Post by Westprog...
Post by MavisbeaconLet me clarify. I EXCLUDED the <ilitary in uniform above when I
discussed them and pointed out that they were indeterminate as far a
Loyalism is concerned. But they DID wear a uniform and as such as far
as the IRA were concerned were supporters of the establishment. MOST
of the IRA killings were against such targets. But I was discussing
the rest (which is substantial) i.e. the numbers in the Sutton
database which were compared to the larget Loyalist numbers. One
could not really claim these were all people who just happened to be
in the vicinity when the IRA were targeting Military targets. some
for example were other IRA . But the point is the NON Military do not
break down as being targeted for religious background as much as the
Loyalist targets do.
Religion and uniform were just markers. They indicated that someone
belonged to the other lot.
Yes but as you pointed out you can visually IDENTIFY a uniform but not a
religious affiliation. Furthermore I didn't raise the issue of whether
killing a soldire is "worse" or "better" than killing a Catholic for
example. the main point I was making was that the people who killed soldires
did it for DIFFERENT REASONS to those that killed Catholics. And the reason
what that is important is that it is in removing the reason for it should
remove the action. Furthermore i think it is simplistic to say that if the
action was killing Catholics that the reason behind this reason was "The IRA
exist" . You can not just say "The IRA exist therefore Catholics should be
killed until the IRA do not exist" and say that is the same as "Ireland is
under British juristiction and occupied by British Military therefore
British Military should be killed until they do not occupy Irish soil" . You
CAN however equate it with "The UDA exist and therefore Protestants should
be killed until the UDA do not exist". But the IRA rarely if ever had this
phrase as a policy - that is my point!
Post by WestprogThe reason that loyalists didn't kill people wearing uniform was because
the other side didn't wear uniforms, priests and nuns aside.
Yes because in the "establishment protectors" and "occupiers" wore uniform
and the Loyalists had no REASON to target establishment.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogThey shot them. The loyalists didn't have any uniformed
representatives of the Irish state to shoot. Hence they killed other
targets. Who were the loyalists supposed to be killing? Can't have a
war without killing.
Actually one can but the idea of "we don't see anyone in Uniform so
if we kill anyone we THINK is worth killing then we are doing THE
SAME as the IRA ! is clearly ludicrous.
It was exactly the same as the IRA.
No it wasn't! I have shown you the statistical breakdown. Most IRA killings
were non civilians and of sivilians the IRA killed less numbers than
Loyalists and in a six to four or three to two religious spread and not a
four or five to one spread.
Post by WestprogThey were killing people on the other side. That's what happens in a war.
It was an undeclared, illegitimate, terrorist war, but a war is what it
was. And it was not a war between Britain and Ireland - it was a war
between the two communities in Northern Ireland.
Not as the IRA saw it! They have repatedly stated TWO reasons
1. Removal of an occupying military fro a 32 county Republic
2. protection of people who believe in a united Ireland
after that equal access to jobs and housing etc. And the IRA would apply
that to ALL of Ireland and not just to the North. Actually the wider
Republican community would accept those principles and the IRA only
represent a tiny minority of this community. Most Republicans would not
subscribe to the IRA view.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogIn spite of having such a wealth of targets available, the IRA still
killed nearly as many civilians as the loyalists
Nope the majority of Republican killings were of Military.
Republicans killed nearly as many civilians as the loyalists. Fact.
Which is saying they killed LESS!
Go >to
Post by WestprogCAIN, check the crosstab of victims against culprits. You'll find 738
civilians killed by republicans as against 873 killed by loyalists.
So the Loyalists killed 20 percent more. In addition Republican terrorists
killed many in large blasts such as Enniskillen. (11 deaths ) so the
civilian deaths are concentrated in the early years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Provisional_IRA_Actions
With the exception of Two austrailians in Holland, (1990) The victoria
station bomb (1 death 1991) the 1992 cookstown bomb (8 dead) Covent garden
(1 dead 1992) Warrington (1993 two dead) Bishops gate (1993 - 1 dead)
Shankhill chipper (1993 10 dead). The Chipper was not targeted just becuase
it was in a Protestant Area it was actually underneath the local UDA
headquarters. that doesnt justify it I am only pointig out it was chose for
that reason and not to kill civilians but it is included in civilian dead
anyway. 1996 London docklands - 2 dead. Then came the ceasefire
I make that 25 civilian deaths since 1990. You can crosstab year and
oganisation as well year and as status and you will note a spike in civilian
for republicans in 1998 but this is indicated as Real IRA, who had
"continued the struggle" just as Sinn Fein had back in the 1920s And Dev had
walked out and formed Fianna Fail. In any case you get roughtly 50 civilain
deaths a year since 1990. Maybe Sutton classifies politicians as "civilian"
but the majority of this 50 (and I mean 5 to ten IRA per year ) were
loyalist killings of civilians. the IRA did kill 80 percent as many
civilians yes but mostly in the Earlier years. The IRA has SHIFTED tactics
because their underlying reason was to attack British forces and not
civilians. I am not denying IRA still killed civilians nor do I justify it
but they killed far LESS than Loyalists. Furthermore had the IRA killed NO
civilians since 1990 I think even though one STILL may not justify who they
did killl that would be and entirely DIFFERENT picture to Loyalists! AS it
is the boundaries are blurred but they certainly are not the SAME regions
even if they have some common ground. They had on the whole DIFFERENT
targets for DIFFERNT reasons and judging them by the minority they shared is
not sound.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconAlso, blast
bombing campaigns were in specific times, so the deaths caused by
these were in specific "spikes" in which the IRA strategy changed for
example in blast bombing Metropolitan Britian or Army personell in
Holland or Germany. It can be checked because CAIN lists every case
of ever one of these deaths wher it can. I have not done so but I
would contend cases where IRA went looking for civilians and shot
them were extremely rare.
No, they weren't. Because a lot of those cases were "informers", or
"criminals".
If they were then they were probably IRA members anyway so they wouldnt be
under "civilian". But I now have gone and looked and sure enough there is a
"spike" in 1998 when the RIRA/CIRA split and the numbers of civilians killed
since 1990 is proportionately low compared to Loyalists.
Post by WestprogIt was fairly straightforward for the IRA to kill soldiers or police. When
they killed civilians, it was because they wanted to kill them. They
wanted collateral damage - it wasn't an unfortunate by-product. Planting
bombs at a Remembrance Day parade is not something you do if you don't
/want/ to kill the civilians you /know/ will be present.
Was this not done by a RIRA group who has gone AGAINST IRA policy?
Post by WestprogPlanting a bomb outside a school in Gibralter is not something you do if
you don't /want/ to kill civilians.
This bombwas not sucessfull and killed noone. So you cant use it as an
example. It was clearly targeted at a symbol of British rule - Occupation of
Gibraltar. But Ill giove you a similar example Warrington -the largest bomb
in Britian since WWII. Killed two civilians one was a three year old IIR.
But it did HUGE damage which cost about 600 million to fix IIR. And Canary
Wharf . Also civilians killed but did about 1,000 million of damage. Again
the media may have run with the civilian dead but the target was the
establishment. If they just wanted to kill people they didnt need bombs so
large and they could set them off at busier times. Just like the WTC
hijackers could have picked a busier time . But their target was clearly
symbols of US capitalism and militarism. The WTC, Pentagon and Washington
DC.
I one way the Loyalists did fit this type of targeting. In Dublin through
the seventies and eighties there were bombs every Christmas but rarely did
ayone die.
Only once and for a very short time - the Dublin Monaghan bombings -1974 I
think did the Loyalists appraoch the above type of campaigns. But the Dublin
Monaghan bombs (which killed 50 people IIR) WERE targeted at civilians and
certainly NOT at finance. they were car bombs on a busy street not outside
banks or police statins or any other symbol of society.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconI would contend, most of the civilian
deaths were people who were in the vicinity of bombs. This would also
suggest that when the IRA again changed tactics to using mortars
against Army bases, Downing St. etc. that the proportion of civilians
killed reduced. this can also be checked. I am quite prepared to
admit if the stats do not bear me out on this.
It's absurd to suggest that the IRA didn't want to kill the people they
killed.
They didnt target them. They did not know their names in advance. they
regarded then as "collateral damage" resulting from theior attack on the
main target usually a financial political or miliraty estyablishment one.
Certainly bombing a school does not fit into thhis motif so it is a very
good counter example. Can you supply some evidence that the IRA wanted to
bomb a school in Gibraltar?
Post by WestprogIt was quite possible for them to carry out their economic campaign
without hurting a single person.
Yeah. I would agree to some degree. If they had done that then they would
have retained some popular appeal. Even British people would have supported
them in Thatcherite Britian.
Post by WestprogThe purpose of the economic campaign was to terrorise the civilian
population.
I would dispute that. Your thesis seems to be "terrorism is not about
killing civilians but in getting most civilians to feel in fear of their
lives" . I would think that a poklice State might want this but not
necessarily terrorists. They do not want MORE security forcesthey want less.
Of course if the stated aim of the IRA was to keep society in perpetual war
then that would be different.
Post by WestprogThe purpose of murdering "informers" was to terrorise the Catholic
population. The purpose of bombing police and soldiers where civilian
casualties were inevitable was to terrorise the civilian population. The
purpose of murdering people who worked on military bases was to terrorise
the civilian population. A terrorist campaign which doesn't terrorise the
civilian population is pointless.
"Terrorise them" to what end? If you are keeping everyne in fear the State
will only INCREASE security forces and not deescalate. For Islamists the
terror campaign is to shock the people to revolt against their unjust
rulers. But why should the IRA for example want to keep a population of
their own supporters in a fear society?
Post by WestprogThe IRA would have achieved nothing by killing a handful of soldiers every
year. They /had/ to instill fear and despair in the ordinary population.
To what end? "give us a United Irelansd or you will get more of this" I
clearly a simplistic and childish and illogical methodology!
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconThis does not justify it but it does say the IRA were not targeting
Protestants. The Loyalists however WERE targeting Catholics just
because they were Catholics! Claiming that this was because they
couldn't actually find any IRA is as I stated - ludricrous.
The reason the loyalists didn't target the IRA is exactly the same reason
that the IRA didn't target the loyalists. It was too dangerous. That's why
they had an effective truce.
It WAS NOT too dangerous! It was much easier to kill a pub load of
Protestants or Catholics than to target a government Minister, A military
Unit or an active Military patrol!
Post by WestprogThe war in NI was always low-level, and required an abundance of soft
targets. Hence the outrage from republicans when IRA units planting bombs
on Gibralter or shooting up police stations in Loughall ended up dead. If
they'd wanted that kind of outcome, they'd have engaged the UVF and UDA
directly. If they'd done that, both lots of terrorists would have been
wiped out very quickly, to the enormous benefit of everyone else.
Again this is simplistic. It assumes that the IRA and loyalists represent
two distinct sides of a dispute between two distinct groups, each with the
sole raison d'etre of wiping out the other group.
And if the IRA and Loyalist terrorists were wiped out then you would be
baxck in a situation where a "tyranny of the majority" was denying human
rights to a minority and getting the State forces to attack that minority
should they complain. The benefit would not be for everyone!
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by Westprog- and vastly more than the security forces combined, whose regular
experience was being shot at from behind a crowd.
Certainly it was exceptionally rare (but not unheard of) for the
uniformed Military or RUC etc. to target civilians. Nor would it be
likely for the Army to employ blast bombs in order to accack the IRA.
But I would also sugest that the IRA didn't randomly shoot into
civilian crowds either.
No, they used high explosives.
But I have shown you the stats since 1990 and of the 750 or so IRA civilian
deaths about 20 occured because of this oer the 90s.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconBOTH specifically DIFFERED in whom they targeted!
Both differed in the targets available.
Let me clarify again. Loyalists ALSO had Military available as a
target the SAME Military that the IRA had available. Loyalists didn't
target this SAME group because Loyalists had DIFFERENT targets.
They didn't target the military because they were representatives of the
state which it was the IRA's aim to overthrow, and the loyalists' aim to
maintain.
i.e. DIFFERENT targets and DIFFERENT reasons. But again that is simplistic
and a CONTRADICTION of what was claimed earlier. Earlier the Loyalists
existed because the IRA did ( I suggested this isnt true because the
Loyalists started violence first which caused the Republicans to move
towards the IRA) . Now it seems you are claiming the Loyalists were defend
ing the State and the Republicans were attaking it! That is siumplistic
because no Northern Irish State existed in the minds of Republicans or
Loyalists. Nor did the IRA or Loyalists represent a mandate of either
Unionism or Nationalism.
Post by WestprogIt would have been ridiculous for the loyalists to target the military. The
loyalists were opposed to the IRA's aims of a united Ireland.
Which manifested in them killing mainly Catholics ? whereas the IRA who
wanted a United ireland didnt do the opposite and kill mainly Protestants.
They killed mainly Military.
Post by WestprogBoth the IRA and the loyalists were opposed to a settlement which
guaranteed minority rights in a Northern Irish state. To that extent, they
cooperated in avoiding the agreement which eventually came about.
If you mean "pre GFA" I agree with your analysis here.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogThe loyalists didn't have republicans wearing uniforms walking the
streets to shoot at. If they had done so, they would probably have
shot at them.
So the corollary is that because the IRA had problems with the
British Army retreating into barracks and fortifying themselves that
it was acceptable for them to kill civilians? You have a jaded view
of history if you think there is a "clean war" in which the Redcoats
shout "come out and fight us on the battlefield in a proper clean
fight". Trying to romanticise Loyalist Paramilitaries by comparing
them to the mythological "clean war" Redcoats rather than as the
group who targeted a higher percentage of civilans in N Ireland is
not really apt is it?
I'm not the one with a romantic view of the murder gangs and their motives.
Nor am I and you seem to be suggesting that I am such a person. Are you?
Yes, you are.
How so?
Post by WestprogYou have a mistaken view of the nature of the conflict, which is extremely
common among nationalists.
In other words you are saying "most nationalists are wrongw and "most
nationalists romanticise murder gangs"
Where did I romanticise a murder gang?
Post by WestprogIt's very comforting to think that the worst of the Unionists are much
worse than the worst of the nationalists, but it's not born out by the
facts.
I didnt say that. I neither moralised or put a scale on degree of judgement.
I didnt justify ANY killings. I only distinguished the reasons given by the
perpretrators for their own violence. I am not saying Loyalists are WORSE .
I stated they displayed sectarian motives wheras the Republicans had
differnt ones which were not secterian i.e. specifically directed against
religion. In the past a Nationalist uprising had occured led by Protestant
Ulstermen who wanted a United Ireland. The IRA couldn't decry such people.
But Loyalists the Orange Lodges and others COULD exclude Catholics.
Nationalism does not subsist in sectarianism.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogThey both killed people for evil motives.
Well I don't like using words like "evil" but yes one can not justify
what they did. so what? I was not trying to justify it was I? I was
making an entirely DIFFERENT point i.e. they wre not targeting THE
SAME targets in spite of having THE SAME targets available.
And I've explained repeatedly why they /didn't/ have the same targets
available.
But they did! They didnt attack the same targets however. And clearly the
stats show that the IRA were NOT targeting because of religion and Loyalists
WERE targeting Catholics! nationalists did NOT identify a United Ireland
with Papism, Loyalists did! Republicans were not in their eyes defending a
religion but Loyalists were in their eyes attacking one. Nationalists wanted
governent for ireland by irish people. ALL Irish people whether protestant
or Catholic or dissenter. In the South Jews Protestants even Indians have
become MPs Presidents heads of Farmers Organisations even of the Gaelic
League. Over the same period in the North Loyalists had EXCLUDED Catholics
from power and from having equal rights. This isnt romanticism it is
history.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconAlso your "if things were different" argument is Argument from
Ignorance! If there were no British forces in Ireland then there
would not be an IRA there in the first place! And if the Loyalists
had allowed civil rights then there would be no IRA! Which is right
back were I came into all this.
If the IRA had been given everything they wanted then they wouldn't
have murdered all those people. I realise that.
Not alone that. If the people had been allowed to exercise their
rights the IRA would never have even got to a level where they could
murder many people! Yes the IRA might still be there but no more an
influence than RIRA or CIRA today.
The origin of catholic disaffection is one thing. That undoubtedly fueled
the conflict. But the reasons that the IRA began the war was not in order
to achieve civil rights. It was a reaction /against/ the granting of civil
rights and the possibility of nationalists finding a place in the Northern
state. The Provisional IRA were created as part of a right-wing sectarian
reaction against the communist domination of republicanism.
The IRA were in existance since 1918. They were active in England in the
1920s and 1930s and had several campaigns in Ireland. But they were weakly
supported. However their constitution had not changed and in their eyes they
were carrying ourt the will of the people. They now accept that will has
changed. I will say it again. If the British had done differently yes the
IRA would still exist but rather then the worst days of the mid 70s the PIRA
would never have gotten any more powerful than the current CIRA or RIRA.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogIf the IRA were concerned with defending their communities, they'd
have shot members of the UVF and UDA.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl
Status vs organisation
shows the IRA killed 45 Loyalist paramilitaries but Loyalists killed
91 Loyalist paramilitaries.
The Loyalists also killed 42 Republicans but 873 civilians the vast
majority of which were Catholic.
Which is exactly what I said. The terrorist organisations weren't
interested in targetting the other terrorist organisations.
Well 15% of their victims were terrorists IRA or UDA.
And if it is statistically true it is a contradiction of the idea that
Loyalists groups only existed to target the IRA.
As far as the IRA and the loyalists were concerned, it was a war between
the two communities. They chose their targets accordingly.
But the IRA would have claimed there was ONE community occupied by foreign
oppressors. the "oppressors" were not another community to them they were
occupyers who were not prepared to share but took all the power from
themselves and the mionority castes that supported them.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconI didnt claim they were defending their community did I? That is
CHANGING THE SUBJECT! What I claimed was (and showed the stats) was
most of their targets were military and of civilian targets they
were about 60/40 Protestant to Catholic hardly evidence of targeting
Protestants is it? But Loyalists do show evidence of targeting based
on religion! And I only included civilians! If you include military
MOST of the Republican targets were not civilians at all whereas
most Loyalists were. Suggesting it was easier to shoot at soldiers
in uniform than kill civilians isn't really a strong line pof
arguemnt is it?
I repeat - what targets were available for the loyalists?
I have dealt with that argument above!
No, you haven't. You've asserted that the loyalists could have attacked
the representatives of the state they were trying to maintain, which is an
absurdity.
I stated that those targets WERE available but they were not attacked
because the Loyalists had DIFFERNT reasons for violence. clearly even thousg
the Loyalists had udedsState forces for their own ends in the past, the
British Army did NOT consider themselves as representing the will of
Loyalist paramilitarists.
But to return to the "absurdity" to claim "we cant kill the troops and we
cant see the IRA so lets just kill Catholics bewcause they are a target we
CAN identify" is what is an absurdity!
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconYou are like the copper who
notices a drunk under a streetlight on his hands and knees. "What are
you doing" he says. the drunk replies "Looking for my keys" The
copper asks "when did you last remember having them. the drunk says
"just before I dropped then up the road there" The copper says "what?
whay dont you look up the road wher you dropped them then?" The drunk
says "But this is the only place were there is any light"
That's a nice analogy, but it bears no relation to the actual situation.
If a particular place is full of Catholics then the Layalists could kill
people there. It is true that Loyalists gangs like the Shankhill butchers
did this. But it is difficult to find parallels in the IRA.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogThey wanted to murder people, and there was no-one available except
IRA and civilians.
the important clause being "they wanted to..."
Yes, just as the IRA wanted to murder people. No point in being in a
murder gang and not murdering people.
No. the difference being the REASON they wanted to United Ireland and saw
mainly killing troops
as assisting this. They didnt specifically just want to murder people
because of their religious affiliation like sectarian Loyalists did! Some
like the INLA DID exhibit a greater degree of targeting for religion I will
grant you that.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogThe IRA had loyalist terrorists, BA, UDR, RUC, and civilians, and
reaped a rich harvest of all of them except for the loyalist
terrorists, who they left alone for obvious reasons.
10 of killings being UDA hardly is "left alone" is it?
10? 10 people in a thirty year war? That's about one every 3 years!
Sorry TEN PER CENT I meant!
Post by WestprogIf you go to the CAIN crosstab of victims and culprits, you'll find that
out of 3524 deaths, 87 were terrorists killed by terrorists on the other
side. If you were a terrorist in the conflict, you were twice as likely to
be killed by your own people as by the other murder gang.
No you have this wrong. If you look you would seee IRA men were shot or
prematurely blown up by their own bombs so the IRA killings of IRA would be
higher.
also of the 2056 killed by Republicans 1078 of these were British Security.
738 were civilians 45 Loyalist paramilitary and 185 Republican paras.
Loyalists by the way also killed 14 British security.
Thats about 17% of Republicans killed by Republicans and 10 percent of
Loyalists by Loyalists.
In fact though while brosdly true one would be FOUR TIMES more likely to be
killed by their own (but this would include dying on a mission) if
Republican but only twice as likely of Loyalist. Yes iut DOES SHOW they were
not targeting each other but this only SUPPORTS my position and goes AGAINST
your position! The IRA were not targeting Loyalists they were targeting
British forces. this was their stated aim and most of their killings were
british forces. But the Loytalists stated aim was the likes of the IRA. Yet
a tiny amount of their killings were IRA. A large proportion however were
Catholic civilians.
Post by Westprog...
Post by MavisbeaconI already dealt with that. I would suspect they were not targeted.
The IRA for example placed large bombs on the street. They were not
targeting civilians in doing so thoush they ultimatley caused their
death.
You see, I have a slightly different POV. I regard leaving a large bomb on
the street that kills lots of people as "targetting". Even if there's a
deliberately inadequate warning. Even if there happens to be a policeman
or soldier in the vicinity.
Yes but the IRA did not know in advance the name or likely religion of the
person killed. this isnt justifying the bomb it is just saying it was not
palced to kill Protestants as a target.
Post by WestprogIt's relatively easy to /not/ kill civilians, if that's what you want to
do. I can do it quite easily, by /not/ planting bombs. The alternative
strategy - planting bombs in crowded shopping streets - is largely
effective in killing civilians rather than not killing them.
Which is whjy the IRA changed their tactics. Originally they had large rural
bombs. after the blast bombs they moved to incendaries and to bombing at
nighttime. They also moved into mortars against military targets and yes
they did try to take on active Milirary patrols. eventually they moved off
shore and targeted/attacked British Military abroad. Yes civilians wer
killed in this but they were NOT the original targets.
Post by WestprogIt makes /no sense/ to claim that the IRA killed about two-thirds as many
civilians as security forces as an accidental by-product. It's
nonsensical. They killed as many people as they wanted to.
Republicans killed 738 civies compared to 190 killed by the security forces.
Assuming the British Army were not in the main targetting civilians the IRA
were using tactics much more likely to kill civilians than the BA. They
didn't necessarily "want to" kill these people. Im sure they would have
preferred to kill soldiers instead.
Post by Westprog...
Post by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogYou can, however, find out how many Catholics have been killed by
loyalist terrorist groups since the GFA. It's fairly clear what the
answer is, and why.
Again this happened in "spikes" the largest number being in the mid
eighties and late nineties and early seventies. Again one can cross
tabulate "year" and "religion" or "organisation summary" . there is
no huge fall off 1999 - 2001 (no data after that). It is ten years
since the GFA.
Post by WestprogThe loyalist terrorists aren't murdering Catholics any more because
the IRA ended the war. It was only the IRA that could end the war.
I dont know enough to say how many of the 50 murders and 250 attempted
murders were motivated by religious hatred and bigotry.
The fact remains - the war, in which loyalist gangs targetted catholic
civilians, is over. It ended when the IRA stopped it. That was the only
way it could end.
It didnt because the IRA had several sucessiuve ceasr fires over the 1990
and even outsiude these killed relatively few civilians. But the Loyalists
continued their killings throughout cease forces and in spite of the IRA
saying it was over several times.
Post by Westprog...
Post by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogNo, that's not what people define as terrorism.
Oh yes it is. It is my preferred definition.
It's a definition simply designed to make your own terrorists look better
than the other side's terrorists.
Nope not at all. terrorism to me is the willfull TARRGETING OF CIVILIANS.
The IRA do not represent me nor do I support them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
Angus Martyn in a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament states that
"The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted
comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the
United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to
differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in
the context of conflicts over national liberation and
self-determination."[4] For this and for political reasons, many news
sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less
accusatory words like "bombers," "militants," etc.
...
you would tend to gravitate to
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action,
employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for
idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to
assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070129121539/http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
Whereas i prefer: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to
civilians or non-combatants ..."
http://www.un.org/unifeed/script.asp?scriptId=73
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogThere's no definition that excludes shooting an off-duty policeman
in a hospital or on the steps of a church.
That isn't necessarily terrorism . It may be assassination. The US
have bombed hospitals havent they? the bombed tora Bora to nothing.
Was that terrorism? The IRA took out the civilian attired "Cairo
Gang" when Michael Collins wanted this threat removed. Was that
terrorism?
Of course the IRA of the twenties were a terrorist group.
Many would argue against this. Including Irish law. If you brought Michael
colling into an Irish Court today I doubt you could hold a terrorism
conviction on him. which shows the weakness of your definition. By your
definition the American and French Revolutions were not justified under law
and wer terrorism. The "sons of Liberty" were a terrorist group. Cromwell
was a Terrorist and William III of Orange was one.
Post by Westprog...
Post by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogNo, it's blatantly obvious. I repeat *yet again* - who were the
loyalists supposed to target?
I asked you why the IRA were targeting troops and you reply by saying
the Loyalists DIDN'T target troops. The Loyalists targeted who they
wanted to! It isn't for me to say who they were SUPPOSED to target!
it was THEIR decision! and the decision was a DIFFERENT target. The
Loyalists were not going to target the Military because they had no
reasons to do so!
Exactly.
Which was MY point - DIFFERENT REASONS!!! Remember?
Post by WestprogIn a war, you target the other side. In a terrorist war, the real
target is /always/ the civilian population.
So why were the vast majorioty of IRA killings NOT civilians and the
majority of loyalists WERE civilians? Catholic civilians in particular?
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconIt was NOT a question of opportunity since the
Loyalists had every opportunity to attack the Military.
They could have attacked the Peruvian Navy as well, but they didn't
because it would have been pointless.
No they couldnt. The British Army were outside their door. attacking the
OPeruvian nave even if decided upon would not have resulted in many
successes.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogThey were scared of fighting the IRA, just as the IRA were scared of
fighting them. /They had no other targets apart from civilians/.
We're in the realm of the bleeding obvious here.
In simple obvious terms. What drove the IRA was the removal of a
British claim to and occupation of Ireland
Correct.
Post by Mavisbeaconand a need to have a
police force that Republicans could depend on.
Total nonsense. The IRA did its best to kill /any/ catholic joining the
police.
Because the rejected the RUC as establishment police who protected the
establishment and excluded others.
Post by WestprogHaving an exclusive protestant police force was a common goal of the IRA
and the loyalists.
Again you miss the point. They didnt kill them because they were Catholic
they did it because they were Military or RUC.
Post by WestprogSupporting the police was the very /last/ thing that the republican
movement ever accepted. How could they have had the simultaneous aim of
removing British rule, and establishing a police force to enfore British
rule?
Exactly! They wanted a police force that protected ALL people in Ireland.
Joining one that didn't made people into targets. It was not because they
were Catholic.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogThe UDA and UVF didn't kill soldiers because soldiers were the IRA's target.
Exactly ! and why were they targeting DIFFERENT people?
Because the loyalists wanted to preserve the British state, which the
soldiers and police represented! They opposed the Irish state, whose
representatives weren't available! This is fairly obvious.
They opposed Catholics to an extent far more than REpublicans opposed
Protestants. Being Irish is not necessarily tied up with being
Catholic but Loyalists would have viewed "A Protestant Government for
a Protestant people" . It was not just about occupation of land for
them. They wanted control of state power, Councils, Police, housing
etc. as they had for 50 years from 1920-1970.
They wanted one type of state.
A statelet run by them and their cronies? For the benefit of their clients.
As they had run it for 50 years.
Post by WestprogThe IRA wanted another.
One which represented ALL and not just Republicans. As sinn Fein eventually
came around to offering. which was a departure from traditional
Republicanism because it departed from the concent of the majority of the
Island and accepted a Unionist Veto by a mojority of just six of the thirty
two counties. And the Unionists accepted it because they might one day
become a minority even there and did not want the same treatment as they had
meted out.
Post by WestprogThat was what the war was about. The final outcome was something opposed by
/both/ sides.
The final outcome was accepted by the majority of Northern Republicans and
the Unionists and by the vast Majority of the Island as a whole. The
opposition was not representative of any "side" which constituted anything
near a majority even of the population of six of the 32 counties.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconPost by WestprogThe BA, UDR and RUC didn't shoot at UDA and UVF because loyalists
weren't shooting at them. This stuff is simple enough.
In fact the Loyalists DID kill BA etc. But they were representing
groups who were FOR the establishment whereas the IRA were against
it! But the IRA were only thee because the establishment refused
human rights to the minority and preferred to protect their own so
it was only more of the same reasoning.
The IRA started their war /after/ the main civil rights issues had
started to be addressed. It was not in order to achieve equality
within the Northern State that the IRA were fighting. It was to
avoid any such accomodation.
The IRA had two reasons for acting as they did
1. They believed they were fulfilling the will of the people. the GFA
effectively removed this reason.
The IRA /knew/ they weren't fullfilling the will of the people.
That may be the way most people saw it but it was not the way the IRA viewed
it. When did the people of Ireland as a whole meet and make a decision given
to them which mandated the IRA to stop a military campaign against British
occupation?
Post by WestprogTheir political representatives never had more than a tiny representation
during the war.
Again while most would agree, that is not how they saw it or what they
stated. They continually stated they were doing the will of the people. It
was only when this REASON was removed by a decision by the vast majority of
the people of the whole Island that they could not cite it as a mandate for
their activity.
Post by WestprogThe essence of republicanism was that action /precedes/ gaining popular
support.
But they believed they had popular support since the 1920s. and to some
degree they HAD boith north and South. but there CERTAINLY was no Referendum
north and south to say the people wanted to accept partition. After the GFA
was voted on the IRA could never again say their aims were mandated by the
"will of the people"
Post by WestprogPost by Mavisbeacon2. They believed they were policing Republican areas since the RUC
could not be trusted. This is beginning to be removed with the PSNI
recruitment but it will involve Republican input into the management
of the PSNI. This is currently a political football.
The IRA control of catholic areas had nothing to do with trust of the
police. It was an essential element of prosecuting the war.
Again this may be true but it is not how Northern Republicans view it. even
after the removal of the REASON that the people of Ireland wished for a 32
county single Republic the IRA still held on to the lack of trust for the
police. It isnt ceasefires or decomissioning or anything else that will
ultimately disband the IRA. It is the removal of all THEIR stated REASONS
for existance.
Post by WestprogPost by MavisbeaconIf 1 and 2 go the reason for the IRA is gone.
The Loyalists existed BEFORE the Troubles however. Their reasons have
also to be analysed.
There's nothing complicated about the aims of either the loyalists or the
IRA. Their aims were what they said they were. The IRA wanted to end all
British presence in Ireland.
Based on their stated belief that this was the will of the Irish people! And
that stated belief was removed by getting the Irish people to state
otherwise.
Post by WestprogThe loyalists wanted to keep the British presence in Ireland, with
protestant domination.
Whether the people liked it or not?
Post by WestprogWhat ended the war was the abandonment of these goals.
What ended the war was the removal for the reasons given for it. some people
still adhere to the stated goals but they cant claim to represent any
substantial part of what people want.