Should the IRA or republicans return to violence?

ishmael whale

saltar wrote:

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

If I was flogging that old lay that its all about British occupation of our fourth green field I'd be both unoriginal and wrong. I'm happy enough about being unoriginal and right.

saltar

saltar wrote:

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

Talk about going from the sublime to the ridiculous....

cdebru

ishmael whale wrote:

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.

the figures are there for anyone to read and peruse and they speak for themselves

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

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



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.

you can stand over your original point you can stand under it either it wont change the fact that you were wrong
LOYALIST KILLINGS

Four paramilitary groups have carried out the Loyalist killinqs:

1. Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) has killed 481. It has also used nommes de guerre, Protestant Action Force (PAF), and Protestant Action Group (PAG) to claim responsibility for some killings. Included in this figure are 13 killings carried out by its offshoot, Red Hand Commando (RHC).
2. Ulster Defence Association (UDA) has killed 261. This figure includes 2 killinqs claimed by the Loyalist Retaliation and Defence Group (LRDG) during 1991. The UDA has never claimed responsibility for any killing, preferring to use a nom de guerre, Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF).
3. Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) has killed 18.
4. Red Hand Defenders (RHD) has killed 8.

In many instances, Loyalist military groups have never claimed responsibility for their killings, therefore it is virtually impossible to ascertain in every case which loyalist group carried out a particular killing. There are 252 killings in the non-specific loyalist group category marked 'Loyalist' (or non-specific Loyalist group; 'LOY') in the text. Hence all loyalist killings have been grouped together in the tables below.


Loyalist Killings (1,020)

Republican Paramilitary Personnel


Irish Republican Army (IRA) members

20

Former members of the Irish Republican Army (xIRA)

10

Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) members

4

Former members of Irish National Liberation Army (xINLA)

1

Irish People's Liberation Organisation (IPLO) members

2

Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) members

5

Total

42

Nationalist / Republican Politicians


Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) members

5

Sinn Fein (SF) members *

14

Workers Party (WP) member

1

Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP) members

3

Irish Independence Party (IIP) member

1

Independent Nationalist Councillors

2

Nationalist Lawyers

2

Ex-internees

3

Total

31

Note:
* Includes one former member of Sinn Fein (SF).

British Forces


British Army (BA) in Northern Ireland

1

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

3

Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)

8

Prison Officers (PO)

2

Total *

14

Note:
* Of the total 3 were killed during attacks on Catholic civilians, Catholic owned property or were mistaken for a Catholic, 1 was a Catholic member of the UDR, and 1 was killed during a bomb attack on a garage that had remained open during a Loyalist strike. Only 9 of the killings of British forces have been deliberate (6 RUC members, 1 British Army member and 2 prison officers).

Alleged Informers


Total

16

Sectarian Killings of Catholic civilians *


Total

713

Note:
* Deliberate killing of Catholic civilians. Includes 65 Protestant civilians, and 7 civilians not from Northern Ireland (3 from Britain and 4 from Irish Republic) killed because they were mistaken for Catholic civilians, or associated with Catholic civilians.

Unintended Targests


Catholic civilians killed during attacks on Republican paramilitary personnel

6

Catholic civilians killed during attacks on Nationalist / Republican politicians

8

Protestant civilian killed during attack on British Forces

1

Protestant civilian killed during attack on an alleged informer

1

Total

16

Premature Bomb Explosions


Ulster Defence Association (UDA) members

8

Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) members

15

Non-specific Loyalist group members

2

Catholic civilian

1

Total

26

Civilians in the Irish Republic


Total

44

Loyalist Feuds
(Includes UDA/UVF feud 1974-1977, Intra loyalist feud 2000, and internal UDA and UVF disputes)


Ulster Defence Association (UDA) members killed

24

Former Ulster Defence Association (xUDA) members

4

Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) members killed

19

Former Ulster Volunteer Force (xUVF) member

2

Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) members

2

Protestant civilian

2

Total

56

Others
Civilians during armed robberies

10

Civilians during punishment attacks

4

Civilians working during Loyalist strike *

2

Catholic journalist **

1

Precise reason for killing not known

45

Total

62

Note:
* A fireman and a bus driver
** Martin O'Hagan killed 28 September 2001



as for your suicide theory i posted a link about 2 pages back in which a guy from the suicide prevention group dismisses your claim but you ignored that


as for your claim that the INLA could not operate without the permission of the PIRA it is nonsense
can you produce any credible evidence to that effect or can you just feel it in your water



let me break it down for you again I dont write of the allies who defeated fascism in WW2 because sometimes they engaged in the wholesale slaughter of women and children as horrendous as those acts were


nor do I write of the PIRA campaign because they unfortunately sometimes allowed themselves to be dragged into sectarian warfare particularly in the period 1974 to 1976 as horrendous as those acts like kings mill were

cdebru,I do hope you're not going down the well travelled road of using tit for tat killings to justify the IRA...

Tit didn't live without Tat you know...

jman0

Paisley confirms he will not share power with SF.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4560215.stm
This is something we knew all along.
Apparently Paisley, and other unionists are more comfortable with Direct Rule.
If the GFA is to succeed, this scenario must change.
HMG are the only ones who can change it.
They've unilaterally suspended the institions time and again at the behest of unionists.
An obvious way out of the impasse is if HMG make Direct Rule a less comfortable arrangement for unionists. For example: if the NIO was renamed to NI/RoI Office.
If Direct Rule looked more like Joint Sovereignty, I suspect the unionists would change their minds about not coming to agreement with their nationalist neighbors.
This is unlikely to occur however because it would require substantial legislative changes in both HMG and RoI. While RoI may endeavor, HMG can't be counted to pull the finger out.
A little prodding by RoI might help, if that was forthcoming. But seriously, can they light a spark under HMG's arse? No but i can think of a proscribed organisation that might be willing.
Final legislative changes may not even be necessary, the threat of Joint Sovereignty may be enough to move the unionist obstructionist mountain. It has never been tried.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Paisley confirms he will not share power with SF.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4560215.stm
This is something we knew all along.
Apparently Paisley, and other unionists are more comfortable with Direct Rule.
If the GFA is to succeed, this scenario must change.
HMG are the only ones who can change it.
They've unilaterally suspended the institions time and again at the behest of unionists.

But , like these guys have a mandate aswell.

The way I see it, militant republicanism is damned now and paisley knows this.
If militant republicanism goes back to violence, it leaves the situation open to all the doubters to say I told you so, they wont care much if its by proxy either up there or down here.SF would most definitely suffer at the ballot box, especially in the south.
It's not an option.

Paisley knows this and he has the vast majority of unionists now behind him and I'd guess a soft majority of even those that voted OU.

Thus if you want my opinion, the GFA as a template is still there but as regards the form it was supposed to be implimented, thats not going to happen now or ever.
The only thing positive that can happen now is further negotiation and another compromise.

ishmael whale

cdebru wrote:

the figures are there for anyone to read and peruse and they speak for themselves

Just to help our interpretation of the figures, when you say they illustrate that the conflict was about British occupation, you might clarify something.

Did/does this British occupation, as you see it, comprise:
The British Army, excluding the UDR?
The British Army, including the UDR?
The British Army, UDR and the RUC?
The British Army, UDR, RUC and anyone who votes DUP?
The British Army, UDR, RUC and anyone who votes DUP or OUP?
Any combination of the above, or any combination of the above and groups not listed? (For example, are the PSNI a force of occupation in your mindset, are Alliance Party supporters British occupiers?)

Bear in mind that traditionally advocates of the ‘British occupation’ view skate around the reality that if the British are taken out of the equation we are left with a sizeable unionist community who have a different perspective on things.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

The way I see it, militant republicanism is damned now and paisley knows this.
If militant republicanism goes back to violence, it leaves the situation open to all the doubters to say I told you so, they wont care much if its by proxy either up there or down here.SF would most definitely suffer at the ballot box, especially in the south.
It's not an option.

Paisley knows this and he has the vast majority of unionists now behind him and I'd guess a soft majority of even those that voted OU.

Thus if you want my opinion, the GFA as a template is still there but as regards the form it was supposed to be implimented, thats not going to happen now or ever.
The only thing positive that can happen now is further negotiation and another compromise.

In fairness i think the main reason the IRA won't go back war is the prisoners.
The fact that they were released under the terms of the GFA make the provos honor bound to it. However when i say that a certain proscribed organisation may be willing to provide the "spark" under HMG's arse; there is a subtle ambiguity there. And while my personal preference would be for that "spark" to be a 1 tonne load of semtex on a 180 min timer; it could mean something else. It could mean a final act of decommissioning, under the terms of the GFA.
But nevermind that, the point of the post was that HMG needs to make Direct Rule as unappealing as possible. It is already for nationalists, but it isn't for unionsts. Carrot and Stick.

Lemming

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

It wasn't a "heroic" struggle at all. It was self interest on the part of Britan & France that led to a declaration of war. Only at the war's end did some of the horrors of the Hitler regime come out which justified the stand in a more "good vs. evil" light.

But on that note, yes the allies have done some very unsavoury things during WW2 and have questions to answer and apologies to make. Dresden and Nagasaki most certainly. But to compare WW2 & the North is utterly, utterly absurd cdebru and akin to comparing apples with oranges. You know that as well as anyone else.

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

See my point about comparing apples with oranges and the absurdity of what you've just written.

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'm not even going to bother replying to that above statement. That is just incredulous and quite quite callous cdebru. Worthy of the best litter-bin bomb in Warrington or bombing Harrods toy store in London at Christmas.

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

No, that's not what I'm saying, and once more that remark of yours is quite facicuous cdebru. IF the IRA were wanting to hurt the UK economy, then why weren't they targetting successful businesses wherever they were. Why only the targetting of protestant businesses? By the way I might add that you have failed to provide one catholic business targetted under the dubious notion of "fighting the good fight". I believe the termy "hypocrasy" is in order.

Once more cdebru, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

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

Once again, I say that you sir are being facicous and a hypocrate into the bargain.

jman0

Lemming your trying to zero-sum the IRA's campaign in a false light.
There are certain logistical realities of the various bombing campaigns they've initiated. They cannot become too predictable otherwise they get caught.
Also, spreading the conflict around: sometimes concentrate on bringing it to England, sometimes closer to home. Sometimes target HMG's economy, sometimes their foot soldiers.
In your interpretation of the IRA's campaign it must be quite puzzling to you why the IRA would target so many soldiers as that obviously entails a certain risk of facing return fire. As well as the fact that they couldn't possibly know if that soldier was a protestant or a catholic. And if he were a catholic, then (in your view of the sectarian/religiously bigotted nature of the Republican movement) wouldn't the IRA face internal consequences ie: loss of support etc for having killed one of their own religion?

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

Lemming your trying to zero-sum the IRA's campaign in a false light.

No. I'm just pointing out the hypocritical bullsh*t propoganda that is being spouted by IRA apologists/logistic suppliers/activitists/whatever you are.

There are certain logistical realities of the various bombing campaigns they've initiated. They cannot become too predictable otherwise they get caught.
Also, spreading the conflict around: sometimes concentrate on bringing it to England, sometimes closer to home. Sometimes target HMG's economy, sometimes their foot soldiers.

"Srpreading the conflict around"? I must remember that :rolleyes:

That could then be used to justify the loyalist campaign and every manner in which the British security forces attempted to deal with the situation in N.ireland over the last 30+ years.

So, there we have it. The IRA were completely justified - as were the loyalist paramilitaries and teh British security forces. Bloody Sunday was completely justified because it was "spreading the conflict around". The shoot to kill policy was completely justified because it was "spreading the conflict around". Every nail-bombing of catholic schools & groups of children on their way to school was completely justified because it was "spreading teh conflict around".

How do you like them apples?

In your interpretation of the IRA's campaign it must be quite puzzling to you why the IRA would target so many soldiers as that obviously entails a certain risk of facing return fire.

Actually ... that's the only part of any IRA campaign that might possibly be justifiable.

As well as the fact that they couldn't possibly know if that soldier was a protestant or a catholic. And if he were a catholic, then (in your view of the sectarian/religiously bigotted nature of the Republican movement) wouldn't the IRA face internal consequences ie: loss of support etc for having killed one of their own religion?

No for one simple reason - bigottry and fervour go hand-in-hand. If "one of your own" is in a position that is not yoru own then they are a "traitor". So the answer to your not-so-clever-little-attempt-to-distort-my-so-called-view is an emphatic "no" since time and again events would flyin the face of your attempt. Look at the McCartney sisters as a prime and very current example of the IRA mindset.

jman0

Lemming wrote:

"Srpreading the conflict around"? I must remember

Sorry i should have been more clear.
Spreading the conflict around is a technique employed to frustrate HMG's forces from being able to narrow the scope of operations (both their own operations and the IRA's), and pre-empt/ambush the IRA.

you know: so HMG can't just saturate a particular area with troops.

Stabshauptmann

Earthman wrote:

cdebru,I do hope you're not going down the well travelled road of using tit for tat killings to justify the IRA...

Tit didn't live without Tat you know...

Rather than labelling those who were killed as either catholic or protestant (which is IMO signs of a sectarian mentality) cdebru has shown how people died.

The results show interesting trends in the proportions of innocents targeted by both sides which refutes mycrofts claims (if these figures are accurate) that the IRA was a bigger threat to nationalist communities than loyalists or the security forces

Half-Bicycle

Earthman wrote:

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...


Taken from here

No, I am referring to Ishmael saying that it's NOT to do with the British security forces. Collusion and all that?

ishmael whale

Half-Bicycle wrote:

No, I am referring to Ishmael saying that it's NOT to do with the British security forces. Collusion and all that?

It's a simple fact that, using deaths as our indicator, most of the violence was carred out by Republicans.

How is stating a simple fact offensive to anyone?

Half-Bicycle

ishmael whale wrote:

It's a simple fact that, using deaths as our indicator, most of the violence was carred out by Republicans.

How is stating a simple fact offensive to anyone?

When you gloss over British sceurity forces' violence and collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, it might be viewed as offensive?

Kaptain Redeye

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

The results show interesting trends in the proportions of innocents targeted by both sides which refutes mycrofts claims (if these figures are accurate) that the IRA was a bigger threat to nationalist communities than loyalists or the security forces

I'd probably question the way mycroft went about saying what I think he was trying to say also, but not the spirit of it.
My memory of the latter stages of the nonsensical conflict in the North was it's Tit for Tat nature ergo if the IRA decided to go down the discussion route a lot sooner, a lot of lives would have been saved.

Half-Bicycle wrote:

When you gloss over British sceurity forces' violence and collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, it might be viewed as offensive?

I'll take the question mark there as extra emphasis for the might part of what you say.

I don't think anyone is excusing any wrong here but some might be attaching more importance to the extent of one wrong over the other ?

jman0

Earthman wrote:

I don't think anyone is excusing any wrong here but some might be attaching more importance to the extent of one wrong over the other ?

Sure isn't that the nature of conflicts Earthman?
It's clearly what the media do in regards NI.

As for:

Earthman wrote:

.. if the IRA decided to go down the discussion route a lot sooner, a lot of lives would have been saved

Cannot be proved nor disproved. However i recall Patrick Mayhew in particular making pleading public statements that if the IRA would only stop, they'd see dialogue leading toward conflict resolution.
(not to be forgetting the secret negotiations where HMG was basically asking of SF - 'we want to get out of violence, but you have to help us'
And so they did.

ishmael whale

Earthman wrote:

I don't think anyone is excusing any wrong here but some might be attaching more importance to the extent of one wrong over the other ?

More or less what Earthman said. Simply stating the fact that most violence can be attributed to the IRA necessarily implies that an amount of violence can be attributed to others, so any 'glossing over' of the crimes of others is largely in the eye of the beholder.

I think its clear from my posts on this thread that all I'm really saying is that the IRA campaign was not some heroic struggle, and they can't be regarded as holding some moral high ground. I really don't see how that is offensive to anyone who suffered a bereavement becauses of the actions of any of the other organisations active in the conflict.

Lemming

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Rather than labelling those who were killed as either catholic or protestant (which is IMO signs of a sectarian mentality) cdebru has shown how people died.

Well see ... that's just it. Rather than the grim, morbid and altogether moot fascination with how people died, I'm asking WHY they died. A bit more productive in its scope one might think, no? Not to mention somewhat more likely to get to the truth of the matter.]

Q: How did person X die.
A: bomb-blast. Fact. Not much else to ask really or read from that.

Q: Why did person X die.
A: Eerrrrr ... well ...... y'see ....

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Sure isn't that the nature of conflicts Earthman?
It's clearly what the media do in regards NI.

would this be the same media that Margaraet Thatcher tried to silence when they wanted to show Death on the Rock ?

Cannot be proved nor disproved.

You think, that loyalists would be bombing and shooting if the IRA weren't? Thats stretching credibility to snap point to be honest.

However i recall Patrick Mayhew in particular making pleading public statements that if the IRA would only stop, they'd see dialogue leading toward conflict resolution.
(not to be forgetting the secret negotiations where HMG was basically asking of SF - 'we want to get out of violence, but you have to help us'
And so they did.

I suppose John Hume had little or nothing to do with what panned out..?

jman0

Earthman wrote:

I suppose John Hume had little or nothing to do with what panned out..?

While I have always had great respect for John Hume, i think specifically you are referring to the Humes-Adams dialogue and yes i would say it helped a little. But i wouldn't over estimate this because what did it really achieve?
Maybe: a meeting of the minds between republicans and sdlp, and maybe provided a certain public relations platform to get the irish government engaged.
But sure, if you ask the PD's they'll tell you the Peace Process began with the "peace people", or was it the "peace train" ... if you can even remember them?

jman0

jman0 wrote:

had great respect for John Hume,

What did he do to lose your respect?

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

cdebru,I do hope you're not going down the well travelled road of using tit for tat killings to justify the IRA...

Tit didn't live without Tat you know...

Earthman I do hope you will read what i wrote if you can find were i wrote any justification for sectarian murder please point it out

I do not nor have I ever supported the any form of sectarianism

cdebru

ishmael whale wrote:

Just to help our interpretation of the figures, when you say they illustrate that the conflict was about British occupation, you might clarify something.

Did/does this British occupation, as you see it, comprise:
The British Army, excluding the UDR?
The British Army, including the UDR?
The British Army, UDR and the RUC?
The British Army, UDR, RUC and anyone who votes DUP?
The British Army, UDR, RUC and anyone who votes DUP or OUP?
Any combination of the above, or any combination of the above and groups not listed? (For example, are the PSNI a force of occupation in your mindset, are Alliance Party supporters British occupiers?)

Bear in mind that traditionally advocates of the ‘British occupation’ view skate around the reality that if the British are taken out of the equation we are left with a sizeable unionist community who have a different perspective on things.

the british army the UDR which was a regiment of the british army the RUC which was a paramilitary police force and part of the crown forces like the RIC that came before it

I dont skate around anything I recognise that there is a sizeable proportion of the population of Ireland that would prefer to maintain the link with the UK

it is why I support the GFA

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

Earthman I do hope you will read what i wrote if you can find were i wrote any justification for sectarian murder please point it out

Oh I did read what you wrote,I just also read the trend in the thread,thats why I expressed the hope.
Your viewpoint is taken.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

I'd probably question the way mycroft went about saying what I think he was trying to say also, but not the spirit of it.
My memory of the latter stages of the nonsensical conflict in the North was it's Tit for Tat nature ergo if the IRA decided to go down the discussion route a lot sooner, a lot of lives would have been saved.

I'll take the question mark there as extra emphasis for the might part of what you say.

I don't think anyone is excusing any wrong here but some might be attaching more importance to the extent of one wrong over the other ?

I think your memory is wrong if you are suggesting that the IRA engaged in tit for tat sectarian killings during the early nineties late eighties

the figures that i produced earlier dispute that

what my memory is that the loyalist paramilitaries engaged in sectarian attacks alledgedly in retaliation for IRA attacks on british security personnel

the evidence is however and the recent murder of the young girl by the LVF which has gained so little attention that the PUP had to raise it that loyalists don't need the IRA or anyone else to coax them into killing a catholic

jman0

jman0 wrote:

And while my personal preference would be for that "spark" to be a 1 tonne load of semtex on a 180 min timer;

{moderator hat on} It is not in order to be expressing views like that here.
Do not do so again. This is supposed to be a discussion board and not an advocate for what you are proposing.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

I think your memory is wrong if you are suggesting that the IRA engaged in tit for tat sectarian killings during the early nineties late eighties

my point was that the loyalists wouldnt have been retaliating if the IRA werent bombing ergo lives would have been saved.

the recent murder of the young girl by the LVF which has gained so little attention that the PUP had to raise it that loyalists don't need the IRA or anyone else to coax them into killing a catholic

Was she a catholic?