), as the first ‘official’ victim of ‘the Troubles’.]
In Belfast vicious sectarian riots erupted and continued the following day. Many people were killed and injured, and many families were forced to move from their homes. British troops took up duties on the streets of west Belfast.

The IRA (of any flavour did'nt exist) Sinn Fein were no where to be seen, the defence of catholic area's was led by former soldiers (many ex BA), and the political lobbying was carried out by various politicians who later formed the SDLP
The Irish government did nothing? they did actually, 500 rifles and ammunition were moved to Dundalk in anticipation of their being sent north, to assist in the defence of the catholic area's. As a young man and a member of the FCA, I was doing a course in a barracks in the south of the country, we were confined to barracks and assisted in loading what subsequently became one of the "Field Hospital" convoys, now I can't say for certain what was in the crates I was loading, but, it sure as $hit was'nt band-aids. The crowds outside the barracks had to be seen to be believed, waving and cheering, as the convoy pulled out,fortunately for all concerned during the course of the night sense prevailed and they stopped at the border, as any movement across the border would have been an attack on a NATO member, and, the response would have made Fallujah look like a picnic. The goverrnment of the day did all it could do, using all the diplomatic means available to it to get the U.N. involved, to no avail.
The IRA eventually crawled out from under whatever rock it was hiding under, and, in typical fashion, the first thing they did was split into the "Officials" and the "Provisionals" and the rest is history.

jbkenn

true

jbkenn wrote:

I really dont know where you got this guff, this is a fairly accurate account of the events of August 1969
http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2005/01/29/background-to-bloody-sunday/

The IRA (of any flavour did'nt exist)

First of all, when I see that your "fairly accurate account of the events of August 1969" comes from a webpage entitled "saoirse32" - 32 county freedom presumably - I question the impartiality of the information.

There were many IRA robberys and murders and break ins for arms and sabotage in the decades before the ' 69 troubles. Fox example,
in April 1942 RUC Constables Thomas Forbes and Patrick Murphy ( Catholic father of 10) were murdered in two separate attacks by an IRA gang.
This is just one example. All of the media at the time had it. To claim "The IRA (of any flavour did'nt exist)" is not true. Ok, it was only a tiny fraction of what it was to become in later years, but it was still there.

jbkenn

true wrote:

First of all, when I see that your "fairly accurate account of the events of August 1969" comes from a webpage entitled "saoirse32" - 32 county freedom presumably - I question the impartiality of the information.

I used the link to demonstrate that Sinn Fein/IRA, the so called defenders of the oppressed Nationalist minority, were no where to be seen, the struggle for equal rights was led by the NICRA and Peoples Democracy, people like John Hume, Paddy Devlin, Gerry Fitt, Austin Currey, Ivan Cooper, Eamon McCann and Bernadette Devlin, Sinn Fein could'nt raise enough people to carry a banner.

There were many IRA robberys and murders and break ins for arms and sabotage in the decades before the ' 69 troubles. Fox example,
in April 1942 RUC Constables Thomas Forbes and Patrick Murphy ( Catholic father of 10) were murdered in two separate attacks by an IRA gang.
This is just one example. All of the media at the time had it. To claim "The IRA (of any flavour did'nt exist)" is not true. Ok, it was only a tiny fraction of what it was to become in later years, but it was still there.

When the Nationalist people needed defending, they were not there, in 1969 IRA stood for "I ran away".

jbkenn

john_grimm

>>Anyhoo, while you're still here, you appear to have neglected to answer the question posed by me to you in post 164 up the page.

I did answer.

It doesn't really have any effect really, i just wanted to know why he seemed so anti-Nationalist. Not because of his thoughts on the North but because of his thoughts of this countries history.

>>That's not what you were asked for though. So the answer to the original question is "no" then?

Very slyly ignoring the point i made about NOT been able to provide someone unless they had been caught. A list of the members of the RA is hard to come by these days you know.

john_grimm

>>I really dont know where you got this guff, this is a fairly accurate account of the events of August 1969
http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2005/...-bloody-sunday/

Woo! If its on the internet it must be true!

I didn't see where it said how/why the Provos were set up.

>>The IRA (of any flavour did'nt exist)

Officially the Officials did exist they just didn't do anything and probably couldn't have done anything.

>>Sinn Fein were no where to be seen, the defence of catholic area's was led by former soldiers (many ex BA), and the political lobbying was carried out by various politicians who later formed the SDLP

Yes ?

I said the Provos were set up in 69 by ex-Officials, i said what their goals were, i didn't say they did anything in 69 nor did i say they were a force to be reckoned with in 69.

>>The Irish government did nothing? they did actually, 500 rifles and ammunition were moved to Dundalk in anticipation of their being sent north, to assist in the defence of the catholic area's.

Funny, i said the Dublin government did nothing and you said they moved 500 rifles and ammunition to Dundalk.

Did they get North ? Were the rifles used to protect the Catholics ? Funnily enough i think the answers no thereforce Dublin did nothing.

>>The IRA eventually crawled out from under whatever rock it was hiding under, and, in typical fashion, the first thing they did was split into the "Officials" and the "Provisionals" and the rest is history.

Nay, the Provisionals had "OFFICIALLY" already split from the Officials, they simply had no power nor enough members to do anything and that largely continued until Bloody Sunday.

john_grimm

>>First of all, when I see that your "fairly accurate account of the events of August 1969" comes from a webpage entitled "saoirse32" - 32 county freedom presumably - I question the impartiality of the information.

Why don't you question the impartiality of British reports on IRA activity during the troubles ?

I'm not saying the Provisionals didn't deserve most of it because frankly i'm not in a position to know but;

The British media have demonised the Provisionals during the troubles and they come out spanking clean. If there is an incident with the IRA what do you think gets reported to the News ? The Truth or what suited the British ?

john_grimm

>>When the Nationalist people needed defending, they were not there, in 1969 IRA stood for "I ran away".

I stated that.

I also stated that the Nationalists welcomed the British Army in because they believed THEY would protect them, i also stated that the Provo's didn't really become a powerful organisation until after Bloody Sunday.

I stated reasons for them been founded, not things they started doing straight away.

gubby

Ohmygod.. talk about going off the subject!!
I am sorry I asked the question now. btw does anyone actually remember the orignal question i posted.. no peeking now

jbkenn

john_grimm wrote:

Woo! If its on the internet it must be true!

I didn't see where it said how/why the Provos were set up.

It did'nt, I said it was an accurate account of the events of August 1969

The IRA (of any flavour did'nt exist)
Officially the Officials did exist they just didn't do anything and probably couldn't have done anything.

The IRA existed in name only,the Officials did'nt exist until after the split

>>Sinn Fein were no where to be seen, the defence of catholic area's was led by former soldiers (many ex BA), and the political lobbying was carried out by various politicians who later formed the SDLP

Yes ?

Yes, believe it or not, there was political activism before Sinn Fein jumped on the bandwagon.

I said the Provos were set up in 69 by ex-Officials, i said what their goals were, i didn't say they did anything in 69 nor did i say they were a force to be reckoned with in 69.

Check that out

Funny, i said the Dublin government did nothing and you said they moved 500 rifles and ammunition to Dundalk.

Did they get North ? Were the rifles used to protect the Catholics ? Funnily enough i think the answers no thereforce Dublin did nothing.

I explained that sometime during the night sense prevailed, an incursion into NI would have been an attack on a NATO member and would have been suicidal.

Nay, the Provisionals had "OFFICIALLY" already split from the Officials, they simply had no power nor enough members to do anything and that largely continued until Bloody Sunday.

See above


jbkenn