Should the IRA or republicans return to violence?

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

all of those incidents dont disprove what i said

teebane they were not attacked because of their religion but because they were carrying out construction work on watch towers

And the fact that they were protestant workers wouldn't have had *any* motivation no?

Claudy nine people killed five catholic four protestant

Where were the bombs placed? Answer me that and try and explain it away ....

le mons there is no evidence that the attack was aimed at killing protestants that was undoubtedly the effect but as to wether it was the intention>The IRA accepted that they had given an insufficent warning of only 9 minutes

The intention will, I'm sure, never be known thanks the incredibly transparant accountability processes within the IRA. But one thing cannot be overlooked. The disposition of those at the dinner were overwhelmingly protestant.

tullyvallen was never claimed by the IRA who ever carried it out it was obviously a sectarian attack

A 22 year old was arrested and convicted over tullyvallen and murdering three RUC officers. He was a member of the IRA.

bloody friday was not aimed at protestants

Of all the incidents listed, this was the most indiscriminate, yet most if not all the car bombs were placed in predominantly protestant areas of the city.

shankill was an operation aimed at the leadership of loyalist paramilitaries an IRA volunteer was also killed in the explosion which was obviously premature

Yet they knew fully that there was a busy chip-shop downstairs. As I've asked already, what did they think was going to happen? They knew full well that a lot of innocent people would die.

the one that I accept as being sectarian beyond any doubt is the kings mill

and as i said the PIRA "in general" did not target people because of their religion

Their operational track-record would speak otherwise cdebru. Fact vs. words. Which carries more weight?

cdebru

ishmael whale wrote:

No, that's clearly not what I'm saying. I'm simply pointing out that more of the damage was done by the IRA, because sometimes it looks as if this is lost sight of. In terms of where this leads, clearly security forces given legitimate authority to police a country have to be judged by a higher standard than a paramilitary organisation. Its perfectly rational to enquire into why even one in every ten fatalities can be laid at their door.

But that's not the same as pretending that the IRA campaign was something other than what it was. Paramilitaries are bad news. We really need to see them gone.



I thought you were suggesting its not a numbers game? But, for what its worth, is it really rational to assign every civilian killed by loyalists at the door of the British security services?

I dont think it is a numbers game but when someone is wrong should i not point out the error


wether it is rational or not to put every loyalist murder at the door of british security services it is beyond doubt that they allowed loyalists to murder innocent catholics that in fact they controlled loyalist murder gangs to a large extent and indde used them to murder people for them

high profile example obviously being

pat finucane
rosemary nelson
the dublin and monaghan bombimgs
eddie fullerton

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/birw0299.htm

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

Their operational track-record would speak otherwise cdebru. Fact vs. words. Which carries more weight?

yes it does speak louder than words and the undeniable fact is that if the PIRA
had a policy of deliberately targeting protestant then alot more of them would have been dead.

I have not denied that there were isolated incidents but that is what they are isolated incidents my contentioon that in general the IRA did not target people because of their religion still stands

the statistics back that up

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

yes it does speak louder than words and the undeniable fact is that if the PIRA
had a policy of deliberately targeting protestant then alot more of them would have been dead.

I have not denied that there were isolated incidents but that is what they are isolated incidents my contentioon that in general the IRA did not target people because of their religion still stands

the statistics back that up

Which statistics would these be?

I'm providing a consistant set of incidents that have spanned the course of the troubles. You've provided conjecture and rhetoric.

Cdebru, claiming that if the PIRA had a policy of deliberately targetting protestants then more would have died is ... well ... a bit of a strawman argument to be honest, and a complete cop-out. It's easy to say "oh well if X had done this, Y would be different" for almost any circumstance in any context in the history of the human race.

These were not isolated incidents. I have limited my search thus far to the BIG news-breakers so to speak. An isolated incident is one or two over thirty years. But as you can see, I've provided a sample of incidents which spans those years, and it's a hell of a lot bigger than "one or two isolated incidents".

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

Which statistics would these be?

I'm providing a consistant set of incidents that have spanned the course of the troubles. You've provided conjecture and rhetoric.

Cdebru, claiming that if the PIRA had a policy of deliberately targetting protestants then more would have died is ... well ... a bit of a strawman argument to be honest, and a complete cop-out. It's easy to say "oh well if X had done this, Y would be different" for almost any circumstance in any context in the history of the human race.

These were not isolated incidents. I have limited my search thus far to the BIG news-breakers so to speak. An isolated incident is one or two over thirty years. But as you can see, I've provided a sample of incidents which spans those years, and it's a hell of a lot bigger than "one or two isolated incidents".

no what you are doing is taking incidents were protestants were killed and saying these were deliberate targetting of protestants

there is a massive difference betwwen the deliberate targeting and murder of protestants based on their religion and the IRA conducting a campaign in which the IRAs consistent main target were british security forces the IRA unfortunately also killed many many civilians both Protestant and catholic

over a 25 year campaign and thousands of attacks mounted by the IRA you list 8
of those 8 only 2 are undoubtedly sectarian

The IRA murdered catholic and protestant construction workers who worked on british military installations

the IRA also had a commercial campaign aimed at destabilising the northern economy and costing the British taxpayer as much as possible

yes some of the businesses targeted were owned by protestants some of the towns targeted were predominantly protestant that does not mean they were targeted because of their religion should the IRA have only targeted Catholic businesses or Catholic towns

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/sutton.htm

lists that republican paramilitaries that would include the PIRA OIRA and various brands of the INLA killed 151 people because of their religion

that is out of a total of 1926 clearly the IRA campaign was not sectarian based that is not deny that there was sectarian incidents

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

no what you are doing is taking incidents were protestants were killed and saying these were deliberate targetting of protestants

As opposed to selecting targets which were assuredly either of protestant ownership or populated by protestants? :rolleyes:

lets call a spade a spade here ok? A rose by any other name is still a rose cdebru. Dress it up any way you want, the facts would speak differently.

there is a massive difference betwwen the deliberate targeting and murder of protestants based on their religion and the IRA conducting a campaign in which the IRAs consistent main target were british security forces the IRA unfortunately also killed many many civilians both Protestant and catholic

over a 25 year campaign and thousands of attacks mounted by the IRA you list 8
of those 8 only 2 are undoubtedly sectarian

Ah, it was only one a minute ago ....

You've conveniently ignored the part where I said I only used a small list of the big "news breakers" to make my point. I've better things to do than compile a list of every incident over 30+ years just to keep a 'RA head happy.

The IRA murdered catholic and protestant construction workers who worked on british military installations

They still deliberately targetted civilans. They would have been well aware of the target demographic before carrying out that attack.

the IRA also had a commercial campaign aimed at destabilising the northern economy and costing the British taxpayer as much as possible

By targetting protestant businesses. Why didn't they target catholic businesses so? They're part of the UK economy too? Unless you want to argue that a country hotel dinner by a a dog lovers club was a front for the entire British intelligence community, or that a post office was really a secret army base......

Or that a parade bombing would result in anything other than mass loss of life.

yes some of the businesses targeted were owned by protestants some of the towns targeted were predominantly protestant that does not mean they were targeted because of their religion should the IRA have only targeted Catholic businesses or Catholic towns

Well then you've just made my point for me. They targetted businesses & events based on religious constitution.

that is out of a total of 1926 clearly the IRA campaign was not sectarian based that is not deny that there was sectarian incidents

But it was sectarian. Just like the other side's campaign. Only the naeive would argue otherwise.

ishmael whale

cdebru wrote:

I dont think it is a numbers game but when someone is wrong should i not point out the error

I totally agree that factual errors need to be corrected, but you need to avoid the mistake of thinking that the correction of an error of detail reverses the thrust of an argument. The statistics linked above indicate that it is wrong to describe the IRA as responsible for the deaths of more Catholics than loyalists. But the fact remains that they are the responsible for the deaths of many, and more than the British Army. The broad thrust of the argument - that the IRA campaign hurt those that they would claim they were protecting - holds.

cdebru wrote:

...british security services .... controlled loyalist murder gangs to a large extent and indde used them to murder people for them

Even leaving aside the extent to which collusion with paramilitaries can be shown, their responsiblity for one in ten deaths is a valid source of concern. However, it is important to recognise that this does not invalidate the fact that the IRA campaign was not an heroic struggle against oppression.

It's also important to bear in mind that many Unionists would equally hold the opinion that the Irish Republic provided a safe haven for paramilitaries. Pretending that the whole conflict was all about british security services (I'm not suggesting you are doing this, just that some seem to) is simply at variance with the reality that mostly the conflict was about IRA violence.

jman0

ishmael whale wrote:

However, it is important to recognise that this does not invalidate the fact that the IRA campaign was not an heroic struggle against oppression.

Fact ishmael whale?
The British Army as well as British Intelligence services are among the most modern, best trained and financed state forces in the world, with massive resources at their disposal. A few paddies from working class ghettos holding out against them looks fairly heroic.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Fact ishmael whale?
A few paddies from working class ghettos holding out against them looks fairly heroic.

You'd have to qualify that by saying to whom, they looked heroic.
It's a subjective description.

ishmael whale

jman0 wrote:

.... A few paddies from working class ghettos holding out against them looks fairly heroic.

If the IRA campaign was about a few paddies holding out against the might of British military power, then it would look heroic. Unfortunately, that image bears as much relationship to reality as Luke Skywalker taking on the Imperial Death Star.

Like I said above, some people try to pretend the conflict was mostly about British security services where the fact is mostly the conflict had to do with IRA violence.

Half-Bicycle

ishmael whale wrote:

If the IRA campaign was about a few paddies holding out against the might of British military power, then it would look heroic. Unfortunately, that image bears as much relationship to reality as Luke Skywalker taking on the Imperial Death Star.

Like I said above, some people try to pretend the conflict was mostly about British security services where the fact is mostly the conflict had to do with IRA violence.

Most offensive to the families of Rosemary Nelson, Pat Finucane et al.

Are you saying that Pat Finucane was in the IRA or a supporter of them??

I know he supported Republicans getting justice but to imply that the finnucanes supported the IRA would be a bit much...

Mr Finucane's son, Michael, now a solicitor himself, said the suggestion that his father was in the IRA was a grievous insult.

Taken from here

ressem

Talking about having to be careful with words:
Heroic
: surpassing the ordinary especially in size or scale
: relating to or characteristic of heroes of antiquity
: having or displaying qualities appropriate for heroes
: impressive in size or scope
: showing extreme courage; especially of actions courageously undertaken in desperation as a last resort

Nope, don't see any of those applying to the IRA. Proxy bombers, snipers, car bombs, killing unarmed people and often not the intended target (Australian lawyers in Holland, wife of british soldier in Germany).
Individuals faced risk at times, big deal, a lot less on the whole than the fire brigade, I'd guess. Not like when you had M.Collins waiting to execute you when you were caught.


Since there's no 9-11 godwin's law yet that I know of,
Your opinion is that striking a military target now and again should let an organisation off the hook for any collaterally damaged human lives, actually let the entire campaign be called heroic if your 'army' is small enough?

Sure if that's the case, bloody sunday (the derry one, not the enniskillen one caused by the IRA) was justified as an Irish times reporter saw someone without a uniform and with a revolver.

I can muster understanding for the IRA snipers on the short strand in 1970. (Think I would have tried to order CS gas and rubber batons from Haughey myself if I ...yada... time machine etc...)

The rest is all attack the loyalists (by bombing protestent area, we'll get some of them ), their enforcers (sure they're all evil clone stormtroopers in the RUC), and the 'crown'.

Sorry to disappoint you, but to effectively get guerrilla thugs to stop attacking you, you've to get their community to help deal with them. Same goes for the 'loyalist' stonethrowers at the short strand these days as for the IRA.
Nothing heroic about it.

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

As opposed to selecting targets which were assuredly either of protestant ownership or populated by protestants? :rolleyes:

lets call a spade a spade here ok? A rose by any other name is still a rose cdebru. Dress it up any way you want, the facts would speak differently.



Ah, it was only one a minute ago ....

You've conveniently ignored the part where I said I only used a small list of the big "news breakers" to make my point. I've better things to do than compile a list of every incident over 30+ years just to keep a 'RA head happy.



They still deliberately targetted civilans. They would have been well aware of the target demographic before carrying out that attack.



By targetting protestant businesses. Why didn't they target catholic businesses so? They're part of the UK economy too? Unless you want to argue that a country hotel dinner by a a dog lovers club was a front for the entire British intelligence community, or that a post office was really a secret army base......

Or that a parade bombing would result in anything other than mass loss of life.



Well then you've just made my point for me. They targetted businesses & events based on religious constitution.



But it was sectarian. Just like the other side's campaign. Only the naeive would argue otherwise.

the facts as you choose to view them

you have deliberately misunderstood what i said i asked should the IRA have only targeted catholic businesses or catholic towns to avoid the label of sectarian if the town or business was protestant

the fact is that they attacked businesses and towns catholic and protestant


Only the very naeive would attempt to compare the PIRA campaign with that of the loyalist paramilitaries whose main course of action was to identify easy catholics and kill them the link from the previous post

if you take these facts to be correct( unfortunately it does not give a breakdown by group other than loyalist or republican)

151 killings out of 1926 are listed as sectarian that is what about 7 or 8 % and they are not all attributable to the PIRA

713 killings out of 911 by loyalist paramilitaries are listed as sectarian roughly 80% now you can seriously be suggesting that the IRAs campaign was sectarian based the same way as the loyalists that is just patent nonsense

I'm not suggesting for one minute that it is ok because it was only 151 as far as I'm concerned nobody should ever be killed because they are protestant or catholic
my point is merely that you are seriously misrepresenting the situation by suggesting that the loyalist and republican campaigns were the same

cdebru

ishmael whale wrote:

I totally agree that factual errors need to be corrected, but you need to avoid the mistake of thinking that the correction of an error of detail reverses the thrust of an argument. The statistics linked above indicate that it is wrong to describe the IRA as responsible for the deaths of more Catholics than loyalists. But the fact remains that they are the responsible for the deaths of many, and more than the British Army. The broad thrust of the argument - that the IRA campaign hurt those that they would claim they were protecting - holds.



Even leaving aside the extent to which collusion with paramilitaries can be shown, their responsiblity for one in ten deaths is a valid source of concern. However, it is important to recognise that this does not invalidate the fact that the IRA campaign was not an heroic struggle against oppression.

It's also important to bear in mind that many Unionists would equally hold the opinion that the Irish Republic provided a safe haven for paramilitaries. Pretending that the whole conflict was all about british security services (I'm not suggesting you are doing this, just that some seem to) is simply at variance with the reality that mostly the conflict was about IRA violence.

I accept that the IRA campaign hurt people from every section of the community that was never in dispute




the original contention by mycroft was that the IRA killed more people from the catholic community than anyone else and that is false and I have proven it was false

I dont understand what you mean the conflict was not about IRA violence
IRA violence was part of the conflict
the conflict was about the British occupation of the 6 counties

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

the facts as you choose to view them

you have deliberately misunderstood what i said i asked should the IRA have only targeted catholic businesses or catholic towns to avoid the label of sectarian if the town or business was protestant

That's just being facicious cdebru.

the fact is that they attacked businesses and towns catholic and protestant

Would you like to point out the deliberate targetting of catholic businesses for anything other than alleged touting or "giving comfort to the enemy" since you want to distinguish between protestant workers and protestant workers working on army towers.

Only the very naeive would attempt to compare the PIRA campaign with that of the loyalist paramilitaries whose main course of action was to identify easy catholics and kill them the link from the previous post

I do indeed recognise that the loyalists were far more predatory in a great deal of their choice of targets than the IRA, yet that also does not make the IRA's campaign actions any less sectarian.

If you verbally abuse and discriminate against a person, or go beat up that person based on their religion or whatnot, it's still sectarian.

if you take these facts to be correct( unfortunately it does not give a breakdown by group other than loyalist or republican)

151 killings out of 1926 are listed as sectarian that is what about 7 or 8 % and they are not all attributable to the PIRA

The fallacy in this is that the statistic attributes only actual out-and-out sectarian deaths, like that at Kings Mill. Not bombings or any other high-profile actions. Walking into an area populated by one group and planting a bomb in it is a sectarian act, no matter how many are injured or killed.

713 killings out of 911 by loyalist paramilitaries are listed as sectarian roughly 80% now you can seriously be suggesting that the IRAs campaign was sectarian based the same way as the loyalists that is just patent nonsense

A rose by any other name ......

One person gets convicted of killing 10 different people.
One person gets convicted of killing 15 different people.

They're both serial killers.

jman0

Lemming wrote:

The fallacy in this is that the statistic attributes only actual out-and-out sectarian deaths, like that at Kings Mill. Not bombings or any other high-profile actions. Walking into an area populated by one group and planting a bomb in it is a sectarian act, no matter how many are injured or killed.

I believe the Sutton database explain how they come to the conclusion of classifying one incident as sectarian and not another.

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

That's just being facicious cdebru.



Would you like to point out the deliberate targetting of catholic businesses for anything other than alleged touting or "giving comfort to the enemy" since you want to distinguish between protestant workers and protestant workers working on army towers.



I do indeed recognise that the loyalists were far more predatory in a great deal of their choice of targets than the IRA, yet that also does not make the IRA's campaign actions any less sectarian.

If you verbally abuse and discriminate against a person, or go beat up that person based on their religion or whatnot, it's still sectarian.



The fallacy in this is that the statistic attributes only actual out-and-out sectarian deaths, like that at Kings Mill. Not bombings or any other high-profile actions. Walking into an area populated by one group and planting a bomb in it is a sectarian act, no matter how many are injured or killed.



A rose by any other name ......

One person gets convicted of killing 10 different people.
One person gets convicted of killing 15 different people.

They're both serial killers.

well to take that to its logical conclusion the WW2 mass murder of innocent civilians in france germany japan etc by the allied side was just a campaign of mass murder not a heroic struggle to defeat fascism


I dont believe that that campaign can be judged just from certain actions like dresden or nagasaki and written off as mass murder
As bad as those actions were they do not mean that is what the allies were all about


the allegation that if the IRA planted a bomb in a protestant area that action is immediately sectarian is absolute nonsense
it is only sectarian if the area is picked solely on the basis of religion and the intended targets are picked on the basis of religion
I actually think that what you are suggesting is sectarian that the IRA should only have operated in catholic areas because that is the logic of what you are saying

apart from the fact that it would have been sectarian to conduct the campaign on that basis it would also have made the task of the British much easier in limiting the IRAs operating area to just catholics areas

ishmael whale

cdebru wrote:

I accept that the IRA campaign hurt people from every section of the community that was never in dispute

That's fine, that's a simple statement of fact.

cdebru wrote:

the original contention by mycroft was that the IRA killed more people from the catholic community than anyone else and that is false and I have proven it was false

Mycroft's statement is factually wrong. However, I take his key point to be simply that the IRA campaign was not some magnificent struggle against oppression, and actually impacted significantly on, among others, members of the community they would claim to have defended. I think we've made this point several times, but you keep bringing it back to the Mycroft's error rather than simply acknowledge the key point that the nature of the IRA campaign bears little resemblence to a war against occupation.

cdebru wrote:

IRA violence was part of the conflict

OK, a refinement of that statement. The IRA campaign accounted for most of the violence experienced during the conflict, with most of the victims of that violence being civilians and members of the security forces.

Unless 'British occupation' in your mind includes, for example, all those people who recently voted for the DUP, I think your flat statement that 'the conflict was about the British occupation of the 6 counties' is not quite how many would describe it.

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

Would you like to point out the deliberate targetting of catholic businesses for anything other than alleged touting or "giving comfort to the enemy" since you want to distinguish between protestant workers and protestant workers working on army towers.


.

that is the point the IRA did not deliberately target catholic businessses to do so would be sectarian the same as targeting protestant businesses

and the teebane killings wether you like it or not happened not because they were protestant not because they were construction workers
but because they were construction workers working on watch towers for the british security forces
now you can argue as to wether people collaborating with the British like that should be killed but not that they were just targeted because they were protestant they would have got the same treatment no matter what religion they were and many catholics were killed for that reason


BTW here is a better breakdown of the people killed and why

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/book/

saltar

ishmael whale wrote:

Mycroft's statement is factually wrong.

Correct, and in doing this he has damaged the credibility of his Key point.

ishmael whale wrote:

However, I take his key point to be simply that the IRA campaign was not some magnificent struggle against oppression

In my opinion it was completely that, and still is.

ishmael whale wrote:

simply acknowledge the key point that the nature of the IRA campaign bears little resemblence to a war against occupation.

No. It bears every resemblence to one of occupation.

cdebru

ishmael whale wrote:

That's fine, that's a simple statement of fact.



Mycroft's statement is factually wrong. However, I take his key point to be simply that the IRA campaign was not some magnificent struggle against oppression, and actually impacted significantly on, among others, members of the community they would claim to have defended. I think we've made this point several times, but you keep bringing it back to the Mycroft's error rather than simply acknowledge the key point that the nature of the IRA campaign bears little resemblence to a war against occupation.



OK, a refinement of that statement. The IRA campaign accounted for most of the violence experienced during the conflict, with most of the victims of that violence being civilians and members of the security forces.

Unless 'British occupation' in your mind includes, for example, all those people who recently voted for the DUP, I think your flat statement that 'the conflict was about the British occupation of the 6 counties' is not quite how many would describe it.

IRA Killings (1,821)

British Forces

British Army (BA) in Northern Ireland *

415

British Army (BA) outside Northern Ireland **

50

Former British Army (xBA) members ***

5

Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) / Royal Irish Regiment (RIR)

190

Former Ulster Defence Regiment (xUDR) / Royal Irish Regiment (xRIR) members

39

Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)

272

Former Royal Ulster Constabulary (xRUC) members

14

British Police ****

6

Prison Officers (PO)

20

Former Prison Officers (xPO)

2

Total British Forces Killed

1,013

Note:
* Includes 1 member of the Royal Navy (RN);
** Includes 4 members of the Royal Air Force (RAF);
*** Killed in Northern Ireland;
**** Killed in Britain


Alleged Informers

Total

63

Loyalist Paramilitary Personnel

Ulster Defence Association (UDA)

21

Former Ulster Defence Association (xUDA) members

3

Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF)

11

Total

35

Unintended Targets

Civilians killed during attacks on British Forces, or who were mistaken for British Forces

Protestant civilians

73

Catholic civilians

51

Civilians not from Northern Ireland *

15

Civilians killed who were mistaken for Loyalist paramilitary personnel

Protestant civilians

4

Catholic civilians

1

Civilian killed who was mistaken for a contractor to British Forces

Catholic civilian

1

Civilians killed during attacks on the Northern Ireland Judiciary or who were mistaken for members of the Northern Ireland Judiciary

Protestant civilians

4

Catholic civilians

1

Civilian killed during an attack on a Unionist politician

Protestant civilian

1

Total

151

Note:
* Includes 7 civilians killed in Britain and 4 killed elsewhere in Europe.

Bomb attacks on commercial property

IRA personnel and civilians killed in premature bomb explosions, and civilians killed during bomb attacks on commercial property in Northern Ireland

Irish Republican Army (IRA) personnel *

103

Non-specific Republicans (REP)

2

Protestant civilians **

75

Catholic civilians **

33

Civilians not from Northern Ireland (nfNI)

2

Total

215

Note:
* Includes 4 IRA members killed in premature bomb explosions in Britain;
** Includes 1 Catholic and 5 Protestant civilians killed while attempting to stop bomb attack on their commercial property


Civilians working for British Forces

Civilians employed directly by the British Army (BA)

7

Contractors to British Army (BA) and Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) *

27

Total

34

Note:
* Includes 12 employees of contractors

Sectarian killings of Protestant civilians *

Total

134

Note:
* Deliberate killings of Protestant civilians. 91 of these killings occurred during the three years 1974-1976. The IRA used a nom de guerre - Republican Action Force (RepAF) - to claim responsibility for some of these killings during this period.

Civilians in Britain

Total

46

British 'VIPs'

Christopher Ewart-Biggs, British Ambassador to Ireland, and his secretary

2

Richard Sykes, British Ambassador to The Netherlands, and his valet

2

Lord Louis Mountbatten and his entourage

4

Bomb attack on British Conservative Party's Annual Conference

5

Ian Gow, Conservative MP

1

Lord Kaberry, ex-Conservative MP

1

Total

15

Unionist / Loyalist Politicians

Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) Members

4

Ulster Clubs (UC) Member

1

Loyalist Association of Workers (LAW) Member

1

Member of Ulster Resistance (UR)

1

Ulster Democratic Party (UDP) Members *

2

Total

9

Note:
* Formerly Ulster Loyalist Democratic Party

Feud with Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) (all prior to 1978)

Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) members

4

Members of Republican Clubs (now Workers' Party; WP)

3

Catholic civilians

5

Total

12

Irish Republic's Forces

Garda Síochána

6

Irish Army

1

Total

7

Northern Ireland Judiciary

Judges

3

Magistrates

4

Senior Director of Public Prosecutions Official

1

Total

8

Alleged criminals and drug dealers

Total

23

Others

Protestant civilians during street disturbances

8

Protestant civilians at Irish Republican Army (IRA) roadblocks

2

Catholic civilian at Irish Republican Army (IRA) roadblock

1

'Foreign' Businessmen (all early 1977)

3

Member of Irish People's Liberation Organisation Belfast Brigade (IPLOBB) *

1

Applicant to Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)

1

Witness to an Irish Republican Army (IRA) operation

1

Civilians killed during armed robberies

4

Civilian instructor employed by Northern Ireland Prison Service

1

Civilian census collector

1

Fine Gael (FG) Senator **

1

Irish Republican Army (IRA) member in dispute

1

Former Irish Republican Army (xIRA) members in dispute

2

Irish Republican Army (IRA) member shot 'in error'

1

Member of real Irish Republican Army (rIRA)

1

Total

29

Note:
* A splinter group from the Irish People's Liberation Organisation (IPLO), killed during the enforced disbandment of these two groups by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) during the autumn of 1992;
** Billy Fox, Fine Gael (FG) Senator, was shot during a confrontation with an Irish Republican Army (IRA) unit near to the home of a friend, Clones, County Monaghan, during March 1974.

Reason Not Known

Protestant civilians

2

Catholic civilians

24

Civilian not from Northern Ireland *

1

Total

27

Note:
* Dutch seaman killed 12 November 1971.


personally I think those figures dispute your contention that the IRAs campaign was not primarily against the British occupation


by far the largest group of victims of the IRA were security forces

Hydroquinone

cdebru wrote:

well to take that to its logical conclusion the WW2 mass murder of innocent civilians in france germany japan etc by the allied side was just a campaign of mass murder not a heroic struggle to defeat fascism

Unless I'm mistaken WW2 comprised a series of sovereign nations who had declared war on each other for a variety of reasons or who were drawn into that war because of international agreements they had previously entered into with one or other of the protagonists.

So let's not get carried away in grandiose notions. Which sovereign states do you imagine have declared war on this island within living memory?

Not that I'm not saying that it's any better for civilians to be killed in a war between sovereign states and a war between the armed forces and illegal armed insurgents. Of course I'm not.
But let's get real for a minute - if the Irish government ever decided to declare war on Britain to retrieve what the IRA thinks ist should have, we'd all be toast.
There's war and there's terrorism. One is answerable to a government mandate and international treaties and rules of engagement and one isn't.
Juat because the IRA fans like to think of the IRA as soldiers, it doesn't mean that they are.

saltar

Hydroquinone wrote:

But let's get real for a minute - if the Irish government ever decided to declare war on Britain to retrieve what the IRA thinks ist should have, we'd all be toast.
.

Ehhh? and what was 1916 then?
beans on toast I presume?

cdebru

Hydroquinone wrote:

Unless I'm mistaken WW2 comprised a series of sovereign nations who had declared war on each other for a variety of reasons or who were drawn into that war because of international agreements they had previously entered into with one or other of the protagonists.

So let's not get carried away in grandiose notions. Which sovereign states do you imagine have declared war on this island within living memory?

Not that I'm not saying that it's any better for civilians to be killed in a war between sovereign states and a war between the armed forces and illegal armed insurgents. Of course I'm not.
But let's get real for a minute - if the Irish government ever decided to declare war on Britain to retrieve what the IRA thinks ist should have, we'd all be toast.
There's war and there's terrorism. One is answerable to a government mandate and international treaties and rules of engagement and one isn't.
Juat because the IRA fans like to think of the IRA as soldiers, it doesn't mean that they are.

no my point is not to compare the IRA to a sovereign state

it is to raise the point that a campaign can not be judged by its worst action

the fact that the allies engaged in mass murder of civilians does not mean that is what the campaign was about it clearly was not

the fact that the IRA engaged in some sectarian attacks does not mean that the IRA campaign was sectarian in nature

ishmael whale

cdebru wrote:

personally I think those figures dispute your contention that the IRAs campaign was not primarily against the British occupation.

by far the largest group of victims of the IRA were security forces

saltar wrote:

In my opinion it was completely that, and still is.

Personally some people think that dinosaur bones where put their by God to test our faith. Your assertion fits into much the same category, and your appeal to 'personally' and 'opinion' confirms to me that you cannot find an objective case to support your perspective.

saltar

ishmael whale wrote:

Personally some people think that dinosaur bones where put their by God to test our faith.

mmm...Bill Hicks... could'nt you be a bit more original ish.

Hydroquinone

saltar wrote:

Ehhh? and what was 1916 then?
beans on toast I presume?

Ehhh yourself

Which Irish government would that be?
According to what I learned at school the Provisional Government of Ireland was set up as a direct result of 1916.
I presume you're not suggesting that an Irish government, prior to it being established, somehow actually managed to go back in time to declare war on Britain?
What are we - Descendents of time lords or something? Was Dr Who the first Taoiseach?

Although, to be honest, I meant that if the Irish government of NOW ever decided to declare war on Britain, that we'd be toast.
Was that not clear from the we'd = we would?

saltar

Hydroquinone wrote:

Ehhh yourself

Which Irish government would that be?

That would be the first proclaimed here http://www.users.bigpond.com/kirwilli/1916/proc.htm in 1916

Hydroquinone wrote:

According to what I learned at school the Provisional Government of Ireland was set up as a direct result of 1916.
I presume you're not suggesting that an Irish government, prior to it being established, somehow actually managed to go back in time to declare war on Britain?

unfortunately your history teacher did'nt know much about Ireland then did he? Yes an Irish goverment had been proclaimed or established prior to the rising.

mycroft

saltar wrote:

Correct, and in doing this he has damaged the credibility of his Key point.

Ah is it though?

See Sand was kind enough to post the link; which is this.

http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

If you'll examine it the IRA killed 340 catholics, far more than any organisation. 60 more the UVF in fact and this was a group allegation by the above poster to target specifically catholics.

I stand over my orginal point.

I also find it fascinating that cdebru has gone from rejecting the sucide rate in west belfast, to rejecting it was called by republicans to quietly dropping the INLA accusation, because simply put the INLA could not operate "community policing" units without the tact support of the IRA.

In my opinion it was completely that, and still is.

In your opinion, unfortunately everyone else's opinion has these handy things called facts supporting them.

the fact that the IRA engaged in some sectarian attacks does not mean that the IRA campaign was sectarian in nature

Ah so the occasional outburst of sectarian violence and killing is an unfortunate by product of the IRA campaign. Convient. You do like painting the rosiest picture of the IRA while ignoring the less salubrous or noble aspects of "the struggle" by condemning those acts.

Let me break it down for you. If your army, engages in the kind of mindless sectarian violence it was alledgly forumed to combat, it is no better than the mindless thugs on the other side.