Discussion:
Belfast? Ha! - was[Re: Belfast Tour]
(too old to reply)
Hungry Wolf! <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>
2008-11-01 18:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Had a day to kill in Belfast today so I did something I've meant to do for
along time - I took the open deck bus tour. I thoroughly recommend it for
anyone visiting Belfast, or even for those in the city who *think* they know
it but probably aren't aware of such cultural gems as Stormont being
camouflaged during WWII by being painted with a manure mixture, some of
which they have never been able to get rid of :)
Going through the Shankill and the Falls, the guides explain "the Troubles"
with great diplomacy, by the way.
Telmey gave me and my better half the best tour of Nordieland that anyone could
ask for! There is NOTHING like a guide with personal knowledge that is willing
to give you REAL tour of Nordieland...

The year was 1998, we drove up and down the Shankhill Road and the Falls road...
We had to do a quick 180 when the loyalists on their way back from threatening
children were still on the warpath and were throwing stones and petrol bombs at
cars... Telmey saved us that night....

But to be fair... He took me to the Orange Lodge HQ... And in by a backdoor so
I wouldn't know where I was going... But it soon became clear when I saw the
"Happy Orange Christmas" cards for sale in the lobby... But I kept my mouth
shut... I didn't want to be abducted by a bunch of mindless loyalists (is there
any other kind?) and so I got to see Nordieland from both sides of the divide...

We drove through hardcore working class loyalist areas... And I was not a happy
camper... And we drove through hardcore Republican areas... I felt no danger
whatsoever... For they are my people... I though!

Then we drover through this area with no flags or banners... And Telmey told me
we were in the hardcore loyalist area... This was more "middle class" so they
didnt' put out the flags... But... Point being... There were Loyalists here
that were dangerous...

ON a funny note... We drove up the Shankhill and Telmey stopped out this shop
and it had a hundred Union Flags fluttering outside... I was nervous... Being
in enemy territory and all... But I looked in the window of that super loyalist
shop and what did I see? ManU shirts! And I laughed out loud! Singing "Who
the eff are ManU..." etc... At lest to myself...

There is a WHOLE LOT I still don't feel comfortable relating to you even after
this time... So I won't...

Point being... I learned more about NI in that once week then I had for the
previous 10 years...

It changed my perspective... No longer did I see the Irish Nationalists are the
only victims... But I saw the Unionists as the same victims... Victims of a
political agenda that had failed both sides....

Thus my opinion towards NI changed... Because I was man enough to realise that I
was wrong...

Ray


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In touch with the ground - I'm on the hunt - I'm after you!!
Smell like I sound, I'm lost in a crowd - And I'm hungry like the wolf!
Straddle the line, in discord and rhyme - I'm on the hunt, I'm after you!
Mouth is alive with juices like wine And.....
I'm hungry like the wolf!!!!! - Duran Duran
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falcon
2008-11-02 01:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hungry Wolf! <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>
Had a day to kill in Belfast today so I did something I've meant to do
for along time - I took the open deck bus tour. I thoroughly recommend
it for anyone visiting Belfast, or even for those in the city who
*think* they know it but probably aren't aware of such cultural gems as
Stormont being camouflaged during WWII by being painted with a manure
mixture, some of which they have never been able to get rid of :)
Going through the Shankill and the Falls, the guides explain "the
Troubles" with great diplomacy, by the way.
Telmey gave me and my better half the best tour of Nordieland that anyone
could ask for! There is NOTHING like a guide with personal knowledge
that is willing to give you REAL tour of Nordieland...
The year was 1998, we drove up and down the Shankhill Road and the Falls
road... We had to do a quick 180 when the loyalists on their way back
from threatening children were still on the warpath and were throwing
stones and petrol bombs at cars... Telmey saved us that night....
The Holy Cross dispute occurred in 2001 and 2002.
Post by Hungry Wolf! <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>
But to be fair... He took me to the Orange Lodge HQ... And in by a
backdoor so I wouldn't know where I was going... But it soon became clear
when I saw the "Happy Orange Christmas" cards for sale in the lobby...
But I kept my mouth shut... I didn't want to be abducted by a bunch of
mindless loyalists (is there any other kind?) and so I got to see
Nordieland from both sides of the divide...
We drove through hardcore working class loyalist areas... And I was not
a happy camper... And we drove through hardcore Republican areas... I
felt no danger whatsoever... For they are my people... I though!
True. Then it was Telmey who risked being abducted by a bunch of mindless
republicans. I knew men who weren't so fortunate.
Post by Hungry Wolf! <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>
Then we drover through this area with no flags or banners... And Telmey
told me we were in the hardcore loyalist area... This was more "middle
class" so they didnt' put out the flags... But... Point being... There
were Loyalists here that were dangerous...
ON a funny note... We drove up the Shankhill and Telmey stopped out this
shop and it had a hundred Union Flags fluttering outside... I was
nervous... Being in enemy territory and all... But I looked in the window
of that super loyalist shop and what did I see? ManU shirts! And I
laughed out loud! Singing "Who the eff are ManU..." etc... At lest to
myself...
There is a WHOLE LOT I still don't feel comfortable relating to you even
after this time... So I won't...
May I take this opportunity to thank your God for small mercies.
Post by Hungry Wolf! <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>
Point being... I learned more about NI in that once week then I had for
the previous 10 years...
It changed my perspective... No longer did I see the Irish Nationalists
are the only victims... But I saw the Unionists as the same victims...
Victims of a political agenda that had failed both sides....
It only took a two week NIRT course for every soldier to realise that both
sides and their respective political representatives spent an inordinate
amount of time and effort for thirty years ensuring that any attempt to end
the conflict was doomed to failure - unless they all really wanted to stop
the killing.
Post by Hungry Wolf! <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>
Thus my opinion towards NI changed... Because I was man enough to realise
that I was wrong...
One could say the same for Adams and Paisley.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Poppy Appeal 2008
http://www.poppy.org.uk/
------------------------------------
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
2008-11-02 10:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Falcon
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:17:35 -0000, "Ex_OWM"
Had a day to kill in Belfast today so I did something I've meant to
do for along time - I took the open deck bus tour. I thoroughly
recommend it for anyone visiting Belfast, or even for those in the
city who *think* they know it but probably aren't aware of such
cultural gems as Stormont being camouflaged during WWII by being
painted with a manure mixture, some of which they have never been
able to get rid of :) Going through the Shankill and the Falls, the
guides explain "the
Troubles" with great diplomacy, by the way.
Telmey gave me and my better half the best tour of Nordieland that
anyone could ask for! There is NOTHING like a guide with personal
knowledge that is willing to give you REAL tour of Nordieland...
The year was 1998, we drove up and down the Shankhill Road and the
Falls road... We had to do a quick 180 when the loyalists on their
way back from threatening children were still on the warpath and
were throwing stones and petrol bombs at cars... Telmey saved us
that night....
The Holy Cross dispute occurred in 2001 and 2002.
But to be fair... He took me to the Orange Lodge HQ... And in by a
backdoor so I wouldn't know where I was going... But it soon became
clear when I saw the "Happy Orange Christmas" cards for sale in the
lobby... But I kept my mouth shut... I didn't want to be abducted by
a bunch of mindless loyalists (is there any other kind?) and so I
got to see Nordieland from both sides of the divide...
We drove through hardcore working class loyalist areas... And I was
not a happy camper... And we drove through hardcore Republican
areas... I felt no danger whatsoever... For they are my people... I
though!
True. Then it was Telmey who risked being abducted by a bunch of
mindless republicans. I knew men who weren't so fortunate.
Then we drover through this area with no flags or banners... And
Telmey told me we were in the hardcore loyalist area... This was
more "middle class" so they didnt' put out the flags... But... Point
being... There were Loyalists here that were dangerous...
ON a funny note... We drove up the Shankhill and Telmey stopped out
this shop and it had a hundred Union Flags fluttering outside... I
was nervous... Being in enemy territory and all... But I looked in
the window of that super loyalist shop and what did I see? ManU
shirts! And I laughed out loud! Singing "Who the eff are ManU..."
etc... At lest to myself...
There is a WHOLE LOT I still don't feel comfortable relating to you
even after this time... So I won't...
May I take this opportunity to thank your God for small mercies.
Point being... I learned more about NI in that once week then I had
for the previous 10 years...
It changed my perspective... No longer did I see the Irish
Nationalists are the only victims... But I saw the Unionists as the
same victims... Victims of a political agenda that had failed both
sides....
It only took a two week NIRT course for every soldier to realise that
both sides and their respective political representatives spent an
inordinate amount of time and effort for thirty years ensuring that
any attempt to end the conflict was doomed to failure - unless they
all really wanted to stop the killing.
Ah! That explains your sanctimonius attitude to a lot of the goings on!
Politically contrived NIRT courses didn't help either. The UK govenments
were absolutely NO help whatsoever in getting the violence stopped. It is
worth remembering that it WAS the Republican Movement who decided to take up
arms in the first place to start genocide. What violence there was from the
Loyalists was small time by comparison and should have been easily
contained.
Post by Falcon
Thus my opinion towards NI changed... Because I was man enough to
realise that I was wrong...
One could say the same for Adams and Paisley.
Indeed. But Ray still hates Protestants, AND supported murder, so not a lot
has changed! We shall see what happens during the protests today!
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).
eugene
2008-11-03 00:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Ah! That explains your sanctimonius attitude to a lot of the goings on!
Politically contrived NIRT courses didn't help either. The UK govenments
were absolutely NO help whatsoever in getting the violence stopped. It is
worth remembering that it WAS the Republican Movement who decided to take
up arms in the first place to start genocide. What violence there was from
the Loyalists was small time by comparison and should have been easily
contained.
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
I have ignored Merrick's bullshit for a long time now but had to respond to
this typically sectarian and hypocritical post of his! The first people to
take up arms in the recent conflict were the RUC and the British Army! The
creators of the Provisional IRA were Bill Craig, Ian Paisley and their armed
forces, those same RUC and BA!! The root cause of "The Troubles" was the
attitude of people just like Merrick who despised the Catholic scum in their
ghettoes and refused (and still have great difficulty accepting) any
semblance of equality amongst their fellow citizens purely because of their
religion! Merrick and his ilk aided and abetted Craig and Paisley etc by
their silence, if they even had any understanding at all that the six
counties political leadership was a band of unapologetic racists and bigots,
but they probably didn't because they too were really just the same thing.
And just about every time that Merrick has anything to say here, he proves
that he too is still the poxy bigot that he always was. Merrick and co would
dearly love to return to those glorious days of pre 1968 when Ulster was a
Protestant state for a Protestant people and anybody who is a regular here
should ignore everything the maniac has to offer. What a prick!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
2008-11-03 10:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by eugene
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Ah! That explains your sanctimonius attitude to a lot of the goings
on! Politically contrived NIRT courses didn't help either. The UK
govenments were absolutely NO help whatsoever in getting the
violence stopped. It is worth remembering that it WAS the Republican
Movement who decided to take up arms in the first place to start
genocide. What violence there was from the Loyalists was small time
by comparison and should have been easily contained.
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
I have ignored Merrick's bullshit for a long time now but had to
respond to this typically sectarian and hypocritical post of his!
ROTFL! With one of your own of course!
Post by eugene
The
first people to take up arms in the recent conflict were the RUC and
the British Army!
Bullshit! The Bitish Army was only there because of IRA and Republican
bombings and shootings. They were brought in to protect both sides from each
other and support the RUC who couldn't handle a terrorist situation.
Post by eugene
The creators of the Provisional IRA were Bill
Craig, Ian Paisley and their armed forces, those same RUC and BA!!
Such nonsense. Pure brainwashed sectarian propaganda! Your trolling again!
Post by eugene
The root cause of "The Troubles" was the attitude of people just like
Merrick who despised the Catholic scum in their ghettoes and refused
(and still have great difficulty accepting) any semblance of equality
amongst their fellow citizens purely because of their religion!
More total bullshit. Merrick could care less what the lower,neo criminal,
working classes got up to on either side!
Post by eugene
Merrick and his ilk aided and abetted Craig and Paisley etc by their
silence, if they even had any understanding at all that the six
counties political leadership was a band of unapologetic racists and
bigots, but they probably didn't because they too were really just
the same thing.
Your knickers are showing eugene. Your own sectarian hatred of Protestants
is plain to see, as is your support of Sinn Fein/IRA and their murders over
many long years. So, who is the sectarian racist bigot now, eh? YOU!

And just about every time that Merrick has anything
Post by eugene
to say here, he proves that he too is still the poxy bigot that he
always was.
Takes one to know one!

Merrick and co would dearly love to return to those
Post by eugene
glorious days of pre 1968 when Ulster was a Protestant state for ado you?
niac has to offer.

Really? You don't like the truth. And like all Republicans, you cannot
handle any opinions other than your own. Hence the problems with the
Assembly at the moment.
Post by eugene
What a prick!
Well you should certainly know ALL about that!!

You should not be making silly assumptions eugene. Just because you don't
like what I say, does not mean that I am wrong, nor does it mean that many
thousands do not agree. Listen to the Nolan Show any morning!

Oh, and for the record, I am in favour of peace, of the Assembly working and
of power sharing. Just a pity Sinn Fein/IRA are refusing to allow the
Executive to meet! They, obviously, prefer to return to their old dirty
tricks.
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).
eugene
2008-11-03 10:53:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Ah! That explains your sanctimonius attitude to a lot of the goings
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
every time you open your mouth you unashamedly prove what you are Merrick. I
don't have to point out what you are, you do a much better job than I ever
could.
Mavisbeacon
2008-11-03 17:32:55 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by eugene
The
first people to take up arms in the recent conflict were the RUC and
the British Army!
Bullshit! The Bitish Army was only there because of IRA and Republican
bombings and shootings. They were brought in to protect both sides from
each other and support the RUC who couldn't handle a terrorist situation.
And you evidence is?
Oddly enough The IRA existed since about 1917/18 when they took over the
IRB. But the British Army escalation didn't happen till AFTER the civil
rights marches were broken up BY LOYALISTS in 1968/69. And the height of IRA
violence was not until the mid seventies - years later so you put the cart
before the horse on that as well!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by eugene
The creators of the Provisional IRA were Bill
Craig, Ian Paisley and their armed forces, those same RUC and BA!!
Such nonsense. Pure brainwashed sectarian propaganda! Your trolling
again!
In fact eh IRA didn't have a grip on the North of ireland until AFTER the
Civil Rights movement had their backs to the wall so the OP is right to a
degree.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by eugene
The root cause of "The Troubles" was the attitude of people just like
Merrick who despised the Catholic scum in their ghettoes and refused
(and still have great difficulty accepting) any semblance of equality
amongst their fellow citizens purely because of their religion!
More total bullshit. Merrick could care less what the lower,neo criminal,
working classes got up to on either side!
Which is only validating what is claimed to be a root couse!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by eugene
Merrick and his ilk aided and abetted Craig and Paisley etc by their
silence, if they even had any understanding at all that the six
counties political leadership was a band of unapologetic racists and
bigots, but they probably didn't because they too were really just
the same thing.
Your knickers are showing eugene. Your own sectarian hatred of Protestants
is plain to see, as is your support of Sinn Fein/IRA and their murders
over many long years. So, who is the sectarian racist bigot now, eh? YOU!
Actually PIRA killings do not really show a pattern of sectarianism.
Loyalist killings on the other hand DO show such a pattern!
[snip]
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
You should not be making silly assumptions eugene. Just because you don't
like what I say, does not mean that I am wrong,
No it doesnt you are right on that. Not liking what you say had nothing at
all to do with whether you are right. The complete lack of agreement of your
bigot views with recorded history has everything to do with it however!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
nor does it mean that many thousands do not agree. Listen to the Nolan Show
any morning!
If a million bigots agree that the Moon is made of cheese it still won't be
made of cheese!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Oh, and for the record, I am in favour of peace, of the Assembly working
and of power sharing.
You would allow a Sinn Fein share power over the police then?
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Just a pity Sinn Fein/IRA are refusing to allow the Executive to meet!
As Loyalists did for years! Why by the way are they refusing such a meeting?
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
They, obviously, prefer to return to their old dirty tricks.
I don't see any bombings or shootings by republicans so I doubt the factual
accuracy of your remark just as you have got the historical accuracy wrong.
Ex_OWM
2008-11-03 18:44:35 UTC
Permalink
it WAS the Republican Movement who decided to take up arms in the first
place to start genocide. What violence there was from the Loyalists was
small time by comparison
From Sutton database*, Republican paramilitaries killed 738 civilians,
Loyalist paramilitaries killed 873 civilians; that's Harry's concept of
"small time by comparison"- what more needs to be said?




*
Status Summary British Security Republican Paramilitary Loyalist
Paramilitary not known Irish Security Totals
Civilian 190 738
873 56 1857
British Security 13 1078
14 7 1112
Republican Paramilitary 145 185
42 17 5 394
Loyalist Paramilitary 14 45
91 1 151
Irish Security 10
10

TOTALS 362 2056
1020 81 5 3524
Westprog
2008-11-03 19:30:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ex_OWM
it WAS the Republican Movement who decided to take up arms in the
first place to start genocide. What violence there was from the
Loyalists was small time by comparison
From Sutton database*, Republican paramilitaries killed 738 civilians,
Loyalist paramilitaries killed 873 civilians; that's Harry's concept
of "small time by comparison"- what more needs to be said?
Loyalist violence wasn't "small time". But there was less loyalist violence
than republican violence throughout the troubles.

A civilian killed by loyalists might be a Sinn Fein activist. A non-civilian
killed by the IRA might be a farmer who was in the UDR. There were no
legitimate targets.
Ex_OWM
2008-11-03 22:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
Post by Ex_OWM
it WAS the Republican Movement who decided to take up arms in the
first place to start genocide. What violence there was from the
Loyalists was small time by comparison
From Sutton database*, Republican paramilitaries killed 738 civilians,
Loyalist paramilitaries killed 873 civilians; that's Harry's concept
of "small time by comparison"- what more needs to be said?
Loyalist violence wasn't "small time". But there was less loyalist
violence than republican violence throughout the troubles.
I don't think the families of the 873 murdered would be overly concerned
about such comparisons.
Post by Westprog
A civilian killed by loyalists might be a Sinn Fein activist. A
non-civilian killed by the IRA might be a farmer who was in the UDR. There
were no legitimate targets.
I know that and you know that I know that.

I'm just reminding the rest of the world about Merrick's idiocy because it
was exactly that type of idiocy that took us to those dark places.
unknown
2008-11-04 00:16:34 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 22:43:40 -0000, "Ex_OWM"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:


Snipped due to sayin' no more.
Post by Ex_OWM
I know that and you know that I know that.
I'm glad you said that, because I know roo.
Did you ever get to read the book that I sent to Eugene?
At schooI was beaten as the fenian lover. Fact was, I happened to be
the only Protestant under the age of about 20 in the whole area and at
the time the Catholics had more kids, so everyone thought I was a (one
of them)
The troubles left me without a community, and daring to be different
(sex drugs rock n roll) has left me getting funny looks from da
community..........Ah well suffer on.

max.it (the orange cage)
Ex_OWM
2008-11-04 08:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 22:43:40 -0000, "Ex_OWM"
Snipped due to sayin' no more.
Post by Ex_OWM
I know that and you know that I know that.
I'm glad you said that, because I know roo.
Did you ever get to read the book that I sent to Eugene?
No, he told me about it but I never got around to borrowing it yet.
Westprog
2008-11-04 10:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Ex_OWM wrote:
...
Post by Ex_OWM
Post by Westprog
Loyalist violence wasn't "small time". But there was less loyalist
violence than republican violence throughout the troubles.
I don't think the families of the 873 murdered would be overly
concerned about such comparisons.
Nevertheless it's a fact. It's an important fact, especially given the
tendency from republicans to rewrite their history from being the chief
culprits in the troubles to being passively driven to it by housing policy.
Post by Ex_OWM
Post by Westprog
A civilian killed by loyalists might be a Sinn Fein activist. A
non-civilian killed by the IRA might be a farmer who was in the UDR.
There were no legitimate targets.
I know that and you know that I know that.
You know that I know that you know that.
Post by Ex_OWM
I'm just reminding the rest of the world about Merrick's idiocy
because it was exactly that type of idiocy that took us to those dark
places.
The danger of debating with M and H and WW (you know that I know that you
know who I mean) is that you can end up arguing on their terms. Stare long
enough into the abyss, and so on. When I seen "civilian deaths" in a post, I
sense a scale of values where shooting a 19-year-old off duty soldier is
less culpable than shooting a 17-year-old schoolgirl. I don't think you
share that set of values, but it can be implied.

The reason that loyalist violence wasn't small time wasn't because they
killed a lot of civilians - it was because they killed a lot of people.
Ex_OWM
2008-11-04 11:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
The danger of debating with M and H and WW (you know that I know that you
know who I mean) is that you can end up arguing on their terms. Stare long
enough into the abyss, and so on. When I seen "civilian deaths" in a post,
I sense a scale of values where shooting a 19-year-old off duty soldier is
less culpable than shooting a 17-year-old schoolgirl. I don't think you
share that set of values, but it can be implied.
I think H may have morphed into MB.
Falcon
2008-11-04 12:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ex_OWM
Post by Westprog
The danger of debating with M and H and WW (you know that I know that you
know who I mean) is that you can end up arguing on their terms. Stare
long enough into the abyss, and so on. When I seen "civilian deaths" in
a post, I sense a scale of values where shooting a 19-year-old off duty
soldier is less culpable than shooting a 17-year-old schoolgirl. I don't
think you share that set of values, but it can be implied.
I think H may have morphed into MB.
I'm not so sure. Not enough adjectives.
Anyway, the Brits started it.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Poppy Appeal 2008
http://www.poppy.org.uk/
------------------------------------
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
2008-11-04 18:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Falcon
Post by Ex_OWM
Post by Westprog
The danger of debating with M and H and WW (you know that I know
that you know who I mean) is that you can end up arguing on their
terms. Stare long enough into the abyss, and so on. When I seen
"civilian deaths" in a post, I sense a scale of values where
shooting a 19-year-old off duty soldier is less culpable than
shooting a 17-year-old schoolgirl. I don't think you share that set
of values, but it can be implied.
I think H may have morphed into MB.
If you mean me, then I haven't changed. I just cannot have Republican lower
order shite in any form.
Post by Falcon
I'm not so sure. Not enough adjectives.
Anyway, the Brits started it.
Buullshit! - The Republican Movement started it as far back and before the
Irish Civil War. It is due to Republican stupidity that Ireland has had to
endure all the violence in it's history. What for? Ireland would undoubtedly
have emerged as a free and independant country eventually. Why try to be so
PC to that lot? All they do is hold grudges and keep on opening up old cans
of worms, mostly caused by themselves. We will never settle down until they
stop that. Also, since it is perfectly obvious that a United Ireland is many
years away, if ever, why are we still discussing it? Totally pointless and
merely extending the bigotry and hatreds. You are correct in saying that it
is equally wicked to kill anyone from one side or the other. However, it is
yourselves who are counting numbers not me! So, let us just stop and think,
and stop being so judgemental, supercilious, sanctimonious and negative.
There is NO excuse for killing anyone in fact.
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).
Mavisbeacon
2008-11-04 12:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Ex_OWM
Post by Westprog
Loyalist violence wasn't "small time". But there was less loyalist
violence than republican violence throughout the troubles.
I don't think the families of the 873 murdered would be overly
concerned about such comparisons.
Nevertheless it's a fact. It's an important fact, especially given the
tendency from republicans to rewrite their history from being the chief
culprits in the troubles to being passively driven to it by housing policy.
Actually the "FACT" which you have been shown was:

From Sutton database*, Republican paramilitaries killed 738 civilians,
Loyalist paramilitaries killed 873 civilians;
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl
cross tabulate status summany vs. organisation summary
Post by Westprog
Post by Ex_OWM
Post by Westprog
A civilian killed by loyalists might be a Sinn Fein activist. A
non-civilian killed by the IRA might be a farmer who was in the UDR.
There were no legitimate targets.
Ah! But in the above database you can use "status" instead of status summary
and you will note it has "civilian political activist" UDR and even ex
prison officer and ex UDR RUC etc. . The 738 "CIVILIAN" killings by
Republicans include 27 political activists but DO NOT include UDR ex UDR or
RUC PO BA etc.

So a civilian killed by Loyalists would be listed under the 27 civilian
activists and not under the 846 other civilians. and an non civilian killed
by the IRA does not come into the issue since the poster was referring to
CIVILIAN deaths. It was my figures that referred to people from Norhtern
Ireland whether they were civilian or not. So this would include all RUC
Navy etc. except mainly British forces members not from Ireland.
[snip]
Post by Westprog
The danger of debating with M and H and WW (you know that I know that you
know who I mean) is that you can end up arguing on their terms. Stare long
enough into the abyss, and so on. When I seen "civilian deaths" in a post,
I sense a scale of values where shooting a 19-year-old off duty soldier is
less culpable than shooting a 17-year-old schoolgirl. I don't think you
share that set of values, but it can be implied.
One does not have to share the same set of values with the Crown forces or
with terrorists to realise there is quantitative data to support arguments
about what THEIR reasons for violence was and what their targets were!

IRA deaqths were civilians:British Army: RUC: other IRA: UDR in a ration
7:5:3:1:2

i.e. about 35 % civilain
25% BA
15%RUC
10%UDR
5% other IRA

Loyalists targets were 85% civilian 4%UVF 4% UDA 3% civilian activists and
less than 2%IRA

I think that pattern really suggests a different mind set no matter whether
you share their valuses or not!
Post by Westprog
The reason that loyalist violence wasn't small time wasn't because they
killed a lot of civilians - it was because they killed a lot of people.
Yes but the point I make in terms of conflict resolution is important. The
killed DIFFERENT groups of people for different reasons! One does not need
to justify the IRA killing anyone to se that removing the BA RUC and UDR
from the picture would remove HALF of their killings. Indeed many of the
civilian killings may also be results of attacks against Military targets as
well. So demilitarisation would result in massive downswing of IRA killings.

But the Loyalist groups show evidence of infighting and sectarianism.
Demilitarisation would not result in removing gang wars or targeting
civilians based on their religion! A DIFFERENT answer to this problem is
necessitated. Likewise the small minority of Republican paramilitarists who
also
were motivated by gang membership or turf wars and sectarianism rather than
targeting British Military would have to be dealt with in a different way.

This does not justify violence or subscribe to the values of the violent. it
is just saying different reasons for violence require different solutions to
remove the reasons and THAT is why the difference is important to recognise.
Westprog
2008-11-04 14:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Mavisbeacon wrote:
...
Post by Mavisbeacon
One does not have to share the same set of values with the Crown
forces or with terrorists to realise there is quantitative data to
support arguments about what THEIR reasons for violence was and what
their targets were!
IRA deaqths were civilians:British Army: RUC: other IRA: UDR in a
ration 7:5:3:1:2
i.e. about 35 % civilain
25% BA
15%RUC
10%UDR
5% other IRA
And how many loyalists?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Loyalists targets were 85% civilian 4%UVF 4% UDA 3% civilian
activists and less than 2%IRA
I think that pattern really suggests a different mind set no matter
whether you share their valuses or not!
It shows that the two organisations had different targets available. That's
all. The 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.

If the IRA were concerned with defending their communities, they'd have shot
members of the UVF and UDA.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The reason that loyalist violence wasn't small time wasn't because
they killed a lot of civilians - it was because they killed a lot of
people.
Yes but the point I make in terms of conflict resolution is
important. The killed DIFFERENT groups of people for different
reasons! One does not need to justify the IRA killing anyone to se
that removing the BA RUC and UDR from the picture would remove HALF
of their killings. Indeed many of the civilian killings may also be
results of attacks against Military targets as well. So
demilitarisation would result in massive downswing of IRA killings.
But the Loyalist groups show evidence of infighting and sectarianism.
The infighting is common to both groups.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Demilitarisation would not result in removing gang wars or targeting
civilians based on their religion!
Except that it did. The political settlement with the IRA ended loyalist
sectarian killings. That's a simple fact. It's uncomfortable if one believes
that loyalist killings happened out of sectarian badness and a wish to keep
catholics down, because the end of loyalist murders coincided with catholic
participation in government.

There's all kinds of analysis that can be done, but the explanation for the
distribution is quite simple - there was a war on, and each side went out to
kill members of the other side, and chose them according to what was
available.
Post by Mavisbeacon
A DIFFERENT answer to this problem
is necessitated. Likewise the small minority of Republican
paramilitarists who also
were motivated by gang membership or turf wars and sectarianism
rather than targeting British Military would have to be dealt with in
a different way.
This does not justify violence or subscribe to the values of the
violent. it is just saying different reasons for violence require
different solutions to remove the reasons and THAT is why the
difference is important to recognise.
The idea that the IRA and the loyalists had different reasons for violence
doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. What they had were different
circumstances.

The UDA and UVF didn't kill soldiers because soldiers were the IRA's target.
The BA, UDR and RUC didn't shoot at UDA and UVF because loyalists weren't
shooting at them. This stuff is simple enough.
Mavisbeacon
2008-11-04 16:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Mavisbeacon
One does not have to share the same set of values with the Crown
forces or with terrorists to realise there is quantitative data to
support arguments about what THEIR reasons for violence was and what
their targets were!
IRA deaqths were civilians:British Army: RUC: other IRA: UDR in a
ration 7:5:3:1:2
i.e. about 35 % civilain
25% BA
15%RUC
10%UDR
5% other IRA
And how many loyalists?
Well that isnt 100 % certain. One could assume most of (98 per cent plus)
the RUC and all the UDR. I don't know why people joined the BA in England. I
do not think they were asked about N Ireland when they joined in 1965 for
example so I can't say most of the BA were Loyalists or even cared about
Ireland let alone "The Empire". Whether they came from Dundee or Dundrum
though, the stats show they certainly were defending Loyalists and killing
those opposed to Loyalists. It is also fairly sure that the IRA were 98 per
cent plus non Loyalist. The other per cent being paid spies or turncoats.

But as to the main issue raised I do not think civilians were targeted
because they were Loyalist. Certainly you can't seriously be claiming that
an IRA bomb which killed say or a three year old child in England was
targeted at them because they were Loyalist. Military were targeted becuase
the supported the Loyalist establishment.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Loyalists targets were 85% civilian 4%UVF 4% UDA 3% civilian
activists and less than 2%IRA
I think that pattern really suggests a different mind set no matter
whether you share their valuses or not!
It shows that the two organisations had different targets available.
That's all.
No actually it doesn't! It shows the opposite. they BOTH had similar targets
available. BOTH specifically DIFFERED in whom they targeted!
Post by Westprog
The 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?

Also 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.
Post by Westprog
If 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.


I 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?
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The reason that loyalist violence wasn't small time wasn't because
they killed a lot of civilians - it was because they killed a lot of
people.
Yes but the point I make in terms of conflict resolution is
important. The killed DIFFERENT groups of people for different
reasons! One does not need to justify the IRA killing anyone to se
that removing the BA RUC and UDR from the picture would remove HALF
of their killings. Indeed many of the civilian killings may also be
results of attacks against Military targets as well. So
demilitarisation would result in massive downswing of IRA killings.
But the Loyalist groups show evidence of infighting and sectarianism.
The infighting is common to both groups.
Yes but not statistically valid at the same level. five percent of the IRA
killings were other IRA groups but 50 % was military and police. A third was
civilians.

Loyalists targets were 85% civilian 4%UVF 4% UDA 3% civilian activists and
less than 2%IRA

The REpublicans did however kill 1078 Military 45 Loyalists and 185 of their
own and in spite of the 738 civilians they killed it was still LESS than the
number of civilians killed by Loyalists. No doubt some Republicans were
infighting and having turf wars and just wanted to kill Protestants but the
evidence shows it was to a far lesser degree than the infighting and
sectarianism of the likes of the "Shankhill butchers" for example.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Demilitarisation would not result in removing gang wars or targeting
civilians based on their religion!
Except that it did. The political settlement with the IRA ended loyalist
sectarian killings. That's a simple fact. It's uncomfortable if one
believes that loyalist killings happened out of sectarian badness and a
wish to keep catholics down, because the end of loyalist murders coincided
with catholic participation in government.
http://www.psni.police.uk/1._recorded_crime-2.pdf

Figure 1.1 violent criming rising year on year since 1998

Table 1.2 percentage changes in murder manslaughter attempted murder etc
over 2007/08
all up 8.7% 400% 13.6%

Table 1.4 recorded crime by district - all reduced only positives are Foyle
East Belfast Fermanagh Carraigfergus - hardly republican strongholds are
they?


I dont know enough to say how many of the 50 murders and 250 attempted
murders were motivated by religious hatred and bigotry.
Post by Westprog
There's all kinds of analysis that can be done, but the explanation for
the distribution is quite simple - there was a war on, and each side went
out to kill members of the other side, and chose them according to what
was available.
And one decided the OTHER SIDE was in the main a military group whereas the
other decided the enemy were civilians -mostly catholic civilians? It is a
bit trite to say "In war people get killed" You might give that exciuse to
the people of Falluja too when White Phosphorus was used on them or to the
people killed on Bloody Sunday. It is different when people target
civilians. In fact it is what people define as "terrorism".
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
A DIFFERENT answer to this problem
is necessitated. Likewise the small minority of Republican
paramilitarists who also
were motivated by gang membership or turf wars and sectarianism
rather than targeting British Military would have to be dealt with in
a different way.
This does not justify violence or subscribe to the values of the
violent. it is just saying different reasons for violence require
different solutions to remove the reasons and THAT is why the
difference is important to recognise.
The idea that the IRA and the loyalists had different reasons for violence
doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. What they had were different
circumstances.
What they had were DIFFERENT targets. You are now trying to say that the
targets were different because the circumstances somehow made the IRA target
troops rather than civilians! Thats just nonsense!
Post by Westprog
The UDA and UVF didn't kill soldiers because soldiers were the IRA's target.
Exactly ! and why were they targeting DIFFERENT people?
Post by Westprog
The 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.
Westprog
2008-11-04 17:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Mavisbeacon
One does not have to share the same set of values with the Crown
forces or with terrorists to realise there is quantitative data to
support arguments about what THEIR reasons for violence was and what
their targets were!
IRA deaqths were civilians:British Army: RUC: other IRA: UDR in a
ration 7:5:3:1:2
i.e. about 35 % civilain
25% BA
15%RUC
10%UDR
5% other IRA
And how many loyalists?
Well that isnt 100 % certain. One could assume most of (98 per cent
plus) the RUC and all the UDR. I don't know why people joined the BA
in England. I do not think they were asked about N Ireland when they
joined in 1965 for example so I can't say most of the BA were
Loyalists or even cared about Ireland let alone "The Empire". Whether
they came from Dundee or Dundrum though, the stats show they
certainly were defending Loyalists and killing those opposed to
Loyalists. It is also fairly sure that the IRA were 98 per cent plus
non Loyalist. The other per cent being paid spies or turncoats.
I think that the use of loyalist here is confusing. I mean members of
loyalist murder gangs, who were /not/ targetted by the IRA.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But as to the main issue raised I do not think civilians were targeted
because they were Loyalist. Certainly you can't seriously be claiming
that an IRA bomb which killed say or a three year old child in
England was targeted at them because they were Loyalist. Military
were targeted becuase the supported the Loyalist establishment.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Loyalists targets were 85% civilian 4%UVF 4% UDA 3% civilian
activists and less than 2%IRA
I think that pattern really suggests a different mind set no matter
whether you share their valuses or not!
It shows that the two organisations had different targets available.
That's all.
No actually it doesn't! It shows the opposite. they BOTH had similar
targets available.
No, they did not. The IRA had uniformed representatives of the British state
wandering around. They 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.

In spite of having such a wealth of targets available, the IRA still killed
nearly as many civilians as the loyalists - and vastly more than the
security forces combined, whose regular experience was being shot at from
behind a crowd.
Post by Mavisbeacon
BOTH specifically DIFFERED in whom they targeted!
Both differed in the targets available.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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.
They both killed people for evil motives.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Also 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
If 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I 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? They wanted to
murder people, and there was no-one available except IRA and civilians. The
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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The reason that loyalist violence wasn't small time wasn't because
they killed a lot of civilians - it was because they killed a lot
of people.
Yes but the point I make in terms of conflict resolution is
important. The killed DIFFERENT groups of people for different
reasons! One does not need to justify the IRA killing anyone to se
that removing the BA RUC and UDR from the picture would remove HALF
of their killings. Indeed many of the civilian killings may also be
results of attacks against Military targets as well. So
demilitarisation would result in massive downswing of IRA killings.
But the Loyalist groups show evidence of infighting and
sectarianism.
The infighting is common to both groups.
Yes but not statistically valid at the same level. five percent of
the IRA killings were other IRA groups but 50 % was military and
police. A third was civilians.
Loyalists targets were 85% civilian 4%UVF 4% UDA 3% civilian
activists and less than 2%IRA
The REpublicans did however kill 1078 Military 45 Loyalists and 185
of their own and in spite of the 738 civilians they killed it was
still LESS than the number of civilians killed by Loyalists.
Slightly less. Considering the vast number of soft off-duty policemen and
soldiers available, it's amazing that they felt the need to kill so many.
Post by Mavisbeacon
No doubt
some Republicans were infighting and having turf wars and just wanted
to kill Protestants but the evidence shows it was to a far lesser
degree than the infighting and sectarianism of the likes of the
"Shankhill butchers" for example.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Demilitarisation would not result in removing gang wars or targeting
civilians based on their religion!
Except that it did. The political settlement with the IRA ended
loyalist sectarian killings. That's a simple fact. It's
uncomfortable if one believes that loyalist killings happened out of
sectarian badness and a wish to keep catholics down, because the end
of loyalist murders coincided with catholic participation in
government.
http://www.psni.police.uk/1._recorded_crime-2.pdf
Figure 1.1 violent criming rising year on year since 1998
Table 1.2 percentage changes in murder manslaughter attempted murder
etc over 2007/08
all up 8.7% 400% 13.6%
Table 1.4 recorded crime by district - all reduced only positives are
Foyle East Belfast Fermanagh Carraigfergus - hardly republican
strongholds are they?
I dont know enough to say how many of the 50 murders and 250 attempted
murders were motivated by religious hatred and bigotry.
You 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. The loyalist terrorists aren't murdering Catholics any more because the
IRA ended the war. It was only the IRA that could end the war.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
There's all kinds of analysis that can be done, but the explanation
for the distribution is quite simple - there was a war on, and each
side went out to kill members of the other side, and chose them
according to what was available.
And one decided the OTHER SIDE was in the main a military group
whereas the other decided the enemy were civilians -mostly catholic
civilians? It is a bit trite to say "In war people get killed" You
might give that exciuse to the people of Falluja too when White
Phosphorus was used on them or to the people killed on Bloody Sunday.
It is different when people target civilians. In fact it is what people
define as "terrorism".
No, that's not what people define as terrorism. There's no definition that
excludes shooting an off-duty policeman in a hospital or on the steps of a
church.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
A DIFFERENT answer to this problem
is necessitated. Likewise the small minority of Republican
paramilitarists who also
were motivated by gang membership or turf wars and sectarianism
rather than targeting British Military would have to be dealt with
in a different way.
This does not justify violence or subscribe to the values of the
violent. it is just saying different reasons for violence require
different solutions to remove the reasons and THAT is why the
difference is important to recognise.
The idea that the IRA and the loyalists had different reasons for
violence doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. What they had were
different circumstances.
What they had were DIFFERENT targets. You are now trying to say that
the targets were different because the circumstances somehow made the
IRA target troops rather than civilians! Thats just nonsense!
No, it's blatantly obvious. I repeat *yet again* - who were the loyalists
supposed to target? They 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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.
Mavisbeacon
2008-11-07 02:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Mavisbeacon
One does not have to share the same set of values with the Crown
forces or with terrorists to realise there is quantitative data to
support arguments about what THEIR reasons for violence was and what
their targets were!
IRA deaqths were civilians:British Army: RUC: other IRA: UDR in a
ration 7:5:3:1:2
i.e. about 35 % civilain
25% BA
15%RUC
10%UDR
5% other IRA
And how many loyalists?
Well that isnt 100 % certain. One could assume most of (98 per cent
plus) the RUC and all the UDR. I don't know why people joined the BA
in England. I do not think they were asked about N Ireland when they
joined in 1965 for example so I can't say most of the BA were
Loyalists or even cared about Ireland let alone "The Empire". Whether
they came from Dundee or Dundrum though, the stats show they
certainly were defending Loyalists and killing those opposed to
Loyalists. It is also fairly sure that the IRA were 98 per cent plus
non Loyalist. The other per cent being paid spies or turncoats.
I think that the use of loyalist here is confusing. I mean members of
loyalist murder gangs, who were /not/ targetted by the IRA.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But as to the main issue raised I do not think civilians were targeted
because they were Loyalist. Certainly you can't seriously be claiming
that an IRA bomb which killed say or a three year old child in
England was targeted at them because they were Loyalist. Military
were targeted becuase the supported the Loyalist establishment.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Loyalists targets were 85% civilian 4%UVF 4% UDA 3% civilian
activists and less than 2%IRA
I think that pattern really suggests a different mind set no matter
whether you share their valuses or not!
It shows that the two organisations had different targets available.
That's all.
No actually it doesn't! It shows the opposite. they BOTH had similar
targets available.
No, they did not. The IRA had uniformed representatives of the British
state wandering around.
Let 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.
Post by Westprog
They 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.
Post by Westprog
In 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. Also, 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. I 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.


This 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.
Post 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.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
BOTH 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.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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?
Post by Westprog
They 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.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Also 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.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
If 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.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
I 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! You 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"
Post by Westprog
They wanted to murder people, and there was no-one available except IRA and
civilians.
the important clause being "they wanted to..."
Post by Westprog
The 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?
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The reason that loyalist violence wasn't small time wasn't because
they killed a lot of civilians - it was because they killed a lot
of people.
Yes but the point I make in terms of conflict resolution is
important. The killed DIFFERENT groups of people for different
reasons! One does not need to justify the IRA killing anyone to se
that removing the BA RUC and UDR from the picture would remove HALF
of their killings. Indeed many of the civilian killings may also be
results of attacks against Military targets as well. So
demilitarisation would result in massive downswing of IRA killings.
But the Loyalist groups show evidence of infighting and
sectarianism.
The infighting is common to both groups.
Yes but not statistically valid at the same level. five percent of
the IRA killings were other IRA groups but 50 % was military and
police. A third was civilians.
Loyalists targets were 85% civilian 4%UVF 4% UDA 3% civilian
activists and less than 2%IRA
The REpublicans did however kill 1078 Military 45 Loyalists and 185
of their own and in spite of the 738 civilians they killed it was
still LESS than the number of civilians killed by Loyalists.
Slightly less. Considering the vast number of soft off-duty policemen and
soldiers available, it's amazing that they felt the need to kill so many.
I 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.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
No doubt
some Republicans were infighting and having turf wars and just wanted
to kill Protestants but the evidence shows it was to a far lesser
degree than the infighting and sectarianism of the likes of the
"Shankhill butchers" for example.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Demilitarisation would not result in removing gang wars or targeting
civilians based on their religion!
Except that it did. The political settlement with the IRA ended
loyalist sectarian killings. That's a simple fact. It's
uncomfortable if one believes that loyalist killings happened out of
sectarian badness and a wish to keep catholics down, because the end
of loyalist murders coincided with catholic participation in
government.
http://www.psni.police.uk/1._recorded_crime-2.pdf
Figure 1.1 violent criming rising year on year since 1998
Table 1.2 percentage changes in murder manslaughter attempted murder
etc over 2007/08
all up 8.7% 400% 13.6%
Table 1.4 recorded crime by district - all reduced only positives are
Foyle East Belfast Fermanagh Carraigfergus - hardly republican
strongholds are they?
I dont know enough to say how many of the 50 murders and 250 attempted
murders were motivated by religious hatred and bigotry.
You 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 Westprog
The 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.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
There's all kinds of analysis that can be done, but the explanation
for the distribution is quite simple - there was a war on, and each
side went out to kill members of the other side, and chose them
according to what was available.
And one decided the OTHER SIDE was in the main a military group
whereas the other decided the enemy were civilians -mostly catholic
civilians? It is a bit trite to say "In war people get killed" You
might give that exciuse to the people of Falluja too when White
Phosphorus was used on them or to the people killed on Bloody Sunday.
It is different when people target civilians. In fact it is what people
define as "terrorism".
No, that's not what people define as terrorism.
Oh yes it is. It is my preferred definition.
Post by Westprog
There'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?
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
A DIFFERENT answer to this problem
is necessitated. Likewise the small minority of Republican
paramilitarists who also
were motivated by gang membership or turf wars and sectarianism
rather than targeting British Military would have to be dealt with
in a different way.
This does not justify violence or subscribe to the values of the
violent. it is just saying different reasons for violence require
different solutions to remove the reasons and THAT is why the
difference is important to recognise.
The idea that the IRA and the loyalists had different reasons for
violence doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. What they had were
different circumstances.
What they had were DIFFERENT targets. You are now trying to say that
the targets were different because the circumstances somehow made the
IRA target troops rather than civilians! Thats just nonsense!
No, 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! It was
NOT a question of opportunity since the Loyalists had every opportunity to
attack the Military.
Post by Westprog
They 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 and a need to have a police force that
Reoublicans could depend on.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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.

2. They believed they were policing Republican areas since the RUC could not
be trusted. This is beginning to be removed withthe PSNI recruitment but it
will involve Republican input into the management of the PSNI. This is
currently a political football.

If 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.
Westprog
2008-11-07 11:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Mavisbeacon wrote:
...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Let 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. The reason that loyalists didn't kill people wearing
uniform was because the other side didn't wear uniforms, priests and nuns
aside.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
They 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. They 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
In 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. Go to
CAIN, check the crosstab of victims against culprits. You'll find 738
civilians killed by republicans as against 873 killed by loyalists.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Also, 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".

It 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. Planting a bomb outside a school
in Gibralter is not something you do if you don't /want/ to kill civilians.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I 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. It was quite possible for them to carry out their economic campaign
without hurting a single person. The purpose of the economic campaign was to
terrorise the civilian population. The 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. The IRA would have
achieved nothing by killing a handful of soldiers every year. They /had/ to
instill fear and despair in the ordinary population.
Post by Mavisbeacon
This 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.

The 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
BOTH 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. It would have been ridiculous for the loyalists to target the
military. The loyalists were opposed to the IRA's aims of a united Ireland.

Both 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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. You have a mistaken view of the nature of the conflict, which
is extremely common among nationalists. It'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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
They 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Also 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
If 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
I 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
You 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
They 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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!

If 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.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
I 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.

It'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.

It 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.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
You 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 Westprog
The 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.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
No, 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
There'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.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
No, 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. In a war, you target the other side. In a terrorist war, the real
target is /always/ the civilian population.
Post by Mavisbeacon
It 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
They 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 Mavisbeacon
and 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. Having an exclusive protestant police force was a common goal of the
IRA and the loyalists.

Supporting 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?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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. The IRA wanted another. That was what the war
was about. The final outcome was something opposed by /both/ sides.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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. Their
political representatives never had more than a tiny representation during
the war. The essence of republicanism was that action /precedes/ gaining
popular support.
Post by Mavisbeacon
2. 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
If 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. The loyalists wanted to keep the British
presence in Ireland, with protestant domination.

What ended the war was the abandonment of these goals.
jl
2008-11-07 12:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
It was exactly the same as the IRA. They 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.
I've lived here for 40 years and I never thought of the 'troubles' as a
war. I always thought of it as criminal activity with many Robin Hood
excuses.

Jochen
--
------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
eugene
2008-11-07 13:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by jl
Post by Westprog
It was exactly the same as the IRA. They 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.
I've lived here for 40 years and I never thought of the 'troubles' as a
war. I always thought of it as criminal activity with many Robin Hood
excuses.
Jochen
Ya really need to be here for more than 40 years to try and understand
Jochen
Post by jl
--
------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
Westprog
2008-11-07 13:07:27 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by eugene
Post by jl
Post by Westprog
It was exactly the same as the IRA. They 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.
I've lived here for 40 years and I never thought of the 'troubles'
as a war. I always thought of it as criminal activity with many
Robin Hood excuses.
Ya really need to be here for more than 40 years to try and understand
I've found that the less direct contact one has with NI, the easier it is to
understand.
eugene
2008-11-07 14:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
...
Post by eugene
Post by jl
Post by Westprog
It was exactly the same as the IRA. They 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.
I've lived here for 40 years and I never thought of the 'troubles'
as a war. I always thought of it as criminal activity with many
Robin Hood excuses.
Ya really need to be here for more than 40 years to try and understand
I've found that the less direct contact one has with NI, the easier it is
to understand.
I don't agree with that at all. Any understanding of that nature would be
very superficial.
Westprog
2008-11-07 14:55:25 UTC
Permalink
eugene wrote:
...
Post by eugene
Post by Westprog
Post by eugene
Post by jl
Post by Westprog
It was exactly the same as the IRA. They 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.
I've lived here for 40 years and I never thought of the 'troubles'
as a war. I always thought of it as criminal activity with many
Robin Hood excuses.
Ya really need to be here for more than 40 years to try and
understand
I've found that the less direct contact one has with NI, the easier
it is to understand.
I don't agree with that at all. Any understanding of that nature
would be very superficial.
That would depend on the degree of knowledge. The direct experience to be
gained by living in NI is all too easily overwhelmed by the myths,
preconceptions and prejudices that dominate the place. It's very difficult
to step outside all that. Even people who've never been to NI map their own
preconceptions onto the situation.

It's no more difficult to understand NI from the outside than WW2, or the
slave trade, or the Spanish Armada.
jl
2008-11-07 15:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
That would depend on the degree of knowledge. The direct experience to
be gained by living in NI is all too easily overwhelmed by the myths,
preconceptions and prejudices that dominate the place.
I see what you are driving at, but I can't agree with you. A bit of local
knowledge helps a lot. For instance the graffiti and wall art in some of
the housing estates can tell you a lot about the type of propaganda that
is approved. And a lot of that always tried to portrait the criminal as a
soldier - it was obviously the line the followers were asked to swallow.
Post by Westprog
It's very
difficult to step outside all that. Even people who've never been to NI
map their own preconceptions onto the situation.
It helps when you come in from the outside - particularly from a country
that was once run by criminals. One thing you shouldn't do is listen to
too many Northern Irish news broadcasts.
Post by Westprog
It's no more difficult to understand NI from the outside than WW2, or
the slave trade, or the Spanish Armada.
From a historical point of view I would submit that it is impossible to
understand any historical process fully, if it is more recent than 100
years - and even then it can be /ver/ difficult.

Jochen
--
------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
Westprog
2008-11-07 15:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by jl
Post by Westprog
That would depend on the degree of knowledge. The direct experience
to be gained by living in NI is all too easily overwhelmed by the
myths, preconceptions and prejudices that dominate the place.
I see what you are driving at, but I can't agree with you. A bit of
local knowledge helps a lot. For instance the graffiti and wall art
in some of the housing estates can tell you a lot about the type of
propaganda that is approved. And a lot of that always tried to
portrait the criminal as a soldier - it was obviously the line the
followers were asked to swallow.
Well, that's the danger. People in NI can be enormously friendly and
accepting. If you're taken in by a family and looked after, it's all too
easy to accept it when they talk about defending their community. Yes,
seeing the ground can be informative, but it can also be very misleading.
Post by jl
Post by Westprog
It's very
difficult to step outside all that. Even people who've never been to
NI map their own preconceptions onto the situation.
It helps when you come in from the outside - particularly from a
country that was once run by criminals. One thing you shouldn't do is
listen to too many Northern Irish news broadcasts.
Post by Westprog
It's no more difficult to understand NI from the outside than WW2, or
the slave trade, or the Spanish Armada.
From a historical point of view I would submit that it is impossible
to understand any historical process fully, if it is more recent than
100 years - and even then it can be /very/ difficult.
Like Mao on the French Revolution.
jl
2008-11-07 16:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
Post by jl
From a historical point of view I would submit that it is impossible
to understand any historical process fully, if it is more recent than
100 years - and even then it can be /very/ difficult.
Like Mao on the French Revolution.
The French revolution and indeed French policy from Napoleon through the
19th century is the very devil to make sense of. Fascinating stuff though.

Mao you can take or you can leave - I leave. It's too recent.

Jochen
--
------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
WhiteWolf! <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>
2008-11-07 15:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by eugene
Post by Westprog
...
Post by eugene
Post by jl
Post by Westprog
It was exactly the same as the IRA. They 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.
I've lived here for 40 years and I never thought of the 'troubles'
as a war. I always thought of it as criminal activity with many
Robin Hood excuses.
Ya really need to be here for more than 40 years to try and understand
I've found that the less direct contact one has with NI, the easier it is
to understand.
I don't agree with that at all. Any understanding of that nature would be
very superficial.
You are too close to the wood to see the trees.... Maybe!

Ray


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“If you're a liberal, anything you say is protected. If you're a conservative,
anything you say is hateful.” - Laura Schlessinger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
unknown
2008-11-11 21:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by eugene
Post by Westprog
...
Post by eugene
Post by jl
Post by Westprog
It was exactly the same as the IRA. They 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.
I've lived here for 40 years and I never thought of the 'troubles'
as a war. I always thought of it as criminal activity with many
Robin Hood excuses.
Ya really need to be here for more than 40 years to try and understand
I've found that the less direct contact one has with NI, the easier it is
to understand.
I don't agree with that at all. Any understanding of that nature would be
very superficial.
I think he means and I would agree that our local perception is not as
clear as we think it is. We have baggage that we can't set down and we
still can't feel how heavy it is.
I mean many of the things we accept as fact have been elaborated into
epics of grand standards, when really it is the personal connection
with the troubles, the growing up through it, that has caused the
problem. We simply don't know any different. Eugene your a little
older than me, but I remember being frightened as a child, and my
friends being frightened, and Parents being frightened. We were all
poor and we were all frightened, and that was everyone. Surely we have
each developed a perception that we really believe, and dragged it
around with us for all these years. We have been unwitting ambassadors
of lunacy.

max.it (the orange cage)
SammyM
2008-11-11 23:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
I think he means and I would agree that our local perception is not as
clear as we think it is. We have baggage that we can't set down and we
still can't feel how heavy it is.
I mean many of the things we accept as fact have been elaborated into
epics of grand standards, when really it is the personal connection
with the troubles, the growing up through it, that has caused the
problem. We simply don't know any different. Eugene your a little
older than me, but I remember being frightened as a child, and my
friends being frightened, and Parents being frightened. We were all
poor and we were all frightened, and that was everyone. Surely we have
each developed a perception that we really believe, and dragged it
around with us for all these years. We have been unwitting ambassadors
of lunacy.
max.it (the orange cage)
I know what you are saying Max.
It is a challenge to all of us - because we all DO carry that baggage.

You talk about the "troubles". The "baggage" for me started way before
that. I was first "beaten up" for being a Protestant in Belfast in 1948.
Way,way, before the "troubles".

The generation before me? :- My mum worked as a weaver in a factory on
the Crumlin Road, called "Ewarts". It was "bombed" during the German
"blitz" on Belfast on Easter 1941. She had been married in March that
year. She needed work urgently, a young bride trying to set up home. She
looked around for work, and finally found a job in a factory on the
Fall's Road. She lasted one day. Why? - because she was a "Prod".

Often on this newsgroup, people have such a "simplistic" view of
"Nordie" land - a "black and white" view. Often I have been temped to
enter the discussions, but my attitude has been, "why bother?".

I have lived here (N.Ireland) for almost 70 years, and I agree with you
Max, we have all been "ambassadors of lunacy".

SammyM
jl
2008-11-07 14:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by eugene
Post by jl
Post by Westprog
It was exactly the same as the IRA. They 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.
I've lived here for 40 years and I never thought of the 'troubles' as a
war. I always thought of it as criminal activity with many Robin Hood
excuses.
Jochen
Ya really need to be here for more than 40 years to try and understand
Jochen
I have already come to that conclusion, Eugene. Either that, or I
understand only too well.

Alternatively, you mustn't have been here at all, like all those pot
boiling Americans with lots of loose change.

Jochen
--
------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
Beacon
2008-11-09 16:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by eugene
Post by jl
Post by Westprog
It was exactly the same as the IRA. They 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.
I've lived here for 40 years and I never thought of the 'troubles' as a
war. I always thought of it as criminal activity with many Robin Hood
excuses.
Jochen
Ya really need to be here for more than 40 years to try and understand
Jochen
Post by jl
--
How about 400 years? Would that do? :)
jl
2008-11-09 20:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beacon
How about 400 years? Would that do? :)
That would more or less get us back to King Billy. That is bound to be
dangerous.

Jochen
--
------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
unknown
2008-11-10 02:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by jl
Post by Beacon
How about 400 years? Would that do? :)
That would more or less get us back to King Billy. That is bound to be
dangerous.
A bit earlier than that. The Flight of the Earls, the end of Tanistry,
the Lifford (and other) juries, the Derry city charter...
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
Westprog
2008-11-07 13:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by jl
Post by Westprog
It was exactly the same as the IRA. They 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.
I've lived here for 40 years and I never thought of the 'troubles' as
a war. I always thought of it as criminal activity with many Robin
Hood excuses.
By calling it a war, I don't mean to imply that it was justifiable or in any
way legal. Two small groups fought the war, using the rest of the population
as proxy targets as they weren't prepared to engage each other. Calling it a
war doesn't mean that they weren't criminals, or that they had any
justification for what they did - which was worse, in my view, than ordinary
criminality.
Mavisbeacon
2008-11-08 00:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Let 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 Westprog
The 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
They 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 Westprog
They 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
In 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 Westprog
CAIN, 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Also, 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 Westprog
It 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 Westprog
Planting 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
I 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 Westprog
It 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 Westprog
The 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 Westprog
The 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 Westprog
The 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
This 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 Westprog
The 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
BOTH 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 Westprog
It 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 Westprog
Both 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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 Westprog
You 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 Westprog
It'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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
They 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Also 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
If 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
I 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
You 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
They 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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 Westprog
If 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 Mavisbeacon
I 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 Westprog
It'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 Westprog
It 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 Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
You 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 Westprog
The 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 Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
No, 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
There'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 Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
No, 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 Westprog
In 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
It 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
They 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 Mavisbeacon
and 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 Westprog
Having 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 Westprog
Supporting 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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 Westprog
The 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 Westprog
That 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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 Westprog
Their 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 Westprog
The 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
2. 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 Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
If 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 Westprog
The loyalists wanted to keep the British presence in Ireland, with
protestant domination.
Whether the people liked it or not?
Post by Westprog
What 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.
Falcon
2008-11-08 01:09:34 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Westprog
Planting a bomb outside a school in Gibralter is not something you do if
you don't /want/ to kill civilians.
This bomb was 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. [...]
Of course. That was staring me in the face. They really should pension me
off. Beacon, aka Beaky. Well slap my thigh and call me Sheila, you've not
been seen around these parts for five years or more. Still got a rudimentary
grasp on events eh? You're either confusing two separate incidents, or
Warrington's shopping centre had the largest litter bins in Europe.

How's the dissident business these days?
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Poppy Appeal 2008
http://www.poppy.org.uk/
------------------------------------
Mavisbeacon
2008-11-08 02:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Falcon
[...]
Post by Westprog
Planting a bomb outside a school in Gibralter is not something you do if
you don't /want/ to kill civilians.
This bomb was 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. [...]
Of course. That was staring me in the face. They really should pension me
off. Beacon, aka Beaky. Well slap my thigh and call me Sheila, you've not
been seen around these parts for five years or more.
I never went away you know.
Well apart from several kids and several bouts of chemotherapy.
I didn't post under this identity to this group or on several other
identities to other groups.
I won't any more either.
Post by Falcon
Still got a rudimentary grasp on events eh? You're either confusing two
separate incidents, or Warrington's shopping centre had the largest litter
bins in Europe.
The former. I was thinking of the child killed and reading to quickly
This
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/20/newsid_2544000/2544121.stm
and this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2006/02/27/270206_manchester_bomb_english_interview_feature.shtml
Post by Falcon
How's the dissident business these days?
I don't know. Depends. To which large institution or organisation are you
referring?
Falcon
2008-11-08 09:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Falcon
[...]
Post by Westprog
Planting a bomb outside a school in Gibralter is not something you do
if you don't /want/ to kill civilians.
This bomb was 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. [...]
Of course. That was staring me in the face. They really should pension me
off. Beacon, aka Beaky. Well slap my thigh and call me Sheila, you've not
been seen around these parts for five years or more.
I never went away you know.
Well apart from several kids and several bouts of chemotherapy.
I didn't post under this identity to this group or on several other
identities to other groups.
I won't any more either.
That'll be nice. You could obviously do with the rest. With very few
exceptions, people who felt the need to justify their complicity in
thirty-odd years of slaughter and mayhem deserted this newsgroup when the
provisionals finally handed their weapons over. It's just no fun for some
people when the sound of explosions and gunfire die down.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Falcon
Still got a rudimentary grasp on events eh? You're either confusing two
separate incidents, or Warrington's shopping centre had the largest
litter bins in Europe.
The former. I was thinking of the child killed and reading to quickly
This
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/20/newsid_2544000/2544121.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2006/02/27/270206_manchester_bomb_english_interview_feature.shtml
Post by Falcon
How's the dissident business these days?
I don't know. Depends. To which large institution or organisation are you
referring?
The one that tries to make out that their own particular brand of terrorism
is more noble than everyone else's.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Poppy Appeal 2008
http://www.poppy.org.uk/
------------------------------------
Beacon
2008-11-09 16:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Falcon
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Falcon
[...]
Post by Westprog
Planting a bomb outside a school in Gibralter is not something you do
if you don't /want/ to kill civilians.
This bomb was 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. [...]
Of course. That was staring me in the face. They really should pension me
off. Beacon, aka Beaky. Well slap my thigh and call me Sheila, you've not
been seen around these parts for five years or more.
I never went away you know.
Well apart from several kids and several bouts of chemotherapy.
I didn't post under this identity to this group or on several other
identities to other groups.
I won't any more either.
That'll be nice. You could obviously do with the rest. With very few
exceptions, people who felt the need to justify their complicity in
thirty-odd years of slaughter and mayhem deserted this newsgroup when the
provisionals finally handed their weapons over. It's just no fun for some
people when the sound of explosions and gunfire die down.
And you try to paint me as one of those people ? When you have been given
several reasons from me as to why such reasoning is incorrect?
Post by Falcon
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Falcon
Still got a rudimentary grasp on events eh? You're either confusing two
separate incidents, or Warrington's shopping centre had the largest
litter bins in Europe.
The former. I was thinking of the child killed and reading to quickly
This
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/20/newsid_2544000/2544121.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2006/02/27/270206_manchester_bomb_english_interview_feature.shtml
Post by Falcon
How's the dissident business these days?
I don't know. Depends. To which large institution or organisation are you
referring?
The one that tries to make out that their own particular brand of terrorism
is more noble than everyone else's.
There you go again! I'll challenge you now in the literally thousands of
posts to soc.culture.irish to produce even ONE where I supported terrorism!
Can you do that? And I am speaking speking specifically of the IRA and
related groups in Ireland since say 1970 and posted in the above usenet
newsgroups . I do not refer to groups in other countries or at other times.
Beacon
2008-11-10 13:48:32 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Beacon
Post by Falcon
The one that tries to make out that their own particular brand of terrorism
is more noble than everyone else's.
There you go again! I'll challenge you now in the literally thousands of
posts to soc.culture.irish to produce even ONE where I supported
terrorism! Can you do that? And I am speaking speking specifically of the
IRA and related groups in Ireland since say 1970 and posted in the above
usenet newsgroups . I do not refer to groups in other countries or at
other times.
Actually if you looked you might see that I was posting to at least one of
the above groups as Becaon until Jan 2007. I still don't think you will find
evidence of me supporting terrorists.
Westprog
2008-11-08 14:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Let 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 I've repeatedly shown that the REASONS WERE NOT DIFFERENT. They were
both fighting what they thought was a war, and engaging targets on the other
side. Both the IRA and the loyalists considered it legitimate to kill
civilians. Both considered it legitimate to kill uniformed representatives
of their enemy.

The individual motivations of the people doing the killing are another
matter, and they would have been different from person to person. That's not
what's significant.
Post by Mavisbeacon
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!
The war, as far as the loyalists was concerned, was primarily against the
people who wanted a united Ireland.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
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.
Republicans killed nearly as many civilians as loyalists. That pretty
conclusively shows that they didn't have a problem with it. When they killed
civilians, it was usually in an operation which killed civilians only.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
They 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.
The war /aims/ were all Ireland. The war actually took place in NI, with
occasional forays into the republic and mainland Britain.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
In 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!
I think you'll find that they didn't kill less, they killed fewer.
Marginally fewer.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Go >to
Post by Westprog
CAIN, 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.
Are you claiming that that 20% represents a qualitative difference between
the methods of the two organisations?
Post by Mavisbeacon
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've never denied that the IRA controlled the scale of the violence. Indeed,
it's my fundamental contention. When the IRA stopped killing people - not
just civilians - the war ended. It would not have ended due to what the
loyalists did if the IRA had decided to carry on.

I've discussed the Shankhill bomb many times. IMO, if you bring a large bomb
into a busy shopping street on a Saturday afternoon, you can't reasonably
claim not to be targetting civilians. The point of the bomb wasn't to attack
the UDA - something the IRA weren't very prone to do. It was to punish the
protestant population for allowing the UDA to operate. The bomb didn't "go
wrong" except in as far as it killed Volunteer Pike who couldn't work it
right. The civilian casualties were to be expected, as with all the other
bombs.
Post by Mavisbeacon
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.
The IRA spent the '90's winding down their operations for a number of
reasons. Mainly because they were losing due to British intelligence, and
because of indiscriminate loyalist reprisals.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Also, 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.
If you look closely, you'll see that paramilitary members are classified
differently to civilians. The IRA members killed by the IRA do not show up
under civilian deaths.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
It 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?
No. And I find the fact that you don't know this a bit worrying.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Planting a bomb outside a school in Gibralter is not something you
do if you don't /want/ to kill civilians.
This bomb was not sucessfull and killed noone. So you cant use it as an
example.
I fail to understand the logic of this. The bomb was clearly going to kill
people in exactly the same way as the Eniskillen bomb. Luckily the IRA were
prevented from carrying out this act. It was no thanks to the IRA.
Post by Mavisbeacon
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
I'll repeat what I've always said. The IRA could have blown up economic
targets without killing civilians, or at any rate killing very few. They
killed exactly as many civilians as they wanted to.
Post by Mavisbeacon
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 agree. Exactly like the WTC attacks. Could they have achieved what they
wanted by hitting the towers at ten at night (and the hijacking would have
been just as easy). Obviously. So did they want to kill as many people as
actually died? Obviously.
Post by Mavisbeacon
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.
The loyalists killed as many people as they intended to kill. There's a
pretence that the IRA bombs worked differently. They didn't.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
I 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?
Jim Watt has posted on this before. I'm not sure exactly how close the bomb
was to a school - but it would have been comparable to Omagh. If detonated
at the place intended, the streets would have been packed for a parade. It's
a clear example of an operation nominally against British forces (in this
case, a band!) but actually designed to terrorise civilians.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
It 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.
Yeah, they'd have been hugely popular.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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.
The aim of war is to induce political change. The political change the IRA
wanted in Ireland was an end to the British presence. To achieve that, they
decided that they needed to persuade the population of Britain and Northern
Ireland that the only way to stop the IRA killing them was to give in. The
point of the loyalist operations was to persuade the people of Britain and
Northern Ireland that giving in to the IRA would /not/ lead to a peaceful
outcome.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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?
The IRA and republicans wanted to prevent a normal state operating in NI.
The doctrine of the failed state was fundamental to republicanism. It's
obvious that the people who suffered most during the war were NI catholics,
and that the people who benefited most by its end were NI catholics.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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!
I agree. It was simplistic, childish and illogical. It only took them thirty
years to realise that. Now they are trying to rewrite history to pretend
that they felt like that all along.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
This 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!
It was much more dangerous to target members of the UDA and UVF, because
they would target members of the IRA back. They would also target their
friends and family.

Wives and children of members of the security services were shot by the IRA
in exactly that way.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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.
No, that was not their aim. I've given their aims. They felt that their aims
could be more easily achieved by choosing different targets.
Post by Mavisbeacon
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!
We'd be in a situation where normal democratic politics could be given a
chance to operate. The IRA, UDA, UVF etc were /all/ committed to
/preventing/ an egalitarian society being established within NI. Their
motives were different, but they had the same aim. See, for example, the
downfall of Sunningdale.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post 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.
I've agreed that the IRA were winding down their operations in the '90's,
and that this led to the end of the war.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
BOTH 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) .
The nice thing about Irish politics is that it's always possible to hop back
a step. The issue of who started it is of little interest to me. It's who
kept it going that matters.
Post by Mavisbeacon
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.
So what? The IRA wanted to end the NI state. The loyalists wanted it to
continue, with protestant domination. These aims are not the least bit
obscure. They were proclaimed, loudly, at the time. It's only afterwards
that they are pretending that they just wanted to get along if the Evil
Brits had only let them.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
It 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.
We can go around this in circles, but I've shown many times now why each
side picked its target.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
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?
You're trying to promote a view that the IRA was fundamentally different,
more honourable, more decent than the loyalists. That they killed and
injured civilians as an accidental byproduct of their operations.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
You 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?
The idea that the IRA /didn't/ want to kill civilians is to romanticise
them. I don't know what proportion of Nationalists follow this line of
thinking, but it's common even among people who oppose the IRA and
republicans.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
It'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.
There is undoubtedly sectarianism in NI, and it's possible to discuss which
communities display worst excesses of sectarianism. It's also possible to
discuss the motivation of the different members of the terrorist groups.

However, what concerns me in this discussion is what they /actually did/. In
discussing their actions, there is little to choose between them except by
simply counting how many died.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
They 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.
The issue of how the Southern state paid lip service to pluralism while the
Northern state didn't isn't the point. What we're discussing is how the
various terrorist groups operated when they were fighting their war.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
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.
The IRA had proclaimed aims, and they had actions. The reason that they
targetted many catholic civilians is because the war was taking place in NI,
and anyone considered to be part of the NI state was a target.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
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 used State 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!
That's what a war is. In particular, that's how a guerilla, terrorist war
operates.

It's no good saying that they could have attacked the people on their own
side. In a war, you attack the people on the other side. In NI, the
terrorist groups attacked people on the other side.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
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.
"3:15 p.m. (Cavehill Road, north Belfast)
A car bomb (estimated at 50 pounds (23 kg) of explosive) exploded outside a
row of single storey shops near the top of the Cavehill Road, north Belfast.
Those caught in the blast had no warning of the bomb. The shops were in a
religiously-mixed residential area. Two women and a man died in this blast.
Mrs Margaret O'Hare (37), a Catholic mother of seven children, died in her
car. Her 11-year-old daughter was with her in her car and was badly injured.
Miss Brigid Murray (65), a Catholic, was also killed. Stephen Parker (14), a
Protestant teenager, also died in the explosion. In addition there were a
number of serious injuries."

I suppose you could favourably contrast this equal opportunities bombing
with the discrimination shown in loyalist shootings. However, the use of
bombs tends to be inherently less focussed.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
They 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.
They both killed people according to whether they thought it would advance
their aims.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
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.
One can accept the justifications given by the terrorists as to why they
avoided particularly dangerous activities. I prefer to draw my own
conclusions. The fact that the IRA chose not to engage the people
responsible for the majority of deaths in the Catholic community speaks far
more than any press release from P O'Neill.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
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 placed to kill Protestants as a target.
The IRA were quite willing to kill all sorts of people, but they knew that
their bombs would kill more protestants than catholics, according to where
they placed them. I've never claimed that the IRA had any problem with
killing /anyone/.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
It'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.
The eventual realisation that their activities were pointless,
counter-productive and immoral was to the IRA's credit. I don't think they
deserve medals for it, though.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
It 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.
I find that highly implausible. The fact that the IRA changed tactics to
kill fewer civilians shows that it was entirely possible. Civilians /were/
IRA targets, and civilian deaths /were/ a forseeable and foreseen result of
IRA operations.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
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.
The IRA didn't say it was over. Switching off a war isn't like switching off
a light. It took a while. Nevertheless, it was up to the IRA to stop the
war, and when they stopped, it stopped.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
There'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.
Michael Collins had no trouble bringing Dev's side to court and convicting
them. And Dev had no trouble locking up and hanging the IRA.
Post by Mavisbeacon
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.
Not if they operated uniformed armies in the field. There was certainly
terrorism in the American and French revolutions.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
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?
Same reasons. Different circumstances.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
In 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?
Because the IRA killed a lot more people. The IRA could have killed fewer
soldiers. Would that have made their operations more moral?


...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
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.
They rejected /any/ police force operating as part of the British state.
They weren't interested in police reform. They wanted the British
jurisdiction ended.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Having 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.
They specifically targetted catholic members of the RUC, and ensured that
they could not live in their community. A non-sectarian police force was not
an aim of the IRA, it was something to be opposed.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Supporting 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.
No, they wanted one that served /their/ government.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Joining one that didn't made people into targets. It was not
because they were Catholic.
It was far, far more dangerous to be a catholic policeman than a protestant.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
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 Westprog
The 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.
I don't think there's any doubt that SF eventually abandoned their aims
entirely.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
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?
Every general election.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Their 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.
There was never any doubt as to the opposition of the majority of the Irish
people to the IRA. If that hadn't been the case, SF would have won general
elections. (Which would then presumably have been followed by their refusal
to take their seats in the Dail).
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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"
The issue wasn't partition, which /was/ opposed by a majority. It was the
right of the IRA to carry out armed actions, which /never/ had popular
support, even among the Northern Catholics.

...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
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.
It had nothing to do with a referendum. The IRA Army Council decided. The
will of the people had been known for a very long time.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The loyalists wanted to keep the British presence in Ireland, with
protestant domination.
Whether the people liked it or not?
Of course. They were terrorists, not a discussion group.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
What ended the war was the abandonment of these goals.
What ended the war was the removal for the reasons given for it.
There was no change. The reasons for the formation of the Provisional IRA
still apply. There is still British rule in Ireland. Martin McGuinness circa
1974 would have felt entirely justified in shooting her Majesty's Minister
For Education Martin McGuinness 2008.
Post by Mavisbeacon
some
people still adhere to the stated goals but they cant claim to
represent any substantial part of what people want.
Beacon
2008-11-09 16:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Mavisbeacon
Let 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.
But as I stated that is DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED by the evidence! The data on
Republican targets does not suggest that Protestants were the "other lot" to
the level that the data on Loyalists suggests that Catholics were their
"other lot"

Thats paret of my point.
Post by Westprog
The reason that loyalists didn't kill people wearing uniform was because
the other side didn't wear uniforms, priests and nuns aside.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
They 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. They were killing people on the other
side.
No it wasn't exactly the same! The IRA were not exclusively killing
civilians based on their religion. They had no reason to!
They DID have a reason to kill military troops. A DIFFERENT reason from
Loyalists reason for killing Catholics.
Post by Westprog
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.
To an extent yes. But as you have poited out the IRA were not attacking
Protestant civilians even though the IRA opposed Loyalism. The IRA in their
view were attacking the agents of a State which oppressed Republicans. they
were attacking the Military who backed up the Loyalists. But the Loyalists
were NOT attacking the armed people who backed up Republicans. they were
attacking civilians Catholic civilians.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
In 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. Go to
CAIN, check the crosstab of victims against culprits. You'll find 738
civilians killed by republicans as against 873 killed by loyalists.
Yes and you will find that they killed over 1000 military and you will find
the civilians were not target because of Religion like the Loyalists. I am
not justifying their targets I am just re iterating that they were
DIFFERENT, whether justified or not and people going after different targets
for different reasons requires different solutions when removing that
reason.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Also, 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".
But wouldn't CAIN list these as "political activists" and not civiliand. I
mean how could someone inform without some actual knowledge about what they
were informing? And how would they get such intel unless they were active in
an organisation?
[snip]
Westprog
2008-11-09 17:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beacon
But as you have poited out the IRA were not
attacking Protestant civilians even though the IRA opposed Loyalism.
That is factually wrong. The IRA /were/ attacking protestant civilians. They
killed a lot of them, sometimes with random bombs.

The H2 idea is that the IRA should get a pass on their murders of protestant
civilians because they killed a lot of other people as well. I.e., one lot
of IRA murders rendered the other lot of murders less heinous. I think that
the fallacious argument is palpable.
Post by Beacon
The IRA in their view were attacking the agents of a State which
oppressed Republicans. they were attacking the Military who backed up
the Loyalists. But the Loyalists were NOT attacking the armed people
who backed up Republicans. they were attacking civilians Catholic
civilians.
The IRA were attacking people in order to bring about a united Ireland. The
loyalists were attacking people to prevent a united Ireland. Both were
willing to attack civilians.

...
Post by Beacon
Yes and you will find that they killed over 1000 military
And there is the fallacious argument. How can murdering one lot of people
make the murder of another lot less culpable? Would the IRA have been a
sectarian organisation if they /hadn't/ killed all those soldiers and
police?
Post by Beacon
and you
will find the civilians were not target because of Religion like the
Loyalists. I am not justifying their targets I am just re iterating
that they were DIFFERENT, whether justified or not and people going
after different targets for different reasons requires different
solutions when removing that reason.
The solution was the same for both. The IRA and the loyalists had to accept
that their political aims were not going to be fullfilled. The protestants
had to accept catholics having a place in government and administration. The
IRA had to accept that a united Ireland would be dependent on majority
consent. IOW, they both had to accept an internal power-sharing executive.

...
Post by Beacon
Post by Westprog
No, they weren't. Because a lot of those cases were "informers", or
"criminals".
But wouldn't CAIN list these as "political activists" and not
civilians.
No, it doesn't.
Post by Beacon
I mean how could someone inform without some actual
knowledge about what they were informing?
I didn't say they were informers. I said they were "informers". They were
killed because they didn't toe the republican line, one way or another. In
one notorious case, for comforting a dying soldier. The IRA was better than
the loyalists in making up justifications. They were also better at killing
people.
Post by Beacon
And how would they get such
intel unless they were active in an organisation?
[snip]
Clearly they didn't. "Informer" was a catchall designation for any kind of
dissent. Saying "we shot him because he stood up to one of our hard men"
doesn't sound as nice.

Does anyone really believe that the McCartney murder was the first of its
kind?

They didn't.
Beacon
2008-11-10 10:22:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
But as you have poited out the IRA were not
attacking Protestant civilians even though the IRA opposed Loyalism.
That is factually wrong. The IRA /were/ attacking protestant civilians.
They killed a lot of them, sometimes with random bombs.
depends on what you claim as a "fact". I don't support the IRA but the point
is to view things from their perspective and look at their reasons. If you
want to jusdge what a FACT is, well the stats ae there. Ususlly in
scientific terms we do nt say "smoking causes cancer" or "carbon causes
global warming". In moist cases a statistical probabality is put forward.

The "FACTS" of this case are (roughly speaking - You can cross tab Status
summary and Organisation summary and religion summary in CAIN) that
Loyalists killed about 1000 people and Republicans about 2000. Of the
Loyalist targets about 900 of the 1000 were civilians and of them 750 or so
Catholics. Of the Republican targets about 750 were civilians and 447 were
Catholics. I think if you look you will see that statictically speaking
Republicans killed about 4 in ten civilians, whereas Loyalists killed about
9 in 10. and when you jook at the civilians Republicans killed about 60
percent Protestant but Loyalists targets were 80 per cent plus Catholics.
Statistically speaking if there was no correlation ther shoudl be about a
50/50 breakdown. So the "facts" for whatever probabilits you look at
indicate one group seems to be targeting people in uniform and the other
group targeting people of a specific religious denomination.

Aslo when you mention "random" bombs then the bombs would be just as likely
to kill Catholics as Protestants. and this is fairly much born out by the
statistics.One can not really suggest that a "random" bomb was in order to
kill Protestants only. finially remember that my point here is not that the
IRA did not kill civilians , just that a minori
ty of their victims were civilians and they were not targeted for Religious
reasons to the extent that Loyalists targeted based on religion. this does
not make one group "better" than another. I an mnot making a moral
judgemant. Let us say a group kills mostly black people and another kills
mostly jews. They might both be wrong but they are targeting different
groups of people and to stop one group killing balcks one might use a
different tactic than you would use to stop the other killing jews. this
might be true even oif the group killing blacks had a membership which was
exclusively jewish. As it happens though while certain groups like the
Orange order to my knowledge do not havwe any catholic members the IRA and
other Republican/nationalist groups did have Protestant members.
Post by Westprog
The H2 idea is that the IRA should get a pass on their murders of
protestant civilians because they killed a lot of other people as well.
I.e., one lot of IRA murders rendered the other lot of murders less
heinous. I think that the fallacious argument is palpable.
No! Again I didn't put a value judgement into the discussion. I am pointing
to targets! The point is that it is clearly evidence that the IRA had
DIFFERENT targets for different reasons. and the theory of conflict
resolution suggests that one employs DIFFERENT methods resources etc. to try
to remove the diffferent reasons.
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
The IRA in their view were attacking the agents of a State which
oppressed Republicans. they were attacking the Military who backed up
the Loyalists. But the Loyalists were NOT attacking the armed people
who backed up Republicans. they were attacking civilians Catholic
civilians.
The IRA were attacking people in order to bring about a united Ireland.
But there is a clear distinction between "people" in uniform i.e. Military
or British forces and civilian "people" . If they are not different what is
the point of having a database of deaths which distinguishes them in the
first place? I mean it is the British themselves who distinguish between the
Victoria Cross and the George Cross isn't it?
Post by Westprog
The loyalists were attacking people to prevent a united Ireland. Both were
willing to attack civilians.
Yes correct. But the IRA were not attacking civilians to the extent that
Loyalists were. there is a HUGE statistiucal difference in the groups here.
and when the IRA killed civilians the statistics suggest they were NOT
targeting them because of their Religion but when Loyalists killed civilians
they WERE. i.e. the available statistics suggest a strong correlation
between secterian motivation on the part of Loyalists. Again I am not
suggesting that this makes them better or worse then the IRA. I am however
suggesting that the SOLUTION should take this into account. As an example
off the top of my head one method might be in taking people from Loyalist
communities and introducing them to Catholics and convincing them Catholics
are not their enemy. One would not have to concentrate as much on convincing
republicans that Protestants are their enemy. But one might concentrate on
showing that there is a strong history of Military tradition among
Republicans and they don't have to hate British Soldiers because many
Republicans were in fact in the British Army in the past.
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Beacon
Yes and you will find that they killed over 1000 military
And there is the fallacious argument. How can murdering one lot of people
make the murder of another lot less culpable? Would the IRA have been a
sectarian organisation if they /hadn't/ killed all those soldiers and
police?
If they killed almost all Protestants then yes you could! the ststistics do
not suggest that though!
And again I was not making a value judgement as to what is more or less
culpable. I was pointing to different motivation for targeting different
targets and not simplifying the thing into a blanket accuysation of "they
are killing people" . the point is WHAT GROUP of people are they trying to
kill! Then look into WHY they are targeting that group. then you work on
removing these reasons.
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
and you
will find the civilians were not target because of Religion like the
Loyalists. I am not justifying their targets I am just re iterating
that they were DIFFERENT, whether justified or not and people going
after different targets for different reasons requires different
solutions when removing that reason.
The solution was the same for both.
No I don't think it was and I think you are again presenting an
oversimplification. Things should be made as simple as possible but not
simpler!
Post by Westprog
The IRA and the loyalists had to accept that their political aims were not
going to be fullfilled.
I would argue against that. In fact, they had to be shown a way to achieve
these aims or the aims had to be rejected. It is in my opinion different get
the IRA to stop hating soldiers and to get them to accept that a United
Ireland may come about without violence and that the will of the Irish
people is what the vast majority of the Irish people vote for in a
referendum ...than it is to get Loyalists to stop hating Catholics.
Post by Westprog
The protestants had to accept catholics having a place in government and
administration.
Protestants already did! Especially Protestant Republicans! The point is
that Loyalists didn't want "papists".
Post by Westprog
The IRA had to accept that a united Ireland would be dependent on majority
consent.
No actually the IRA had a split on this since they had to accept a Unionist
Veto against the majority consent! They had to accept that a majority of the
population of Ireland was not enough bt that a mojority of the six counties
would also have to agree to it! and they accepted this on the basis that 95
per cent plus of the people of the Republic of Ireland also agreed to it.
Post by Westprog
IOW, they both had to accept an internal power-sharing executive.
Yes. Which they both still havent got and Scotland and Wales have passed
them out.
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Beacon
Post by Westprog
No, they weren't. Because a lot of those cases were "informers", or
"criminals".
But wouldn't CAIN list these as "political activists" and not
civilians.
No, it doesn't.
(CivPA) Civilian Political Activist. There are 58 listed
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
I mean how could someone inform without some actual
knowledge about what they were informing?
I didn't say they were informers. I said they were "informers". They were
killed because they didn't toe the republican line, one way or another. In
one notorious case, for comforting a dying soldier. The IRA was better
than the loyalists in making up justifications. They were also better at
killing people.
I don't know about that. More "sucessfull" I might say maybe but "better" is
a value judgement isn't it?
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
And how would they get such
intel unless they were active in an organisation?
[snip]
Clearly they didn't. "Informer" was a catchall designation for any kind of
dissent. Saying "we shot him because he stood up to one of our hard men"
doesn't sound as nice.
No. But in this it is also saying that civilians were not targeted because
they were of a specific Religion but because they were not following
authoritirian principles of the IRA. They also shared this with Loyalists
but again I would suggest that the ststistics would indicate that internal
fueding and killing of civilians like this happened on a much lower
frequency for the IRA.
Post by Westprog
Does anyone really believe that the McCartney murder was the first of its
kind?
They didn't.
Even in the Mc Carthy caseone can NOT argue he was killed because of his
religious affiliation!
And this is AFTER the Sutton database but all the same I am not suggesting
it never happened, just that the available statistics would not suggest it
was a major motif . Indeed Sinn Fein made a big show about it and spoke
against it and had the Mc Carthys at their Ard Fheis.

And I submit they would also suggest that this pattern was much more
indicative within Loyalism. Indeed while one can again suggest "they are all
thugs" one can argue there are more independent thug elements the IRA from
time to time in history which the IRA leadership may somethies have ignored
or which at other times they may have ejected . Just like they may now be
trying to deal with or ignore the Mc Carthy killers. Again this may be
related by the IRA as ejecting a "loose cannon" but it is also ejecting
someone not conforming to their authority. The INLA might be another such
example.

So the point is while the IRA may have always killed civilians they didn't
mainly kill civilians and didn't kill them because they were Protestants.
And stopping IRA killings has to take this into account. In fact Mc Carthy
stands out because he WAS NOT a soldier and WAS NOT a Protestant. But this
exception does not prove any rule.
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
2008-11-10 17:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
But as you have poited out the IRA were not
attacking Protestant civilians even though the IRA opposed Loyalism.
That is factually wrong. The IRA /were/ attacking protestant
civilians. They killed a lot of them, sometimes with random bombs.
depends on what you claim as a "fact". I don't support the IRA but
the point is to view things from their perspective and look at their
reasons. If you want to jusdge what a FACT is, well the stats ae
there. Ususlly in scientific terms we do nt say "smoking causes
cancer" or "carbon causes global warming". In moist cases a
statistical probabality is put forward.
The "FACTS" of this case are (roughly speaking - You can cross tab
Status summary and Organisation summary and religion summary in CAIN)
that Loyalists killed about 1000 people and Republicans about 2000.
Of the Loyalist targets about 900 of the 1000 were civilians and of
them 750 or so Catholics. Of the Republican targets about 750 were
civilians and 447 were Catholics. I think if you look you will see
that statictically speaking Republicans killed about 4 in ten
civilians, whereas Loyalists killed about 9 in 10. and when you jook
at the civilians Republicans killed about 60 percent Protestant but
Loyalists targets were 80 per cent plus Catholics. Statistically
speaking if there was no correlation ther shoudl be about a 50/50
breakdown. So the "facts" for whatever probabilits you look at
indicate one group seems to be targeting people in uniform and the
other group targeting people of a specific religious denomination.
Aslo when you mention "random" bombs then the bombs would be just as
likely to kill Catholics as Protestants. and this is fairly much born
out by the statistics.One can not really suggest that a "random" bomb
was in order to kill Protestants only. finially remember that my
point here is not that the IRA did not kill civilians , just that a
minori ty of their victims were civilians and they were not targeted for
Religious reasons to the extent that Loyalists targeted based on religion.
this does not make one group "better" than another. I an
mnot making a moral judgemant. Let us say a group kills mostly black
people and another kills mostly jews. They might both be wrong but
they are targeting different groups of people and to stop one group
killing balcks one might use a different tactic than you would use to
stop the other killing jews. this might be true even oif the group
killing blacks had a membership which was exclusively jewish. As it
happens though while certain groups like the Orange order to my
knowledge do not havwe any catholic members the IRA and other
Republican/nationalist groups did have Protestant members.
Post by Westprog
The H2 idea is that the IRA should get a pass on their murders of
protestant civilians because they killed a lot of other people as
well. I.e., one lot of IRA murders rendered the other lot of murders
less heinous. I think that the fallacious argument is palpable.
No! Again I didn't put a value judgement into the discussion. I am
pointing to targets! The point is that it is clearly evidence that
the IRA had DIFFERENT targets for different reasons. and the theory
of conflict resolution suggests that one employs DIFFERENT methods
resources etc. to try to remove the diffferent reasons.
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
The IRA in their view were attacking the agents of a State which
oppressed Republicans. they were attacking the Military who backed
up the Loyalists. But the Loyalists were NOT attacking the armed
people who backed up Republicans. they were attacking civilians
Catholic civilians.
The IRA were attacking people in order to bring about a united Ireland.
But there is a clear distinction between "people" in uniform i.e.
Military or British forces and civilian "people" . If they are not
different what is the point of having a database of deaths which
distinguishes them in the first place? I mean it is the British
themselves who distinguish between the Victoria Cross and the George
Cross isn't it?
Post by Westprog
The loyalists were attacking people to prevent a united Ireland.
Both were willing to attack civilians.
Yes correct. But the IRA were not attacking civilians to the extent
that Loyalists were. there is a HUGE statistiucal difference in the
groups here. and when the IRA killed civilians the statistics suggest
they were NOT targeting them because of their Religion but when
Loyalists killed civilians they WERE. i.e. the available statistics
suggest a strong correlation between secterian motivation on the part
of Loyalists. Again I am not suggesting that this makes them better
or worse then the IRA. I am however suggesting that the SOLUTION
should take this into account. As an example off the top of my head
one method might be in taking people from Loyalist communities and
introducing them to Catholics and convincing them Catholics are not
their enemy. One would not have to concentrate as much on convincing
republicans that Protestants are their enemy. But one might
concentrate on showing that there is a strong history of Military
tradition among Republicans and they don't have to hate British
Soldiers because many Republicans were in fact in the British Army in
the past.
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Beacon
Yes and you will find that they killed over 1000 military
And there is the fallacious argument. How can murdering one lot of
people make the murder of another lot less culpable? Would the IRA
have been a sectarian organisation if they /hadn't/ killed all those
soldiers and police?
If they killed almost all Protestants then yes you could! the
ststistics do not suggest that though!
And again I was not making a value judgement as to what is more or
less culpable. I was pointing to different motivation for targeting
different targets and not simplifying the thing into a blanket
accuysation of "they are killing people" . the point is WHAT GROUP of
people are they trying to kill! Then look into WHY they are targeting
that group. then you work on removing these reasons.
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
and you
will find the civilians were not target because of Religion like the
Loyalists. I am not justifying their targets I am just re iterating
that they were DIFFERENT, whether justified or not and people going
after different targets for different reasons requires different
solutions when removing that reason.
The solution was the same for both.
No I don't think it was and I think you are again presenting an
oversimplification. Things should be made as simple as possible but
not simpler!
Post by Westprog
The IRA and the loyalists had to accept that their political aims
were not going to be fullfilled.
I would argue against that. In fact, they had to be shown a way to
achieve these aims or the aims had to be rejected. It is in my
opinion different get the IRA to stop hating soldiers and to get them
to accept that a United Ireland may come about without violence and
that the will of the Irish people is what the vast majority of the
Irish people vote for in a referendum ...than it is to get Loyalists
to stop hating Catholics.
Post by Westprog
The protestants had to accept catholics having a place in government
and administration.
Protestants already did! Especially Protestant Republicans! The point
is that Loyalists didn't want "papists".
Post by Westprog
The IRA had to accept that a united Ireland would be dependent on
majority consent.
No actually the IRA had a split on this since they had to accept a
Unionist Veto against the majority consent! They had to accept that a
majority of the population of Ireland was not enough bt that a
mojority of the six counties would also have to agree to it! and they
accepted this on the basis that 95 per cent plus of the people of the
Republic of Ireland also agreed to it.
Post by Westprog
IOW, they both had to accept an internal power-sharing executive.
Yes. Which they both still havent got and Scotland and Wales have
passed them out.
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Beacon
Post by Westprog
No, they weren't. Because a lot of those cases were "informers", or
"criminals".
But wouldn't CAIN list these as "political activists" and not
civilians.
No, it doesn't.
(CivPA) Civilian Political Activist. There are 58 listed
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
I mean how could someone inform without some actual
knowledge about what they were informing?
I didn't say they were informers. I said they were "informers". They
were killed because they didn't toe the republican line, one way or
another. In one notorious case, for comforting a dying soldier. The
IRA was better than the loyalists in making up justifications. They
were also better at killing people.
I don't know about that. More "sucessfull" I might say maybe but
"better" is a value judgement isn't it?
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
And how would they get such
intel unless they were active in an organisation?
[snip]
Clearly they didn't. "Informer" was a catchall designation for any
kind of dissent. Saying "we shot him because he stood up to one of
our hard men" doesn't sound as nice.
No. But in this it is also saying that civilians were not targeted
because they were of a specific Religion but because they were not
following authoritirian principles of the IRA. They also shared this
with Loyalists but again I would suggest that the ststistics would
indicate that internal fueding and killing of civilians like this
happened on a much lower frequency for the IRA.
Post by Westprog
Does anyone really believe that the McCartney murder was the first
of its kind?
They didn't.
Even in the Mc Carthy caseone can NOT argue he was killed because of
his religious affiliation!
And this is AFTER the Sutton database but all the same I am not
suggesting it never happened, just that the available statistics
would not suggest it was a major motif . Indeed Sinn Fein made a big
show about it and spoke against it and had the Mc Carthys at their
Ard Fheis.
And I submit they would also suggest that this pattern was much more
indicative within Loyalism. Indeed while one can again suggest "they
are all thugs" one can argue there are more independent thug elements
the IRA from time to time in history which the IRA leadership may
somethies have ignored or which at other times they may have ejected
. Just like they may now be trying to deal with or ignore the Mc
Carthy killers. Again this may be related by the IRA as ejecting a
"loose cannon" but it is also ejecting someone not conforming to
their authority. The INLA might be another such example.
So the point is while the IRA may have always killed civilians they
didn't mainly kill civilians and didn't kill them because they were
Protestants. And stopping IRA killings has to take this into account.
In fact Mc Carthy stands out because he WAS NOT a soldier and WAS NOT
a Protestant. But this exception does not prove any rule.
Ah Beacon! I knew him well! The problem with all your arguments past and
present, Beacon, is not who you do or do not support, it is the manner in
which you try to explain why one side or the other did or is doing what they
do or did. Unfailingly, your arguments appear to support the IRA and the
actions of the Republican Movement and have always done so. You go to great
lengths to try to explain how it is that Loyalists/Protestants carried out
terrible things against Catholics, (which did happen, no doubt), and
completly ignore the fact that the IRA and their political wing Sinn Fein,
were and are terrorists, who as well as intimidating and killing
Protestants, were also fighting terrorist actions against the BA, in, NOT a
war, but merely a series of terrorist skirmishes. They did NOT have the
support of the Republic, nor did they have the support of the vast majority
of Irish people. They were and are illegal. Had there really been a war per
se, the IRA would have been soundly routed, which should have happened.
Perception is as perception does.
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).
Beacon
2008-11-10 19:53:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
But as you have poited out the IRA were not
attacking Protestant civilians even though the IRA opposed Loyalism.
That is factually wrong. The IRA /were/ attacking protestant
civilians. They killed a lot of them, sometimes with random bombs.
depends on what you claim as a "fact". I don't support the IRA but
the point is to view things from their perspective and look at their
reasons. If you want to jusdge what a FACT is, well the stats ae
there. Ususlly in scientific terms we do nt say "smoking causes
cancer" or "carbon causes global warming". In moist cases a
statistical probabality is put forward.
The "FACTS" of this case are (roughly speaking - You can cross tab
Status summary and Organisation summary and religion summary in CAIN)
that Loyalists killed about 1000 people and Republicans about 2000.
Of the Loyalist targets about 900 of the 1000 were civilians and of
them 750 or so Catholics. Of the Republican targets about 750 were
civilians and 447 were Catholics. I think if you look you will see
that statictically speaking Republicans killed about 4 in ten
civilians, whereas Loyalists killed about 9 in 10. and when you jook
at the civilians Republicans killed about 60 percent Protestant but
Loyalists targets were 80 per cent plus Catholics. Statistically
speaking if there was no correlation ther shoudl be about a 50/50
breakdown. So the "facts" for whatever probabilits you look at
indicate one group seems to be targeting people in uniform and the
other group targeting people of a specific religious denomination.
Aslo when you mention "random" bombs then the bombs would be just as
likely to kill Catholics as Protestants. and this is fairly much born
out by the statistics.One can not really suggest that a "random" bomb
was in order to kill Protestants only. finially remember that my
point here is not that the IRA did not kill civilians , just that a
minori ty of their victims were civilians and they were not targeted for
Religious reasons to the extent that Loyalists targeted based on
religion. this does not make one group "better" than another. I an
mnot making a moral judgemant. Let us say a group kills mostly black
people and another kills mostly jews. They might both be wrong but
they are targeting different groups of people and to stop one group
killing balcks one might use a different tactic than you would use to
stop the other killing jews. this might be true even oif the group
killing blacks had a membership which was exclusively jewish. As it
happens though while certain groups like the Orange order to my
knowledge do not havwe any catholic members the IRA and other
Republican/nationalist groups did have Protestant members.
Post by Westprog
The H2 idea is that the IRA should get a pass on their murders of
protestant civilians because they killed a lot of other people as
well. I.e., one lot of IRA murders rendered the other lot of murders
less heinous. I think that the fallacious argument is palpable.
No! Again I didn't put a value judgement into the discussion. I am
pointing to targets! The point is that it is clearly evidence that
the IRA had DIFFERENT targets for different reasons. and the theory
of conflict resolution suggests that one employs DIFFERENT methods
resources etc. to try to remove the diffferent reasons.
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
The IRA in their view were attacking the agents of a State which
oppressed Republicans. they were attacking the Military who backed
up the Loyalists. But the Loyalists were NOT attacking the armed
people who backed up Republicans. they were attacking civilians
Catholic civilians.
The IRA were attacking people in order to bring about a united Ireland.
But there is a clear distinction between "people" in uniform i.e.
Military or British forces and civilian "people" . If they are not
different what is the point of having a database of deaths which
distinguishes them in the first place? I mean it is the British
themselves who distinguish between the Victoria Cross and the George
Cross isn't it?
Post by Westprog
The loyalists were attacking people to prevent a united Ireland.
Both were willing to attack civilians.
Yes correct. But the IRA were not attacking civilians to the extent
that Loyalists were. there is a HUGE statistiucal difference in the
groups here. and when the IRA killed civilians the statistics suggest
they were NOT targeting them because of their Religion but when
Loyalists killed civilians they WERE. i.e. the available statistics
suggest a strong correlation between secterian motivation on the part
of Loyalists. Again I am not suggesting that this makes them better
or worse then the IRA. I am however suggesting that the SOLUTION
should take this into account. As an example off the top of my head
one method might be in taking people from Loyalist communities and
introducing them to Catholics and convincing them Catholics are not
their enemy. One would not have to concentrate as much on convincing
republicans that Protestants are their enemy. But one might
concentrate on showing that there is a strong history of Military
tradition among Republicans and they don't have to hate British
Soldiers because many Republicans were in fact in the British Army in
the past.
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Beacon
Yes and you will find that they killed over 1000 military
And there is the fallacious argument. How can murdering one lot of
people make the murder of another lot less culpable? Would the IRA
have been a sectarian organisation if they /hadn't/ killed all those
soldiers and police?
If they killed almost all Protestants then yes you could! the
ststistics do not suggest that though!
And again I was not making a value judgement as to what is more or
less culpable. I was pointing to different motivation for targeting
different targets and not simplifying the thing into a blanket
accuysation of "they are killing people" . the point is WHAT GROUP of
people are they trying to kill! Then look into WHY they are targeting
that group. then you work on removing these reasons.
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
and you
will find the civilians were not target because of Religion like the
Loyalists. I am not justifying their targets I am just re iterating
that they were DIFFERENT, whether justified or not and people going
after different targets for different reasons requires different
solutions when removing that reason.
The solution was the same for both.
No I don't think it was and I think you are again presenting an
oversimplification. Things should be made as simple as possible but
not simpler!
Post by Westprog
The IRA and the loyalists had to accept that their political aims
were not going to be fullfilled.
I would argue against that. In fact, they had to be shown a way to
achieve these aims or the aims had to be rejected. It is in my
opinion different get the IRA to stop hating soldiers and to get them
to accept that a United Ireland may come about without violence and
that the will of the Irish people is what the vast majority of the
Irish people vote for in a referendum ...than it is to get Loyalists
to stop hating Catholics.
Post by Westprog
The protestants had to accept catholics having a place in government
and administration.
Protestants already did! Especially Protestant Republicans! The point
is that Loyalists didn't want "papists".
Post by Westprog
The IRA had to accept that a united Ireland would be dependent on
majority consent.
No actually the IRA had a split on this since they had to accept a
Unionist Veto against the majority consent! They had to accept that a
majority of the population of Ireland was not enough bt that a
mojority of the six counties would also have to agree to it! and they
accepted this on the basis that 95 per cent plus of the people of the
Republic of Ireland also agreed to it.
Post by Westprog
IOW, they both had to accept an internal power-sharing executive.
Yes. Which they both still havent got and Scotland and Wales have
passed them out.
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Beacon
Post by Westprog
No, they weren't. Because a lot of those cases were "informers", or
"criminals".
But wouldn't CAIN list these as "political activists" and not
civilians.
No, it doesn't.
(CivPA) Civilian Political Activist. There are 58 listed
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
I mean how could someone inform without some actual
knowledge about what they were informing?
I didn't say they were informers. I said they were "informers". They
were killed because they didn't toe the republican line, one way or
another. In one notorious case, for comforting a dying soldier. The
IRA was better than the loyalists in making up justifications. They
were also better at killing people.
I don't know about that. More "sucessfull" I might say maybe but
"better" is a value judgement isn't it?
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
And how would they get such
intel unless they were active in an organisation?
[snip]
Clearly they didn't. "Informer" was a catchall designation for any
kind of dissent. Saying "we shot him because he stood up to one of
our hard men" doesn't sound as nice.
No. But in this it is also saying that civilians were not targeted
because they were of a specific Religion but because they were not
following authoritirian principles of the IRA. They also shared this
with Loyalists but again I would suggest that the ststistics would
indicate that internal fueding and killing of civilians like this
happened on a much lower frequency for the IRA.
Post by Westprog
Does anyone really believe that the McCartney murder was the first
of its kind?
They didn't.
Even in the Mc Carthy caseone can NOT argue he was killed because of
his religious affiliation!
And this is AFTER the Sutton database but all the same I am not
suggesting it never happened, just that the available statistics
would not suggest it was a major motif . Indeed Sinn Fein made a big
show about it and spoke against it and had the Mc Carthys at their
Ard Fheis.
And I submit they would also suggest that this pattern was much more
indicative within Loyalism. Indeed while one can again suggest "they
are all thugs" one can argue there are more independent thug elements
the IRA from time to time in history which the IRA leadership may
somethies have ignored or which at other times they may have ejected
. Just like they may now be trying to deal with or ignore the Mc
Carthy killers. Again this may be related by the IRA as ejecting a
"loose cannon" but it is also ejecting someone not conforming to
their authority. The INLA might be another such example.
So the point is while the IRA may have always killed civilians they
didn't mainly kill civilians and didn't kill them because they were
Protestants. And stopping IRA killings has to take this into account.
In fact Mc Carthy stands out because he WAS NOT a soldier and WAS NOT
a Protestant. But this exception does not prove any rule.
Ah Beacon! I knew him well!
Alas poor Harry, in spite of your allusions to Shakespearian English, I
don't think you have shown you ever knew me at all!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
The problem with all your arguments past and present, Beacon,
That in the trade is called a "sweeping statement". Please look it up.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
is not who you do or do not support,
Actually in this case it IS since Falcon was asked directly and above
replied referring to :
[quote falcon]
...one that tries to make out that their own particular brand of terrorism
is more noble than everyone else's.
[end quote]
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
it is the manner in which you try to explain why one side or the other did
or is doing what they do or did.
I didn't try to explain anything . I made a point and I used available
statistics which indicate that the point seems to be correct. If you have
anyu contradicting objective evidence then please post it and show wher you
think I was incorrect. somehow Harry I do not think you will.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Unfailingly, your arguments appear to support the IRA and the actions of
the Republican Movement and have always done so.
REally? I suppose you can post say THREE examples of where in thousands of
posts I supported the IRA? Even ONE example would be a start Harry. Can you
post that?

I have never said I was not a Republican Harry. As are the vast majority of
Irish people. But I have stated I didn't support the IRA and nor do the vast
majority of Irish people today.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
You go to great lengths to try to explain how it is that
Loyalists/Protestants carried out terrible things against Catholics, (which
did happen, no doubt),
Nope I haven't gone to any lenght at all. I diodn't go into describing
individual atrocities here. I only made a case that the motivation of
secteranism was stronger in Loyalism and that the stats beat that out. Nor
do I identify Loyalists with Protestants. In gffact many Republicans and
Republican leaders were Protestant. It would seem it it YOU who are
exhibniting a secterian mindset in this which is just more evidence for my
contention!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
and completly ignore the fact that the IRA and their political wing Sinn
Fein, were and are terrorists,
Never ignored that at all.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
who as well as intimidating and killing Protestants,
But not just because they were Protestants . at least not nearly to the
degree Loyalists were intimidating Catholics. which is a DIFFERENCE between
them!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
were also fighting terrorist actions against the BA, in, NOT a war, but
merely a series of terrorist skirmishes.
Well I didn't introduce the term "war" to this discussion Harry. So go and
do some homework. By the way is the British Army occupation of Afghanistan
and Iraq also a "non war" and "series of terrorist skirmishes"? Was the
Irish War of independence also not a War and another "series of terrorist
skirmishes"? Again you announce your mindset before you even begin Harry.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
They did NOT have the support of the Republic,
Not in the recent past no. Nor can you say anywhere where I claimed they
did. That is called a "straw man argument" Harry! Please look them up. You
have had years to and you still indulge in fallacies. Nor by the way can you
show ANYWHER where I claimed I supported them and what they were doing in
Germany Ireland or anywhere else.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
nor did they have the support of the vast majority of Irish people. They
were and are illegal. Had there really been a war per se, the IRA would
have been soundly routed, which should have happened. Perception is as
perception does.
What waffle Harry! I was discussing the theory of conflict resolution. "the
IRA would have been soundly routed, which should have happened" is not
solving any conflicts Harry is it?
eugene
2008-11-11 00:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beacon
What waffle Harry! I was discussing the theory of conflict resolution.
"the IRA would have been soundly routed, which should have happened" is
not solving any conflicts Harry is it?
Merrick is and never was interested in resolving conflict. Just as a matter
of interest, when he wrote about how tha BA came here to take on the IRA,
the first civilian death in the troubles was a Catholic pensioner in
Dungiven who an RUC thug hit with a baton. The second civilian death was a
Bogsider who was 42 years old and was brutally beaten by RUC thugs and died
from his injuries! These incidents along with "real" attempts at ethnic
cleansing in Belfast were the reason the BA were initially
deployed.............to protect Catholics. However, it was always going to
only be a matter of time before they turned their guns on those same
Catholics. People like Merrick are responsible for the tragically divided
state we lived in pre 68 but he and they will never ever accept any
responsibility. The DUP are the very same and because of their refusal to
fully engage and share power in government at this moment in time, dissident
Republicanism is getting stronger. I have no doubt that Merrick and co would
just love to see a "new" IRA begin a serious campaign of guerilla warfare in
the foolish hope that this time they would be militarily defeated. These
people just never learn anything. We all have to move on from the past but
that past has to be dealt with eventually, in some manner anyway. If we do
not move on, the political vacuum will create serious problems and God
forbid, but we may all regret very much that this moment and opportunity in
history was squandered.

ps ......................... do you people not know how to snip anything?
Falcon
2008-11-11 09:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by eugene
Post by Beacon
What waffle Harry! I was discussing the theory of conflict resolution.
"the IRA would have been soundly routed, which should have happened" is
not solving any conflicts Harry is it?
Merrick is and never was interested in resolving conflict. Just as a
matter of interest, when he wrote about how tha BA came here to take on
the IRA, the first civilian death in the troubles was a Catholic
pensioner in Dungiven who an RUC thug hit with a baton. The second
civilian death was a Bogsider who was 42 years old and was brutally
beaten by RUC thugs and died from his injuries! These incidents along
with "real" attempts at ethnic cleansing in Belfast were the reason the
BA were initially deployed.............to protect Catholics. However, it
was always going to only be a matter of time before they turned their
guns on those same Catholics. [...]
You're as wrong as each other. The Army was deployed to separate
nationalists and loyalists, not to defend one from the other. When gunmen
started using rioting as a cover for shooting at each other and the security
forces, soldiers met gunfire with gunfire and it was easy for the propaganda
wing of the IRA to redefine the Army as Catholic oppressors.
Post by eugene
ps ......................... do you people not know how to [...]
;-)
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Poppy Appeal 2008
http://www.poppy.org.uk/
------------------------------------
eugene
2008-11-11 10:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Falcon
Post by eugene
Post by Beacon
What waffle Harry! I was discussing the theory of conflict resolution.
"the IRA would have been soundly routed, which should have happened" is
not solving any conflicts Harry is it?
Merrick is and never was interested in resolving conflict. Just as a
matter of interest, when he wrote about how tha BA came here to take on
the IRA, the first civilian death in the troubles was a Catholic
pensioner in Dungiven who an RUC thug hit with a baton. The second
civilian death was a Bogsider who was 42 years old and was brutally
beaten by RUC thugs and died from his injuries! These incidents along
with "real" attempts at ethnic cleansing in Belfast were the reason the
BA were initially deployed.............to protect Catholics. However, it
was always going to only be a matter of time before they turned their
guns on those same Catholics. [...]
You're as wrong as each other. The Army was deployed to separate
nationalists and loyalists, not to defend one from the other. When gunmen
started using rioting as a cover for shooting at each other and the
security forces, soldiers met gunfire with gunfire and it was easy for the
propaganda wing of the IRA to redefine the Army as Catholic oppressors.
I think that what you wrote is partially correct insofar as Catholics
"believed" that the army were there to protect them...........initially

Beginning of the Troubles

The origins of the Troubles can be traced back to the formation of the
UVF.[21] The UVF claimed that it shot dead 28-year-old storeman John Patrick
Scullion in west Belfast on 11 June 1966. On 26 June 1966 Barman Peter Ward,
an 18-year-old from west Belfast, became the second victim of a UVF gun
attack in which three other men were shot and seriously injured.[20] Victor
Arbuckle, aged 29, was shot dead by Loyalists during street disturbances on
the Shankill Road in Belfast in October 1969, the first RUC officer to die
in the troubles. The UVF was also responsible for a series of attacks on
power stations and reservoirs in Northern Ireland during 1969.[22] It was
hoped that this campaign would be blamed on the IRA, forcing moderate
unionists to increase their opposition to the tentative reforms of Terence
O'Neill's government.

In 1968, the marches of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association
(NICRA) were met with a violent backlash by police and civil
authorities.[23] This group had launched a peaceful civil rights campaign in
1967,[24][25] which borrowed the language and symbolism of the Civil Rights
Movement of Dr. Martin Luther King in the United States. NICRA was seeking a
redress of Catholic and nationalist grievances within Northern Ireland.[26]
Specifically, they wanted an end to the gerrymandering of electoral
constituencies that produced unrepresentative local councils (particularly
in Derry City) by putting virtually all Catholics in a limited number of
electoral wards; the abolition of the rate-payer franchise in local
government elections, which gave Protestants disproportionate voting power;
an end to unfair allocation of jobs and housing; and an end to the Special
Powers Act (which allowed for internment and other repressive measures)
which was seen as being aimed at the nationalist community.[27][28][29]

Initially, Terence O'Neill, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, reacted
favourably to this moderate-seeming campaign and promised reforms of
Northern Ireland. However, he was opposed by many hard-line unionists,
including William Craig and Ian Paisley, who accused him of being a
"sell-out". Some Unionists immediately mistrusted the NICRA, seeing it as an
IRA "Trojan Horse". Many resented the concept of Catholic equality in this
"Protestant state". Violence broke out at several Civil Rights marches when
Protestant loyalists attacked civil rights demonstrators with clubs. The
Royal Ulster Constabulary, almost entirely Protestant, was widely viewed by
nationalists as supporting the loyalists and of allowing the violence to
occur.[30]

Much of the hostile loyalist reaction to the Civil Rights Movement was
linked to the ability of leaders to provoke fear within the Unionist
populace that the IRA was not only behind the NICRA, but was also planning a
renewed armed campaign.[citation needed] In fact, the IRA was moribund, had
few weapons, fewer members, negligible support, and was increasingly
committed (out of necessity) to non-violent politics.[citation needed] The
first bombing campaign of the Troubles (largely directed against power
stations and other infrastructure) was staged by the Ulster Volunteer Force
in 1969 to try to implicate the IRA.[22]

Communal disturbances worsened throughout 1969, escalating in January after
a march by the People's Democracy from Belfast to Derry was attacked by
loyalists in Burntollet, County Londonderry. The RUC were accused of failing
to protect the marchers. Barricades were erected in nationalist areas of
Derry and Belfast in the following months. This disorder culminated in the
Battle of the Bogside (12 August 1969-14 August 1969) involving a huge
communal uprising in Derry by nationalists. The riot started in a
confrontation between Catholic residents of the Bogside, police, and members
of the Apprentice Boys of Derry who were due to march past the Bogside along
the city walls.

Rioting between police and loyalists on one side and Bogside residents on
the other continued for two days before British troops were sent in to
restore order. The "Battle" sparked vicious sectarian rioting in Belfast,
Newry, Strabane and elsewhere, starting on 14 August 1969, which left many
people dead and many homes burned. The riots began with nationalist
demonstrations in support of the Bogside residents and escalated when a
grenade was thrown at a police station. The RUC in response deployed three
Shorland armoured cars mounted with Browning heavy machine guns, and killed
a nine year old boy, struck by a tracer bullet fired by a Browning machine
gun as he lay in bed in his family's flat in Divis Tower in the nationalist
Divis Street area of Belfast.[31] Loyalist crowds attacked Catholic areas,
burning down much of Bombay Street, Madrid Street and other Catholic streets
(see Northern Ireland riots of August 1969).

Nationalists[citation needed] alleged that the Royal Ulster Constabulary had
aided, or at least not acted against, loyalists in these riots. The IRA had
been widely criticised by its supporters for failing to defend the Catholic
community during the Belfast troubles of August 1969, when eight people had
been killed, about 750 injured and 1,505 Catholic families had been forced
out of their homes--almost five times the number of dispossessed Protestant
households.[32] One Catholic priest reported that his parishioners were
contemptuously calling the IRA "I Ran Away".

The government of Northern Ireland requested that the British Government
deploy the British Army in Northern Ireland to restore order and to prevent
sectarian attacks on Catholics.[33] Nationalists initially welcomed the
Army, often giving the soldiers tea and sandwiches, as they did not trust
the police to act in an unbiased manner, but relations soured due to
heavy-handedness by the Army
Westprog
2008-11-11 15:46:06 UTC
Permalink
eugene wrote:
...
Post by eugene
Beginning of the Troubles
The origins of the Troubles can be traced back to the formation of the
UVF.
I have no doubt that it's possible for some experts to track the origin of
the Troubles to before the big bang. There's no one start point. For
instance, the 1966 fiftieth celebrations of the Easter Rising had
considerable impact on both sides of the community.

What started the troubles is of far less concern than what kept them going,
and what led to them petering out.
eugene
2008-11-11 15:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
...
Post by eugene
Beginning of the Troubles
The origins of the Troubles can be traced back to the formation of the
UVF.
I have no doubt that it's possible for some experts to track the origin of
the Troubles to before the big bang. There's no one start point. For
instance, the 1966 fiftieth celebrations of the Easter Rising had
considerable impact on both sides of the community.
What started the troubles is of far less concern than what kept them
going, and what led to them petering out.
It is a major concern for those who persist on saying that the "other side"
started it all. Everybody played their part, especially those (like Merrick)
who opposed Terence O'Neill's efforts to promote change.
Falcon
2008-11-11 17:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by eugene
Post by Westprog
...
Post by eugene
Beginning of the Troubles
The origins of the Troubles can be traced back to the formation of the
UVF.
I have no doubt that it's possible for some experts to track the origin
of the Troubles to before the big bang. There's no one start point. For
instance, the 1966 fiftieth celebrations of the Easter Rising had
considerable impact on both sides of the community.
What started the troubles is of far less concern than what kept them
going, and what led to them petering out.
It is a major concern for those who persist on saying that the "other
side" started it all. Everybody played their part, especially those (like
Merrick) who opposed Terence O'Neill's efforts to promote change.
If there's one thing the current 'troubles' thread should teach us all, it's
that very few people know what started the conflict, and even fewer seem to
know what ended it.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Poppy Appeal 2008
http://www.poppy.org.uk/
------------------------------------
Beacon
2008-11-12 00:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Falcon
Post by eugene
Post by Westprog
...
Post by eugene
Beginning of the Troubles
The origins of the Troubles can be traced back to the formation of the
UVF.
I have no doubt that it's possible for some experts to track the origin
of the Troubles to before the big bang. There's no one start point. For
instance, the 1966 fiftieth celebrations of the Easter Rising had
considerable impact on both sides of the community.
What started the troubles is of far less concern than what kept them
going, and what led to them petering out.
It is a major concern for those who persist on saying that the "other
side" started it all. Everybody played their part, especially those (like
Merrick) who opposed Terence O'Neill's efforts to promote change.
If there's one thing the current 'troubles' thread should teach us all, it's
that very few people know what started the conflict, and even fewer seem to
know what ended it.
Yes. And we may never get to see Falcon explain what he meant by referring
to ME as one who
"tries to make out that their own particular brand of terrorism
is more noble than everyone else's."

Why Falcon avoids explaining that we may never know.

I have never endorsed terrorism of any sort no matter how much he may like
to paint me in that light.

But, given I have repeatedly itterated that one must look to the causes of
violence, I am not so much distracted by "who threw the first stone" as the
reason people give for throwing stones now. My thesis is that conflict
resolution theory says : Remove the reason and you remove the stone
throwing. Pointing to a reason is not justifying it and Falcon seems to lack
the ability to make that distinction.
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
2008-11-12 09:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beacon
Post by Falcon
Post by eugene
Post by Westprog
...
Post by eugene
Beginning of the Troubles
The origins of the Troubles can be traced back to the formation
of the UVF.
I have no doubt that it's possible for some experts to track the
origin of the Troubles to before the big bang. There's no one
start point. For instance, the 1966 fiftieth celebrations of the
Easter Rising had considerable impact on both sides of the
community. What started the troubles is of far less concern than what
kept
them going, and what led to them petering out.
It is a major concern for those who persist on saying that the
"other side" started it all. Everybody played their part,
especially those (like Merrick) who opposed Terence O'Neill's
efforts to promote change.
If there's one thing the current 'troubles' thread should teach us all, it's
that very few people know what started the conflict, and even fewer seem to
know what ended it.
Yes. And we may never get to see Falcon explain what he meant by
referring to ME as one who
"tries to make out that their own particular brand of terrorism
is more noble than everyone else's."
Because, like it or not, that is precisly how your posts come across.
Post by Beacon
Why Falcon avoids explaining that we may never know.
Because you get all sanctimonius, begrudging and self-rightious about it.
Post by Beacon
I have never endorsed terrorism of any sort no matter how much he may
like to paint me in that light.
Right then. So WHY, do you suppose, does Falcon, and many others, see you in
that light?
Post by Beacon
But, given I have repeatedly itterated that one must look to the
causes of violence, I am not so much distracted by "who threw the
first stone" as the reason people give for throwing stones now. My
thesis is that conflict resolution theory says : Remove the reason
and you remove the stone throwing. Pointing to a reason is not
justifying it and Falcon seems to lack the ability to make that
distinction.
You seem to be unable to make the distinction that you are doing far more
harm than good in persistantly producing yards and yards of statistics and
pretending them to be fact, rather than let things be, let the effects of
the troubles settle down, let peoples' hurt subside, rather than displaying
an appalling lack of empathy or sympathy towards the ordinary Joe Soap who
has had to endure the harvest of some of the most appalling acts of
terrorism seen in the supposedly civilised world.
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).
Beacon
2008-11-12 10:40:21 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Post by Falcon
If there's one thing the current 'troubles' thread should teach us all, it's
that very few people know what started the conflict, and even fewer seem to
know what ended it.
Yes. And we may never get to see Falcon explain what he meant by
referring to ME as one who
"tries to make out that their own particular brand of terrorism
is more noble than everyone else's."
Because, like it or not, that is precisly how your posts come across.
Well is it any surprise if a bigot always believes someone else must be a
terrorism supporter? In fact if you look up the definition of "bigot" it
really is how they interpret anyone who ius not posting exactly what they
believe.

The point is if someone makes a claim about anyone being a supporter of
terrorism then they can believe what they like but the claim has to be
supported with EVIDENCE if it is is to be objectively verified and not
supported with unsubstantiated OPINION! you may subscribe to the point the
finger kangaroo court lybch trial form of "justice" but most normal people
don't. They actually expect evidence and not biased interpretations like
"thats how you come across".

So tell me Harry, just what evidence do you have to support your opinion of
me coming across as a supporter of terrorism? All you have in the end is
your bigot opinion!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Why Falcon avoids explaining that we may never know.
Because you get all sanctimonius, begrudging and self-rightious about it.
Oddly I do take offence to being called a supporter of terrorism and
particularly that I support one group of terrorists. Particularly when there
is no evidence for such baseless accusations.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
I have never endorsed terrorism of any sort no matter how much he may
like to paint me in that light.
Right then. So WHY, do you suppose, does Falcon, and many others, see you
in that light?
I don't know. Maybe because they are bigots? But I should not have to show
the evidence supporting their opinion should I? I don't have to defend a
false accusation, no more than a woman who was raped has to show that the
rapist must have got pushed into it by the victim. Your "blame the victim"
tactic really won't get you anywhere. I do not have to prove a negative and
proove I do not support terrorism! It is for the persona making the claim to
prove it with evidence! those saying I am a terrorist supporter or that I
give the impression of a terrorist supporter even that I give the impression
of supporting just Republican terrorism HAVE TO prove the evidence or it is
just their biased bigoted unsupported OPINION!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
But, given I have repeatedly itterated that one must look to the
causes of violence, I am not so much distracted by "who threw the
first stone" as the reason people give for throwing stones now. My
thesis is that conflict resolution theory says : Remove the reason
and you remove the stone throwing. Pointing to a reason is not
justifying it and Falcon seems to lack the ability to make that
distinction.
You seem to be unable to make the distinction that you are doing far more
harm than good in persistantly producing yards and yards of statistics and
pretending them to be fact,
Validarted ans reliable quantifable data ARE probably the coosest one can
get to FACT! I won't get into ontology or epistemology with you Harry
because I doubt you are competent to carry on such a debate. If statistics
do not show that groups had a secterian motive behind targeting the people
they killed , just what "FACTS" do you think would show that Harry? Would it
be direct quotes like "burn Catholics" or what?
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
rather than let things be, let the effects of the troubles settle down,
let peoples' hurt subside, rather than displaying an appalling lack of
empathy or sympathy towards the ordinary Joe Soap who has had to endure
the harvest of some of the most appalling acts of terrorism seen in the
supposedly civilised world.
"Just forget about it" is that it Harry? Tell that to Uncle Tom in his
cabin. You have a "Old Mose" view of justice. The black man had the land of
Africa and the White man had the Bible. The White man arrived and gave the
black man the Bible. And then the white man said "let us bow our heads in
prayer". and the black man did that . and when he looked upi the black men
had all the bibles- but the white men had all the Land!

People like Hary think we should say to the black man "Look you have
Christianity don't you". It says "love you enemy" doesn't it.? Let us forget
about killing one another and just leave us with the land jobs and wealth
and you can have you religion.
But that is what caused the problem in the first place Harry. A unionist
majority gerrymandered power and kept Northern Ireland under their thumb for
50 years and kept Catholics for getting jobs and houses, treated them much
like blacks were treated in parts of America. "Separate but equal" was not
an acceptable human rights policy Harry! Not for Joe Soap or anyone else! So
sorry but I do not subscribe to your laisser faire argument.
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
2008-11-12 13:03:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
[snip]
..........."SNIP" Of Un-requited Beacon Drivel....................

ALL this reaction to some perfectly mild and mannerly comments? Your
knickers are showing Beacon, better buckle up! Methinks thou do'st protest
too much! Face it, like so many of the Republican ilk, you simply cannot
stand criticism, nor the fact that many, many people do NOT share your
opinions or your spurious arguments. You prop up your arguments with
statistics, with NO regard as to how those statistics were developed, from
what parameters, etc. etc. And then you have the sublime cheek to wax
superior into the bargain?? All you are doing is being mischievous at best
and propagating hatred and sectarian bigotry at worst. To accuse me of being
a bigot just shows up your own inadequicies. Ad-hominem is very self
destructive you should realise. I suspect that you are some poor sorry
spitefull little man who feels hardly done by in life and has to be ultra
sensitive as a result. Well, tough. I am probably a good bit older than you,
in full time employment which takes me throughout Ireland. I reckon I am
fully justified in expressing my opinions through experience as probably
well founded and at least similar to the majority within Ireland, who are
Moderate and Nationalist by the way, NOT Republican as you insisted earlier.
Oh, and just to make your day, the Wee Six IS British and will remain so.
Anything different is just never going to happen.
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
2008-11-11 17:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by eugene
Post by Westprog
...
Post by eugene
Beginning of the Troubles
The origins of the Troubles can be traced back to the formation of
the UVF.
I have no doubt that it's possible for some experts to track the
origin of the Troubles to before the big bang. There's no one start
point. For instance, the 1966 fiftieth celebrations of the Easter
Rising had considerable impact on both sides of the community.
What started the troubles is of far less concern than what kept them
going, and what led to them petering out.
It is a major concern for those who persist on saying that the "other
side" started it all. Everybody played their part, especially those
(like Merrick) who opposed Terence O'Neill's efforts to promote
change.
LOL! FWIW, Merrick had absolutely NO objection to what Terence O'Neill was
trying to do. So, yet more lies and assumptions from eugene!
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).
eugene
2008-11-11 17:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by eugene
Post by Westprog
...
Post by eugene
Beginning of the Troubles
The origins of the Troubles can be traced back to the formation of
the UVF.
I have no doubt that it's possible for some experts to track the
origin of the Troubles to before the big bang. There's no one start
point. For instance, the 1966 fiftieth celebrations of the Easter
Rising had considerable impact on both sides of the community.
What started the troubles is of far less concern than what kept them
going, and what led to them petering out.
It is a major concern for those who persist on saying that the "other
side" started it all. Everybody played their part, especially those
(like Merrick) who opposed Terence O'Neill's efforts to promote
change.
LOL! FWIW, Merrick had absolutely NO objection to what Terence O'Neill was
trying to do. So, yet more lies and assumptions from eugene!
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).
I NEVER lie Merrick. As for assumptions, you never leave any room for any
attempt to consider you a non-sectarian Unionist. You prove it time and time
again. The really sad thing about that is that you never ever stop to
consider what people are saying to you and to ponder over the fact that most
of them say the same thing. You obviously believe that if anybody disagrees
with your opinion, then they are totally wrong as you are always right!
Right? You could maybe be convivial enough Merrick if you even tried to be
normal instead of being the pompous creep that you are.
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
2008-11-12 09:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by eugene
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by eugene
Post by Westprog
...
Post by eugene
Beginning of the Troubles
The origins of the Troubles can be traced back to the formation of
the UVF.
I have no doubt that it's possible for some experts to track the
origin of the Troubles to before the big bang. There's no one start
point. For instance, the 1966 fiftieth celebrations of the Easter
Rising had considerable impact on both sides of the community.
What started the troubles is of far less concern than what kept
them going, and what led to them petering out.
It is a major concern for those who persist on saying that the
"other side" started it all. Everybody played their part,
especially those (like Merrick) who opposed Terence O'Neill's
efforts to promote change.
LOL! FWIW, Merrick had absolutely NO objection to what Terence
O'Neill was trying to do. So, yet more lies and assumptions from
eugene! --
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).
I NEVER lie Merrick.
ROTFL!! One of the many reasons you are on my Killfile eugene.
Post by eugene
As for assumptions, you never leave any room for
any attempt to consider you a non-sectarian Unionist. You prove it
time and time again.
YOU prove it eugene, in putting words and theories into my mouth that I
never said.
Post by eugene
The really sad thing about that is that you
never ever stop to consider what people are saying to you and to
ponder over the fact that most of them say the same thing.
On this little group, yes you are correct. My opinions as to the veracity or
acceptability of the opinions expressed on Usenet are well enough known.
Post by eugene
You
obviously believe that if anybody disagrees with your opinion, then
they are totally wrong as you are always right! Right?
In YOUR mind only! In any case, it is abundantly clear that you yourself are
of that opinion, in that YOU are always right.
Post by eugene
You could
maybe be convivial enough Merrick if you even tried to be normal
instead of being the pompous creep that you are.
Now you are merely being your thoroughly unpleasant, obnoxious and foolish
usual self!

You really WILL have to do better than that!
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).
Ex_OWM
2008-11-12 13:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
ROTFL!! One of the many reasons you are on my Killfile eugene.
And Harry can't understand why people laugh at him :D

Westprog
2008-11-11 12:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by eugene
do you people not know how to snip anything?
I've been snipping frantically. Not my stuff, obviously.
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
2008-11-11 14:09:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
But as you have poited out the IRA were not
attacking Protestant civilians even though the IRA opposed
Loyalism.
That is factually wrong. The IRA /were/ attacking protestant
civilians. They killed a lot of them, sometimes with random bombs.
depends on what you claim as a "fact". I don't support the IRA but
the point is to view things from their perspective and look at their
reasons. If you want to jusdge what a FACT is, well the stats ae
there. Ususlly in scientific terms we do nt say "smoking causes
cancer" or "carbon causes global warming". In moist cases a
statistical probabality is put forward.
The "FACTS" of this case are (roughly speaking - You can cross tab
Status summary and Organisation summary and religion summary in
CAIN) that Loyalists killed about 1000 people and Republicans about
2000. Of the Loyalist targets about 900 of the 1000 were civilians and
of
them 750 or so Catholics. Of the Republican targets about 750 were
civilians and 447 were Catholics. I think if you look you will see
that statictically speaking Republicans killed about 4 in ten
civilians, whereas Loyalists killed about 9 in 10. and when you jook
at the civilians Republicans killed about 60 percent Protestant but
Loyalists targets were 80 per cent plus Catholics. Statistically
speaking if there was no correlation ther shoudl be about a 50/50
breakdown. So the "facts" for whatever probabilits you look at
indicate one group seems to be targeting people in uniform and the
other group targeting people of a specific religious denomination.
Aslo when you mention "random" bombs then the bombs would be just as
likely to kill Catholics as Protestants. and this is fairly much
born out by the statistics.One can not really suggest that a
"random" bomb was in order to kill Protestants only. finially
remember that my point here is not that the IRA did not kill civilians ,
just that a
minori ty of their victims were civilians and they were not
targeted for Religious reasons to the extent that Loyalists
targeted based on religion. this does not make one group "better"
than another. I an mnot making a moral judgemant. Let us say a group
kills mostly black
people and another kills mostly jews. They might both be wrong but
they are targeting different groups of people and to stop one group
killing balcks one might use a different tactic than you would use
to stop the other killing jews. this might be true even oif the
group killing blacks had a membership which was exclusively jewish.
As it happens though while certain groups like the Orange order to
my knowledge do not havwe any catholic members the IRA and other
Republican/nationalist groups did have Protestant members.
Post by Westprog
The H2 idea is that the IRA should get a pass on their murders of
protestant civilians because they killed a lot of other people as
well. I.e., one lot of IRA murders rendered the other lot of
murders less heinous. I think that the fallacious argument is
palpable.
No! Again I didn't put a value judgement into the discussion. I am
pointing to targets! The point is that it is clearly evidence that
the IRA had DIFFERENT targets for different reasons. and the theory
of conflict resolution suggests that one employs DIFFERENT methods
resources etc. to try to remove the diffferent reasons.
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
The IRA in their view were attacking the agents of a State which
oppressed Republicans. they were attacking the Military who backed
up the Loyalists. But the Loyalists were NOT attacking the armed
people who backed up Republicans. they were attacking civilians
Catholic civilians.
The IRA were attacking people in order to bring about a united Ireland.
But there is a clear distinction between "people" in uniform i.e.
Military or British forces and civilian "people" . If they are not
different what is the point of having a database of deaths which
distinguishes them in the first place? I mean it is the British
themselves who distinguish between the Victoria Cross and the George
Cross isn't it?
Post by Westprog
The loyalists were attacking people to prevent a united Ireland.
Both were willing to attack civilians.
Yes correct. But the IRA were not attacking civilians to the extent
that Loyalists were. there is a HUGE statistiucal difference in the
groups here. and when the IRA killed civilians the statistics
suggest they were NOT targeting them because of their Religion but
when Loyalists killed civilians they WERE. i.e. the available
statistics suggest a strong correlation between secterian
motivation on the part of Loyalists. Again I am not suggesting that
this makes them better or worse then the IRA. I am however suggesting
that the SOLUTION
should take this into account. As an example off the top of my head
one method might be in taking people from Loyalist communities and
introducing them to Catholics and convincing them Catholics are not
their enemy. One would not have to concentrate as much on convincing
republicans that Protestants are their enemy. But one might
concentrate on showing that there is a strong history of Military
tradition among Republicans and they don't have to hate British
Soldiers because many Republicans were in fact in the British Army
in the past.
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Beacon
Yes and you will find that they killed over 1000 military
And there is the fallacious argument. How can murdering one lot of
people make the murder of another lot less culpable? Would the IRA
have been a sectarian organisation if they /hadn't/ killed all
those soldiers and police?
If they killed almost all Protestants then yes you could! the
ststistics do not suggest that though!
And again I was not making a value judgement as to what is more or
less culpable. I was pointing to different motivation for targeting
different targets and not simplifying the thing into a blanket
accuysation of "they are killing people" . the point is WHAT GROUP
of people are they trying to kill! Then look into WHY they are
targeting that group. then you work on removing these reasons.
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
and you
will find the civilians were not target because of Religion like
the Loyalists. I am not justifying their targets I am just re
iterating that they were DIFFERENT, whether justified or not and
people going after different targets for different reasons
requires different solutions when removing that reason.
The solution was the same for both.
No I don't think it was and I think you are again presenting an
oversimplification. Things should be made as simple as possible but
not simpler!
Post by Westprog
The IRA and the loyalists had to accept that their political aims
were not going to be fullfilled.
I would argue against that. In fact, they had to be shown a way to
achieve these aims or the aims had to be rejected. It is in my
opinion different get the IRA to stop hating soldiers and to get
them to accept that a United Ireland may come about without
violence and that the will of the Irish people is what the vast
majority of the Irish people vote for in a referendum ...than it is
to get Loyalists to stop hating Catholics.
Post by Westprog
The protestants had to accept catholics having a place in
government and administration.
Protestants already did! Especially Protestant Republicans! The
point is that Loyalists didn't want "papists".
Post by Westprog
The IRA had to accept that a united Ireland would be dependent on
majority consent.
No actually the IRA had a split on this since they had to accept a
Unionist Veto against the majority consent! They had to accept that
a majority of the population of Ireland was not enough bt that a
mojority of the six counties would also have to agree to it! and
they accepted this on the basis that 95 per cent plus of the people
of the Republic of Ireland also agreed to it.
Post by Westprog
IOW, they both had to accept an internal power-sharing executive.
Yes. Which they both still havent got and Scotland and Wales have
passed them out.
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Beacon
Post by Westprog
No, they weren't. Because a lot of those cases were "informers",
or "criminals".
But wouldn't CAIN list these as "political activists" and not
civilians.
No, it doesn't.
(CivPA) Civilian Political Activist. There are 58 listed
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
I mean how could someone inform without some actual
knowledge about what they were informing?
I didn't say they were informers. I said they were "informers".
They were killed because they didn't toe the republican line, one
way or another. In one notorious case, for comforting a dying
soldier. The IRA was better than the loyalists in making up
justifications. They were also better at killing people.
I don't know about that. More "sucessfull" I might say maybe but
"better" is a value judgement isn't it?
Post by Westprog
Post by Beacon
And how would they get such
intel unless they were active in an organisation?
[snip]
Clearly they didn't. "Informer" was a catchall designation for any
kind of dissent. Saying "we shot him because he stood up to one of
our hard men" doesn't sound as nice.
No. But in this it is also saying that civilians were not targeted
because they were of a specific Religion but because they were not
following authoritirian principles of the IRA. They also shared this
with Loyalists but again I would suggest that the ststistics would
indicate that internal fueding and killing of civilians like this
happened on a much lower frequency for the IRA.
Post by Westprog
Does anyone really believe that the McCartney murder was the first
of its kind?
They didn't.
Even in the Mc Carthy caseone can NOT argue he was killed because of
his religious affiliation!
And this is AFTER the Sutton database but all the same I am not
suggesting it never happened, just that the available statistics
would not suggest it was a major motif . Indeed Sinn Fein made a big
show about it and spoke against it and had the Mc Carthys at their
Ard Fheis.
And I submit they would also suggest that this pattern was much more
indicative within Loyalism. Indeed while one can again suggest "they
are all thugs" one can argue there are more independent thug
elements the IRA from time to time in history which the IRA
leadership may somethies have ignored or which at other times they
may have ejected . Just like they may now be trying to deal with or
ignore the Mc Carthy killers. Again this may be related by the IRA as
ejecting a
"loose cannon" but it is also ejecting someone not conforming to
their authority. The INLA might be another such example.
So the point is while the IRA may have always killed civilians they
didn't mainly kill civilians and didn't kill them because they were
Protestants. And stopping IRA killings has to take this into
account. In fact Mc Carthy stands out because he WAS NOT a soldier
and WAS NOT a Protestant. But this exception does not prove any rule.
Ah Beacon! I knew him well!
Alas poor Harry, in spite of your allusions to Shakespearian English,
I don't think you have shown you ever knew me at all!
Thankfully, not at all!
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
The problem with all your arguments past and present, Beacon,
That in the trade is called a "sweeping statement". Please look it up.
Of course. It was meant as such.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
is not who you do or do not support,
Actually in this case it IS since Falcon was asked directly and above
[quote falcon]
...one that tries to make out that their own particular brand of
terrorism is more noble than everyone else's.
[end quote]
Speciosity is your speciality Beacon. I was speaking in general terms, not
specifically.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
it is the manner in which you try to explain why one side or the
other did or is doing what they do or did.
I didn't try to explain anything . I made a point and I used available
statistics which indicate that the point seems to be correct. If you
have anyu contradicting objective evidence then please post it and
show wher you think I was incorrect. somehow Harry I do not think you
will.
No, nor do I expect to, which is what I was saying. You have the time to
produce yards of "evidence" or so called "proof", (A great deal of which is
other peoples opinions by the way), which is the biased cleverly into a
meaningful defence of IRA tactics without ever declaring so.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Unfailingly, your arguments appear to support the IRA and the
actions of the Republican Movement and have always done so.
REally? I suppose you can post say THREE examples of where in
thousands of posts I supported the IRA? Even ONE example would be a
start Harry. Can you post that?
Your understanding of the English language is deficient. I didn't say that!
You do know the meaning of "appear" I suppose?
Post by Beacon
I have never said I was not a Republican Harry. As are the vast
majority of Irish people. But I have stated I didn't support the IRA
and nor do the vast majority of Irish people today.
I never said that the vast majority of the Irish people did any such thing!
I was confining my comments to yourself, Beacon, and your cleverly slanted
posts about the troubles.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
You go to great lengths to try to explain how it is that
Loyalists/Protestants carried out terrible things against Catholics,
(which did happen, no doubt),
Nope I haven't gone to any lenght at all. I diodn't go into describing
individual atrocities here.
<SIGH> You have done so in the past. As I said, we should not be still
opening such cans of worms today if the two cultures are ever going to
respect and live peacefully together.
Post by Beacon
I only made a case that the motivation of
secteranism was stronger in Loyalism and that the stats beat that
out.
Lies, damn lies and statistics!
Post by Beacon
Nor do I identify Loyalists with Protestants.
Your remarks "implied" that they were, which is what I claimed. However,
Loyalists are indeed most likely to be Protestant, but that does NOT mean
all Protestants are Loyalists by any manner of means. Regarding
sectarianism, bigotry and the like, I would lay claim to the fact that
Republicans were every bit as inclined as the Loyalists.
Post by Beacon
In gffact many
Republicans and Republican leaders were Protestant.
In the past, in different circumstances to our recent troubles.
Post by Beacon
It would seem it
it YOU who are exhibniting a secterian mindset in this which is just
more evidence for my contention!
Where have I said anything at all sectarian?
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
and completly ignore the fact that the IRA and their political wing
Sinn Fein, were and are terrorists,
Never ignored that at all.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
who as well as intimidating and killing Protestants,
But not just because they were Protestants . at least not nearly to
the degree Loyalists were intimidating Catholics. which is a
DIFFERENCE between them!
No, I don't think so. Most Protestants and most Catholics got along well
enough with each other. It was the few malcontents who had to try to force
their beliefs and wishes on others.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
were also fighting terrorist actions against the BA, in, NOT a war,
but merely a series of terrorist skirmishes.
Well I didn't introduce the term "war" to this discussion Harry.
But war was mentioned nonetheless.
Post by Beacon
So
go and do some homework. By the way is the British Army occupation of
Afghanistan and Iraq also a "non war" and "series of terrorist
skirmishes"?
The BA? You blame the BA for those? What about the Americans? And the other
countries forces also involved? - Your being biased here. It is a war per se
because "nations" are involved. It is a war against terrorism. In Ireland
the BA was confronting the Republican and Loyalist terrorists, no other
country was involved, so it was NOT a war, properly speaking.
Post by Beacon
Was the Irish War of independence also not a War and
another "series of terrorist skirmishes"? Again you announce your
mindset before you even begin Harry.
Your going back a bit now! But the Irish War Of Independence WAS a war,
because it was between Ireland and the UK. As for my mindset, stop being
specious again!
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
They did NOT have the support of the Republic,
Not in the recent past no.
Where did they ever have the support of the Republic?
Post by Beacon
Nor can you say anywhere where I claimed
they did.
I didn't say you did say that. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Post by Beacon
That is called a "straw man argument" Harry! Please look
them up. You have had years to and you still indulge in fallacies.
Nor by the way can you show ANYWHER where I claimed I supported them
and what they were doing in Germany Ireland or anywhere else.
Exactly what I said before. Your far too clever to come out into the open
and be properly transparent.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
nor did they have the support of the vast majority of Irish people.
They were and are illegal. Had there really been a war per se, the
IRA would have been soundly routed, which should have happened.
Perception is as perception does.
What waffle Harry!
No more so than yours, which is decidedly mischievious to boot.
Post by Beacon
I was discussing the theory of conflict
resolution. "the IRA would have been soundly routed, which should
have happened" is not solving any conflicts Harry is it?
Exactly so. There should NOT have been any armed conflict whatsoever. If
normal politics had been upheld by Republicans instead of resorting to armed
uprisings, then Ireland would most likely have been amicably re-united long
ago. Today, despite what you think and statistics may show, the "peace" is
still very unstable, the Assembly is still not working as it should and the
dissidents are gaining strength thanks to the actions of Sinn Fein. The
chance of a United Ireland has receded into the distant future which neither
you nor I nor most other people are likely to see.
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).
eugene
2008-11-11 14:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
another 20kb of Merrick drivel and denial. What a dick he still is, even
after all these years of genuine attempts to get him to even consider that
he may be wrong in some of his biased assumptions
Beacon
2008-11-11 17:52:38 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Ah Beacon! I knew him well!
Alas poor Harry, in spite of your allusions to Shakespearian English,
I don't think you have shown you ever knew me at all!
Thankfully, not at all!
Which is a contradiction of "I knew him well"
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
The problem with all your arguments past and present, Beacon,
That in the trade is called a "sweeping statement". Please look it up.
Of course. It was meant as such.
So you intend to employ logical fallacies do you? Not much for making any
points then are you? You admnit you depend on unsupported sweeping
generalisations!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
is not who you do or do not support,
Actually in this case it IS since Falcon was asked directly and above
[quote falcon]
...one that tries to make out that their own particular brand of
terrorism is more noble than everyone else's.
[end quote]
Speciosity is your speciality Beacon. I was speaking in general terms, not
specifically.
And whether or not you believe it does not matter in general whom I support

1. You have alleged that I do support the IRA and now try to sidestep
supporting you contention.
2. falcon has also suggested I supported terrorism and also failed to supply
any evidence.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
it is the manner in which you try to explain why one side or the
other did or is doing what they do or did.
I didn't try to explain anything . I made a point and I used available
statistics which indicate that the point seems to be correct. If you
have anyu contradicting objective evidence then please post it and
show wher you think I was incorrect. somehow Harry I do not think you
will.
No, nor do I expect to, which is what I was saying. You have the time to
produce yards of "evidence" or so called "proof", (A great deal of which
is other peoples opinions by the way),
No it isnt! I referred you to statistical evidence of the number of people
of specific religions who died and what groups they belonged to and what
groups the people who killed them were in. This is doccumented evidence and
NOT merely opinion!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
which is the biased cleverly into a meaningful defence of IRA tactics
without ever declaring so.
I only showed that they had reasons for what they do! Different reasons to
Loyalists. I didn't justify what they do or stated i agree with their
reasons. I made no judgement on them at all. Can you show ANY example where
I defended ANY IRA tactic?
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Unfailingly, your arguments appear to support the IRA and the
actions of the Republican Movement and have always done so.
REally? I suppose you can post say THREE examples of where in
thousands of posts I supported the IRA? Even ONE example would be a
start Harry. Can you post that?
Your understanding of the English language is deficient. I didn't say
that! You do know the meaning of "appear" I suppose?
I suppose you can post say THREE examples of where in
thousands of posts I APPEARED to supported the IRA? Can you post that?
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
I have never said I was not a Republican Harry. As are the vast
majority of Irish people. But I have stated I didn't support the IRA
and nor do the vast majority of Irish people today.
I never said that the vast majority of the Irish people did any such thing!
I didn't make any claim about you doing so did I?
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
I was confining my comments to yourself, Beacon, and your cleverly slanted
posts about the troubles.
So then what SLANT do you claim I am putting in my posts? The SLANT which
supports the IRA? If so then WHERE in thousands of posts did I do that?
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
You go to great lengths to try to explain how it is that
Loyalists/Protestants carried out terrible things against Catholics,
(which did happen, no doubt),
Yes it DID!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Nope I haven't gone to any lenght at all. I didn't go into describing
individual atrocities here.
<SIGH> You have done so in the past. As I said, we should not be still
opening such cans of worms today if the two cultures are ever going to
respect and live peacefully together.
Yes we should because of the basic premise I made! DIFFERENT reasons for
doing what they did! And the theoory states removing them requires DIFFERENT
reactions to each reason.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
I only made a case that the motivation of
secteranism was stronger in Loyalism and that the stats beat that
out.
Lies, damn lies and statistics!
That is a another sweeping generalisation. The case has been quantitavely
put and you have posted no coherent counter argument.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Nor do I identify Loyalists with Protestants.
Your remarks "implied" that they were, which is what I claimed.
Where did I imply that? You took it to mean that maybe but if you actually
hgad read what I wrote (instead of asbtracting some meaning which YOUR
OPINION told you to read into what I wrote bbecause that is what YOU THOUGHT
I meant) then
you would note I made NO SUCH IMPLICATION!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
However, Loyalists are indeed most likely to be Protestant, but that does
NOT mean all Protestants are Loyalists by any manner of means.
I don't need a lesson in basic logic from Harry "specious is my middle name"
Merrick thank you!
and I referred to the denomination of TARGETS in particular. About eighty
per cent plus of the deaths caused by Loyalists were civilian N Ireland
Catholics. About thirty per cent of the deaths caused by Republicans
(including the secterian ones) were civilian N Ireland Protestants
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Regarding sectarianism, bigotry and the like, I would lay claim to the fact
that Republicans were every bit as inclined as the Loyalists.
REad my last comment. 30 per cent versus 80 per cent is a laege statistical
difference.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
In gffact many
Republicans and Republican leaders were Protestant.
In the past, in different circumstances to our recent troubles.
Nope. Not only in the past. If you loook at the Sutton Database Protestant
members of REpublican groups are implied.
But the point of a Protestant tradition in Republicanism still exists. where
is the Catholic Tradition on the Orange Order?
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
It would seem it
it YOU who are exhibniting a secterian mindset in this which is just
more evidence for my contention!
Where have I said anything at all sectarian?
By using a term like "Loyalists/Protestants " you identify a religious group
with a terrorist one. I have shown you haw Loyalists did this and it is
bourn out by who they targeted. republicans DIDNT target Protestants to this
extent!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
and completly ignore the fact that the IRA and their political wing
Sinn Fein, were and are terrorists,
Never ignored that at all.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
who as well as intimidating and killing Protestants,
But not just because they were Protestants . at least not nearly to
the degree Loyalists were intimidating Catholics. which is a
DIFFERENCE between them!
No, I don't think so. Most Protestants and most Catholics got along well
enough with each other. It was the few malcontents who had to try to force
their beliefs and wishes on others.
I was not referring to MOST PEOPLE. I was referring to Loyalist terror
groups and Republican terror groups. they were targeting DIFFERNT targets.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
were also fighting terrorist actions against the BA, in, NOT a war,
but merely a series of terrorist skirmishes.
Well I didn't introduce the term "war" to this discussion Harry.
But war was mentioned nonetheless.
Not by me. so I didn't make any claims about war!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
So
go and do some homework. By the way is the British Army occupation of
Afghanistan and Iraq also a "non war" and "series of terrorist
skirmishes"?
The BA? You blame the BA for those?
I didnt blame ANYONE! I pointed to your hazy definition of "war" as in
"Northern Ireland was not a war"
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
What about the Americans? And the other countries forces also involved?
What about them? Are they also in a "non war"?
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
- Your being biased here. It is a war per se because "nations" are
involved.
Oh so when America was not a nation but a series of English colonies they
didnt have a "WAR" of Independence. And whern the Sub National group of
Roundheads took on the Cavaliers it was not an English Civil WAR? What is
the "English nation" by the way?
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
It is a war against terrorism.
Funny! I though one had a war against an enemy and not against a concept!
Well? How can one have a "war" on an "ism" ? Well maybe Harry can - on
Catholicism or Republicanism -LOL!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
In Ireland the BA was confronting the Republican and Loyalist terrorists,
no other country was involved, so it was NOT a war, properly speaking.
So the War of Independence in Ireland and in America was not a war? There is
no War in Somalia either I suppose or in the Congo?
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Was the Irish War of independence also not a War and
another "series of terrorist skirmishes"? Again you announce your
mindset before you even begin Harry.
Your going back a bit now! But the Irish War Of Independence WAS a war,
because it was between Ireland and the UK. As for my mindset, stop being
specious again!
So the 26 counties part of what is now the republic of Ireland was a
"country" at war with the UK? (United Kingdoms of what Harry ? Excluding
Ireland?) So how came some group cant say they represent Ireland. Imagine if
Ireland was United tomorrow. A Loyalist group might spring upi and demand an
Independent N Ireland. They would claim they are legimate fighters for
"Ulster". But according to you thet is not accpetable unless N Ireland is a
country? so according they would have to join a United Ireland and if they
didnt they would not be in a legitimate war?
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
They did NOT have the support of the Republic,
Not in the recent past no.
Where did they ever have the support of the Republic?
When republicans refused to recognist the Irish Parliament and only wanted a
32 county ireland. In the 1920s for example . At least till 1928. and for a
long time after that the base of fianna fail would have been these antio
treaty Sinn Feiners. you don't really need a lesson on Irish history Harry
Im sure you know all about Dev Valera and Sinn Fein and the foundation of
Fianna Fail in 1928.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Nor can you say anywhere where I claimed
they did.
I didn't say you did say that. Stop putting words in my mouth.
You are stating something and I am telling you I never said anything to
contradict that! Stop trying to build a straw man argument.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
That is called a "straw man argument" Harry! Please look
them up. You have had years to and you still indulge in fallacies.
Nor by the way can you show ANYWHER where I claimed I supported them
and what they were doing in Germany Ireland or anywhere else.
Exactly what I said before. Your far too clever to come out into the open
and be properly transparent.
Harry are you a complete fool! I have stated DIRECTLY that I don't support
the IRA. You cant supply any evidence of anywher where I did support them.
and you STILL contend that I try to hide the fact I support them in spite of
thousands of posts and NOT ONE can you show of me supporting them!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
nor did they have the support of the vast majority of Irish people.
They were and are illegal. Had there really been a war per se, the
IRA would have been soundly routed, which should have happened.
Perception is as perception does.
What waffle Harry!
No more so than yours, which is decidedly mischievious to boot.
Iraq "is a war per se" but Ireland isn't! Look back in 1916 WWI ended today
. 37,000 Southern moistly Catholic nationalist Irish men dies in that WAR
PER SE! The Unionist MINORITY who diesd in it may go on at length about
their sacrifice. In fact the nationalist Catholic majority of Irish who
fought and died were spurned by Republicans after Independence.
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Beacon
I was discussing the theory of conflict
resolution. "the IRA would have been soundly routed, which should
have happened" is not solving any conflicts Harry is it?
Exactly so. There should NOT have been any armed conflict whatsoever.
If normal politics had been upheld by Republicans instead of resorting to
armed uprisings, then Ireland would most likely have been amicably
re-united long ago.
LOL displaying your ignorance now harry! Why do you think Irish people were
uprising?
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Today, despite what you think and statistics may show, the "peace" is still
very unstable, the Assembly is still not working as it should and the
dissidents are gaining strength thanks to the actions of Sinn Fein. The
chance of a United Ireland has receded into the distant future which
neither you nor I nor most other people are likely to see.
Well we will see about that I guess Harry.
Ex_OWM
2008-11-11 18:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beacon
I didn't try to explain anything . I made a point and I used available
statistics which indicate that the point seems to be correct. If you have
anyu contradicting objective evidence then please post it
The problem is that Harry doesn't do facts or evidence.
Post by Beacon
REally? I suppose you can post say THREE examples of where in thousands of
posts I supported the IRA? Even ONE example would be a start Harry. Can
you post that?
Don't hold your breath. He's been calling me a Republican and IRA supporter
for yeras; I've been asking him for the same number of years to quote even
one post where I've supported the IRA and of course he never has been able
to do so.
Westprog
2008-11-11 16:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beacon
As it
happens though while certain groups like the Orange order to my
knowledge do not have any catholic members the IRA and other
Republican/nationalist groups did have Protestant members.
However, the IRA didn't have any unionist members.
Post by Beacon
Post by Westprog
The H2 idea is that the IRA should get a pass on their murders of
protestant civilians because they killed a lot of other people as
well. I.e., one lot of IRA murders rendered the other lot of murders
less heinous. I think that the fallacious argument is palpable.
No! Again I didn't put a value judgement into the discussion. I am
pointing to targets! The point is that it is clearly evidence that
the IRA had DIFFERENT targets for different reasons. and the theory
of conflict resolution suggests that one employs DIFFERENT methods
resources etc. to try to remove the diffferent reasons.
They had different targets for the SAME reasons.
Post by Beacon
But the IRA were not attacking civilians to the extent
that Loyalists were. there is a HUGE statistiucal difference in the
groups here.
No, there isn't a huge statistical difference. The IRA killed approximately
(within 10%) as many civilians as the Loyalists. Any analysis of the
situation that surmises that the IRA had a different attitude to killing
civilians than the loyalists conflicts with this simple fact.
Post by Beacon
and when the IRA killed civilians the statistics suggest
they were NOT targeting them because of their Religion but when
Loyalists killed civilians they WERE. i.e. the available statistics
suggest a strong correlation between secterian motivation on the part
of Loyalists. Again I am not suggesting that this makes them better
or worse then the IRA. I am however suggesting that the SOLUTION
should take this into account. As an example off the top of my head
one method might be in taking people from Loyalist communities and
introducing them to Catholics and convincing them Catholics are not
their enemy. One would not have to concentrate as much on convincing
republicans that Protestants are their enemy. But one might
concentrate on showing that there is a strong history of Military
tradition among Republicans and they don't have to hate British
Soldiers because many Republicans were in fact in the British Army in
the past.
This is precisely why the wrong analysis didn't and won't work. The
Loyalists tend to come from communities where sectarian hatred of Catholics
is prevalent. Hence there was a view that loyalist violence was a mere
expression of sectarianism, and that the solution was to be found by
persuading loyalists that Catholics were people just like them. It was also
felt in some circles south of the border that in a United Ireland,
sectarianism would naturally melt away.

However, sectarianism in NI is as strong as ever, but the war is over. The
reason that this was brought about is that the loyalists did not have hatred
for catholics or sectarian spite as their primary motive. Their primary
motive was to prevent a united Ireland, or any political advantage accrued
to Catholics.

What allowed a peace deal to be made was that nationalism came to realise
what the war was actually about. The unionist veto was enshrined in the
Irish constitution. Sinn Fein accepted that Britain would not force Northern
Ireland out of the Union against the wishes of the people. And the loyalists
had to accept that Catholics would play a role in governing the province.
Far from being eradicated, sectarianism was built into the agreement.

...
Post by Beacon
Post by Westprog
The solution was the same for both.
No I don't think it was and I think you are again presenting an
oversimplification. Things should be made as simple as possible but
not simpler!
I went back and counted. There was exactly one Good Friday Agreement.
Post by Beacon
Post by Westprog
The IRA and the loyalists had to accept that their political aims
were not going to be fullfilled.
I would argue against that. In fact, they had to be shown a way to
achieve these aims or the aims had to be rejected. It is in my
opinion different get the IRA to stop hating soldiers and to get them
to accept that a United Ireland may come about without violence and
that the will of the Irish people is what the vast majority of the
Irish people vote for in a referendum ...than it is to get Loyalists
to stop hating Catholics.
The clever thing about the Good Friday Agreement was that it allowed
everybody to carry on hating everybody else. Agreements don't need to be
made with people you like.

What was needed was that the IRA stopped killing people, for a start. Then
the nationalist had to accept the indefinite continuation of the Northern
State. The unionists had to accept catholics in government. Those were the
real requirement. Nothing to do with hating.

The IRA and the Loyalists were groups that used /terrorist/ methods to
achieve /political/ aims. The eventual solution had to find some way to
accomodate a compromise between their political aims. The wooly-minded
thinking that placed loyalist terrorism as being of some different nature to
what the IRA were doing was an /obstacle/ to finding a solution.
Post by Beacon
Post by Westprog
The protestants had to accept catholics having a place in government
and administration.
Protestants already did! Especially Protestant Republicans! The point
is that Loyalists didn't want "papists".
I don't get this - the protestants accepted catholics, but the loyalists
rejected papists?
Post by Beacon
Post by Westprog
The IRA had to accept that a united Ireland would be dependent on
majority consent.
No actually the IRA had a split on this since they had to accept a
Unionist Veto against the majority consent! They had to accept that a
majority of the population of Ireland was not enough bt that a
mojority of the six counties would also have to agree to it! and they
accepted this on the basis that 95 per cent plus of the people of the
Republic of Ireland also agreed to it.
The IRA never accepted the right of the illegitimate governments of the two
parts of Ireland to organise any plebiscite which would affect the
irrevocable right of the united Irish nation. That's republican rule #1.
IRA/SF acceptance of the unionist veto preceded the referendum.

[Look Eugene - big snips]
Ex_OWM
2008-11-11 17:52:38 UTC
Permalink
"Westprog" <***@hottmail.com> wrote in message news:gfccdk$vn9$***@news.datemas.de...

[...]
Post by Westprog
The clever thing about the Good Friday Agreement was that it allowed
everybody to carry on hating everybody else.
The important thing was that whilst the hating could remain in place, no
political or economic advantage could be built on it - the very opposite
would apply - so it should eventually wither away of its own accord.

At least that's the the theory but it has yet to be proved in practice.
Westprog
2008-11-11 20:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Ex_OWM wrote:
...
Post by Ex_OWM
Post by Westprog
The clever thing about the Good Friday Agreement was that it allowed
everybody to carry on hating everybody else.
The important thing was that whilst the hating could remain in place,
no political or economic advantage could be built on it - the very
opposite would apply - so it should eventually wither away of its own
accord.
At least that's the the theory but it has yet to be proved in
practice.
The disadvantage was that the non-sectarian groups were heavily penalised.
One of the main effects of the GFA was to put the final nail into the coffin
of the Alliance. They used to get twice the votes of SF. Now voting is
tribal.

What will probably help is not having people shot dead on a regular basis.
Meanwhile everyday life remains absurdly segregated.
unknown
2008-11-11 20:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Mavisbeacon
One does not have to share the same set of values with the Crown
forces or with terrorists to realise there is quantitative data to
support arguments about what THEIR reasons for violence was and what
their targets were!
IRA deaqths were civilians:British Army: RUC: other IRA: UDR in a
ration 7:5:3:1:2
i.e. about 35 % civilain
25% BA
15%RUC
10%UDR
5% other IRA
And how many loyalists?
Well that isnt 100 % certain. One could assume most of (98 per cent
plus) the RUC and all the UDR. I don't know why people joined the BA
in England. I do not think they were asked about N Ireland when they
joined in 1965 for example so I can't say most of the BA were
Loyalists or even cared about Ireland let alone "The Empire". Whether
they came from Dundee or Dundrum though, the stats show they
certainly were defending Loyalists and killing those opposed to
Loyalists. It is also fairly sure that the IRA were 98 per cent plus
non Loyalist. The other per cent being paid spies or turncoats.
I think that the use of loyalist here is confusing. I mean members of
loyalist murder gangs, who were /not/ targetted by the IRA.
Post by Mavisbeacon
But as to the main issue raised I do not think civilians were targeted
because they were Loyalist. Certainly you can't seriously be claiming
that an IRA bomb which killed say or a three year old child in
England was targeted at them because they were Loyalist. Military
were targeted becuase the supported the Loyalist establishment.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Loyalists targets were 85% civilian 4%UVF 4% UDA 3% civilian
activists and less than 2%IRA
I think that pattern really suggests a different mind set no matter
whether you share their valuses or not!
It shows that the two organisations had different targets available.
That's all.
No actually it doesn't! It shows the opposite. they BOTH had similar
targets available.
No, they did not. The IRA had uniformed representatives of the British state
wandering around. They 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.
In spite of having such a wealth of targets available, the IRA still killed
nearly as many civilians as the loyalists - and vastly more than the
security forces combined, whose regular experience was being shot at from
behind a crowd.
Post by Mavisbeacon
BOTH specifically DIFFERED in whom they targeted!
Both differed in the targets available.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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.
They both killed people for evil motives.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Also 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
If 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
I 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? They wanted to
murder people, and there was no-one available except IRA and civilians. The
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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The reason that loyalist violence wasn't small time wasn't because
they killed a lot of civilians - it was because they killed a lot
of people.
Yes but the point I make in terms of conflict resolution is
important. The killed DIFFERENT groups of people for different
reasons! One does not need to justify the IRA killing anyone to se
that removing the BA RUC and UDR from the picture would remove HALF
of their killings. Indeed many of the civilian killings may also be
results of attacks against Military targets as well. So
demilitarisation would result in massive downswing of IRA killings.
But the Loyalist groups show evidence of infighting and
sectarianism.
The infighting is common to both groups.
Yes but not statistically valid at the same level. five percent of
the IRA killings were other IRA groups but 50 % was military and
police. A third was civilians.
Loyalists targets were 85% civilian 4%UVF 4% UDA 3% civilian
activists and less than 2%IRA
The REpublicans did however kill 1078 Military 45 Loyalists and 185
of their own and in spite of the 738 civilians they killed it was
still LESS than the number of civilians killed by Loyalists.
Slightly less. Considering the vast number of soft off-duty policemen and
soldiers available, it's amazing that they felt the need to kill so many.
Post by Mavisbeacon
No doubt
some Republicans were infighting and having turf wars and just wanted
to kill Protestants but the evidence shows it was to a far lesser
degree than the infighting and sectarianism of the likes of the
"Shankhill butchers" for example.
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
Demilitarisation would not result in removing gang wars or targeting
civilians based on their religion!
Except that it did. The political settlement with the IRA ended
loyalist sectarian killings. That's a simple fact. It's
uncomfortable if one believes that loyalist killings happened out of
sectarian badness and a wish to keep catholics down, because the end
of loyalist murders coincided with catholic participation in
government.
http://www.psni.police.uk/1._recorded_crime-2.pdf
Figure 1.1 violent criming rising year on year since 1998
Table 1.2 percentage changes in murder manslaughter attempted murder
etc over 2007/08
all up 8.7% 400% 13.6%
Table 1.4 recorded crime by district - all reduced only positives are
Foyle East Belfast Fermanagh Carraigfergus - hardly republican
strongholds are they?
I dont know enough to say how many of the 50 murders and 250 attempted
murders were motivated by religious hatred and bigotry.
You 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. The loyalist terrorists aren't murdering Catholics any more because the
IRA ended the war. It was only the IRA that could end the war.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
There's all kinds of analysis that can be done, but the explanation
for the distribution is quite simple - there was a war on, and each
side went out to kill members of the other side, and chose them
according to what was available.
And one decided the OTHER SIDE was in the main a military group
whereas the other decided the enemy were civilians -mostly catholic
civilians? It is a bit trite to say "In war people get killed" You
might give that exciuse to the people of Falluja too when White
Phosphorus was used on them or to the people killed on Bloody Sunday.
It is different when people target civilians. In fact it is what people
define as "terrorism".
No, that's not what people define as terrorism. There's no definition that
excludes shooting an off-duty policeman in a hospital or on the steps of a
church.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
Post by Mavisbeacon
A DIFFERENT answer to this problem
is necessitated. Likewise the small minority of Republican
paramilitarists who also
were motivated by gang membership or turf wars and sectarianism
rather than targeting British Military would have to be dealt with
in a different way.
This does not justify violence or subscribe to the values of the
violent. it is just saying different reasons for violence require
different solutions to remove the reasons and THAT is why the
difference is important to recognise.
The idea that the IRA and the loyalists had different reasons for
violence doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. What they had were
different circumstances.
What they had were DIFFERENT targets. You are now trying to say that
the targets were different because the circumstances somehow made the
IRA target troops rather than civilians! Thats just nonsense!
No, it's blatantly obvious. I repeat *yet again* - who were the loyalists
supposed to target? They 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The 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.
I remember Jackson's crowd. They said if the ira kill a soldier or
policeman then we will kill some civilians. This was their policy.
As it happened it was Wright who made most use of it.

max.it (the orange cage)
Westprog
2008-11-11 21:06:40 UTC
Permalink
max.it wrote:
...
Post by unknown
I remember Jackson's crowd. They said if the ira kill a soldier or
policeman then we will kill some civilians. This was their policy.
As it happened it was Wright who made most use of it.
It might be that it was the eventual balance of murder that brought the
thing to an end, which is an interesting moral quandary.

I think when the totally pointless Shankill bomb was followed by the totally
pointless and entirely predictable shooting up of a bar, it started to dawn
on a few people that maybe the way to build a new Ireland wasn't through
killing lots of their neighbours. Since the Shankill bomb was supposedly
intended to protect Catholics, and since it clearly did the exact opposite,
they had to think twice.
unknown
2008-11-11 20:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Mavisbeacon
One does not have to share the same set of values with the Crown
forces or with terrorists to realise there is quantitative data to
support arguments about what THEIR reasons for violence was and what
their targets were!
IRA deaqths were civilians:British Army: RUC: other IRA: UDR in a
ration 7:5:3:1:2
i.e. about 35 % civilain
25% BA
15%RUC
10%UDR
5% other IRA
And how many loyalists?
Post by Mavisbeacon
Loyalists targets were 85% civilian 4%UVF 4% UDA 3% civilian
activists and less than 2%IRA
I think that pattern really suggests a different mind set no matter
whether you share their valuses or not!
It shows that the two organisations had different targets available. That's
all. The 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.
If the IRA were concerned with defending their communities, they'd have shot
members of the UVF and UDA.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by Westprog
The reason that loyalist violence wasn't small time wasn't because
they killed a lot of civilians - it was because they killed a lot of
people.
Yes but the point I make in terms of conflict resolution is
important. The killed DIFFERENT groups of people for different
reasons! One does not need to justify the IRA killing anyone to se
that removing the BA RUC and UDR from the picture would remove HALF
of their killings. Indeed many of the civilian killings may also be
results of attacks against Military targets as well. So
demilitarisation would result in massive downswing of IRA killings.
But the Loyalist groups show evidence of infighting and sectarianism.
The infighting is common to both groups.
Post by Mavisbeacon
Demilitarisation would not result in removing gang wars or targeting
civilians based on their religion!
Except that it did. The political settlement with the IRA ended loyalist
sectarian killings. That's a simple fact. It's uncomfortable if one believes
that loyalist killings happened out of sectarian badness and a wish to keep
catholics down, because the end of loyalist murders coincided with catholic
participation in government.
There's all kinds of analysis that can be done, but the explanation for the
distribution is quite simple - there was a war on, and each side went out to
kill members of the other side, and chose them according to what was
available.
Post by Mavisbeacon
A DIFFERENT answer to this problem
is necessitated. Likewise the small minority of Republican
paramilitarists who also
were motivated by gang membership or turf wars and sectarianism
rather than targeting British Military would have to be dealt with in
a different way.
This does not justify violence or subscribe to the values of the
violent. it is just saying different reasons for violence require
different solutions to remove the reasons and THAT is why the
difference is important to recognise.
The idea that the IRA and the loyalists had different reasons for violence
doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. What they had were different
circumstances.
The UDA and UVF didn't kill soldiers because soldiers were the IRA's target.
The BA, UDR and RUC didn't shoot at UDA and UVF because loyalists weren't
shooting at them. This stuff is simple enough.
If you had no uniform you were a civilian until the funeral, then you
might have been catagorised depeding on what was the story at the
time. The next time I die I'm having no funeral.

max.it (the orange cage)
Falcon
2008-11-04 17:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Ex_OWM
Post by Westprog
Loyalist violence wasn't "small time". But there was less loyalist
violence than republican violence throughout the troubles.
I don't think the families of the 873 murdered would be overly
concerned about such comparisons.
Nevertheless it's a fact. It's an important fact, especially given the
tendency from republicans to rewrite their history from being the chief
culprits in the troubles to being passively driven to it by housing policy.
[...]

When Gerry Adams renewed his party's call for a 'truth commission' at the
end of September, he stressed the need for full co-operation by "all
relevant parties". From his point of view the 'relevant parties' include
loyalists, the police and the army, but exclude the IRA, who he considers
have already "acknowledged what it has done" and in particular his own role
within the organisation.

Adams claims that there are groups who will not want the truth, and that the
process should be "victim centred". Noble words, until you realise the
groups he's referring to exclude republicans, that the only 'truth' to be
revealed involves state 'collusion', and the only victims he's interested in
are Catholic victims.

Clearly Adams still has unfulfilled political ambitions and it seems to me
that by repeating his revisionary message he hopes to avoid anyone pointing
the finger at the men who were ultimately responsible for their demise. The
sad fact is that there can be no meaningful truth process as long as one of
the conflict's prime architects refuses to acknowledge his personal
responsibility for the death and disappearance of so many people.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Poppy Appeal 2008
http://www.poppy.org.uk/
------------------------------------
Westprog
2008-11-04 18:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Falcon wrote:
...
Post by Falcon
Post by Westprog
Post by Ex_OWM
Post by Westprog
Loyalist violence wasn't "small time". But there was less loyalist
violence than republican violence throughout the troubles.
I don't think the families of the 873 murdered would be overly
concerned about such comparisons.
Nevertheless it's a fact. It's an important fact, especially given
the tendency from republicans to rewrite their history from being
the chief culprits in the troubles to being passively driven to it
by housing policy.
When Gerry Adams renewed his party's call for a 'truth commission' at
the end of September, he stressed the need for full co-operation by
"all relevant parties". From his point of view the 'relevant parties'
include loyalists, the police and the army, but exclude the IRA, who
he considers have already "acknowledged what it has done" and in
particular his own role within the organisation.
Adams claims that there are groups who will not want the truth, and
that the process should be "victim centred". Noble words, until you
realise the groups he's referring to exclude republicans, that the
only 'truth' to be revealed involves state 'collusion', and the only
victims he's interested in are Catholic victims.
Clearly Adams still has unfulfilled political ambitions and it seems
to me that by repeating his revisionary message he hopes to avoid
anyone pointing the finger at the men who were ultimately responsible
for their demise. The sad fact is that there can be no meaningful
truth process as long as one of the conflict's prime architects
refuses to acknowledge his personal responsibility for the death and
disappearance of so many people.
It's a comforting thought even for people who opposed the IRA to say that
they operated on a different moral level to the loyalists. The fact that
they killed about the same number of civilians is supposedly compensated for
by the police and soldiers they murdered as well.

There's an unspoken scale of values, where a judge is OK, but a solicitor is
wrong - a journalist is wrong, but someone teaching prisoners is legit. It's
part of the rewrite. OWM is, I think, well aware of this kind of thing, and
if I comment on his posts it's merely to clarify.
Ex_OWM
2008-11-04 21:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
There's an unspoken scale of values, where a judge is OK, but a solicitor
is wrong - a journalist is wrong, but someone teaching prisoners is legit.
It's part of the rewrite. OWM is, I think, well aware of this kind of
thing, and if I comment on his posts it's merely to clarify.
I'd disagree slightly - that isn't part of the rewrite, it was always there.

I remember some years ago, a Protestant guy I was friendly with through
work told me about another Catholic friend of his who had a brother arrested
as an IRA man and charged with murdering two policemen. He was really taken
aback as this guy's family were non-political, middle class Catholics living
in a prosperous area almost untouched by ‘the Troubles’ and his father had a
thriving business well supported by both communities – a background that you
would certainly not expect to produce an IRA member.

He told his friend that he was really taken aback and passed the remark “He
certainly didn’t take that from your parents”.

The guy replied that he wasn’t so sure about that; he went to explain that
although his parents were apolitical and vehemently condemned all violence
*in principle*, their attitudes, like most people, were not quite so
unambiguous when it came to individual incidents. If a Catholic got killed,
then there was an underlying sense of losing somebody from their own
community, if a Protestant got killed then yes, it was terrible, but there
wasn’t quite the same sense of loss. If an IRA gunman got shot then there
was a feeling of “poor kid, misled by others into a false sense of
patriotism”, if a British soldier got shot then there was a feeling of “but
he wouldn't have been shot if he hadn't been here, you know.”

He wasn’t criticising his parents, let alone blaming them in any way for
what his brother had done, he was just making the point that an accumulation
of small instances of sectarianism can be just as invidious as the full
scale type.
SammyM
2008-11-04 22:21:01 UTC
Permalink
On 04/11/2008 21:34, Ex_OWM wrote:

<snip>
Post by Ex_OWM
he was just making the point that an accumulation
of small instances of sectarianism can be just as invidious as the full
scale type.
Thought provoking, OWM.

Thank you.

SammyM
Westprog
2008-11-04 23:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Ex_OWM wrote:
...
Post by Ex_OWM
he was just making the point that an
accumulation of small instances of sectarianism can be just as
invidious as the full scale type.
Well pointed out. Sometimes it's easy enough to condemn the
IRA/UDA/UVF/BA/RUC in general terms, but difficult to treat the actual
incidents in the exact same way. It can, as you point out, be very subtle -
just slightly different language used.
Mavisbeacon
2008-11-05 02:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
...
Post by Ex_OWM
he was just making the point that an
accumulation of small instances of sectarianism can be just as
invidious as the full scale type.
Well pointed out. Sometimes it's easy enough to condemn the
IRA/UDA/UVF/BA/RUC in general terms, but difficult to treat the actual
incidents in the exact same way. It can, as you point out, be very
subtle - just slightly different language used.
Let's not fall into the fallacy of a type distinction. Probability and
statistics are NOT used to make judgements on individual cases in a
courtroom. One can't find someone guilty of murder based on the Sutton
database of deaths but one CAN point to Sectarianism as a reason for
Loyalist violence or attacking what they see as an occupying Military
supporting an occupying establishment as a reason for Republican violence.

And to go to the above example there is no crime in someone seeing a UDA man
as "one of theirs" or an IRA man as "misled". Nor did it cause the son to
become an IRA member although it might have had a slight influence. It isn't
sectarian in the religious sense either. That is part of my point!
"Theirs" to a Republican did not in the main mean "Protestant's" as much as
"theirs" to a Loyalist meant "Catholic's".
Mavisbeacon
2008-11-04 11:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ex_OWM
Post by Westprog
Post by Ex_OWM
it WAS the Republican Movement who decided to take up arms in the
first place to start genocide. What violence there was from the
Loyalists was small time by comparison
From Sutton database*, Republican paramilitaries killed 738 civilians,
Loyalist paramilitaries killed 873 civilians; that's Harry's concept
of "small time by comparison"- what more needs to be said?
Not alone that but look at the stats for Catholics killed by Republicans
(especially if you leave out the INLA who DID target Protestants ) and
compare it to the percentage of Protestants killed by Loyalists. You then
get a quantitative picutre of how sectarian the 738 and 873 civilian
killings were. I submit you will find the Loyalists were targeting
Catholics!
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

If you crosstabulate religion Summary with Organisation summary (even
leaving in the INLA) you get of the people from Northern Ireland

Loyalists killed 730 Catholics and 234 Protestants ... of 964 = 75.7 %
Catholic
Republicans killed 981 Protestants and 447 Catholics... of 1428 = 68.7%
Protestant

Mind you if you use "Organisation summary" you would note the British Army
killed 32 Protestants and 253 Catholics. so one might see where Harry is
coming from here. It suggests the BA confronted and killed Catholics nine
times out of ten, in spite of the fact that Loyalists killed civilians
compared to the Republican about ten times out of 24 or 4 times out of ten!

Republican killings were not 90 per cent Protestant? How come they don't
read republicans killed 1300 Protestants and 128 Catholics? It seems quite
clear that Republicans were not targeting Protestants.

So both the "small time" and "genocide" claims are baseless hyperbole from
Harry!
Post by Ex_OWM
Post by Westprog
Loyalist violence wasn't "small time". But there was less loyalist
violence than republican violence throughout the troubles.
I don't think the families of the 873 murdered would be overly concerned
about such comparisons.
Post by Westprog
A civilian killed by loyalists might be a Sinn Fein activist. A
non-civilian killed by the IRA might be a farmer who was in the UDR.
There were no legitimate targets.
I know that and you know that I know that.
I'm just reminding the rest of the world about Merrick's idiocy because it
was exactly that type of idiocy that took us to those dark places.
eugene
2008-11-04 11:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
So both the "small time" and "genocide" claims are baseless hyperbole from
Harry!
well, would anybody seriously expect anything different from Merrick?
unknown
2008-11-03 22:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Westprog
Post by Ex_OWM
it WAS the Republican Movement who decided to take up arms in the
first place to start genocide. What violence there was from the
Loyalists was small time by comparison
From Sutton database*, Republican paramilitaries killed 738 civilians,
Loyalist paramilitaries killed 873 civilians; that's Harry's concept
of "small time by comparison"- what more needs to be said?
Loyalist violence wasn't "small time". But there was less loyalist violence
than republican violence throughout the troubles.
A civilian killed by loyalists might be a Sinn Fein activist. A non-civilian
killed by the IRA might be a farmer who was in the UDR. There were no
legitimate targets.
I worked at Aldergrove with a young Catholic lad, he was local and his
Mother worked in the Naffe. One morning there was a big fuss, a
threatening note had been found inside a vending machine. The threats
were directed against the boy's Mother (working for the Brits).
I always felt for that woman. She was a victim of no crime. Either
republicans left the note, or loyalists left the note. At any rate
that woman was out of a job.
I used to think that it must have been loyalists, but after the ten
grand of stolen Northern bank money was found at Newforge I couldn't
make up my mind. Other than don't trust anyone, and protect thine own
areshole, for once burned the blisters of poor decisions are not
comfortable to sit upon.

There never was a war in Northern Ireland, it was gossip with guns.
Misinformation with bombs, and a whole nation deprived at the whim of
a little more than a few cranks and armchair generals with suckers to
follow.


max.it (the orange cage)
Doc Aay
2008-11-04 00:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
There never was a war in Northern Ireland, it was gossip with guns.
Misinformation with bombs, and a whole nation deprived at the whim of
a little more than a few cranks and armchair generals with suckers to
follow.
max.it (the orange cage)
Wow.

Doc
unknown
2008-11-04 00:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
There never was a war in Northern Ireland, it was gossip with guns.
Misinformation with bombs, and a whole nation deprived at the whim of
a little more than a few cranks and armchair generals with suckers to
follow.
max.it (the orange cage)
Wow.
Doc
No offence intnded, just say what you see.
The body count is irrelevent, the suckers are important.

max.it (the orange cage)
Westprog
2008-11-04 10:31:43 UTC
Permalink
max.it wrote:
...
Post by unknown
I worked at Aldergrove with a young Catholic lad, he was local and his
Mother worked in the Naffe. One morning there was a big fuss, a
threatening note had been found inside a vending machine. The threats
were directed against the boy's Mother (working for the Brits).
I always felt for that woman. She was a victim of no crime. Either
republicans left the note, or loyalists left the note. At any rate
that woman was out of a job.
There is a viewpoint that if it was republicans left the note, it was
legitimate political activity, and if it was loyalists it was naked
sectarianism. I tend to regard it differently.
SammyM
2008-11-04 21:30:57 UTC
Permalink
"Westprog" wrote in message:-
Post by Westprog
Post by Ex_OWM
it WAS the Republican Movement who decided to take up arms in the
first place to start genocide. What violence there was from the
Loyalists was small time by comparison
From Sutton database*, Republican paramilitaries killed 738 civilians,
Loyalist paramilitaries killed 873 civilians; that's Harry's concept
of "small time by comparison"- what more needs to be said?
Loyalist violence wasn't "small time". But there was less loyalist
violence than republican violence throughout the troubles.
A civilian killed by loyalists might be a Sinn Fein activist. A
non-civilian killed by the IRA might be a farmer who was in the UDR. There
were no legitimate targets.
I don't believe this thread !

"Our murdering bastards are better than your murdering bastards."

One fact no-one has quoted from Sutton - 155 "children" were murdered in
the "conflict".
And no, I'm not giving a breakdown from Sutton. (I'm not into "point's
scoring." )

Someone once said, "Murder Is Murder - - Is Murder"

SammyM
Mavisbeacon
2008-11-05 02:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by SammyM
"Westprog" wrote in message:-
Post by Westprog
Post by Ex_OWM
it WAS the Republican Movement who decided to take up arms in the
first place to start genocide. What violence there was from the
Loyalists was small time by comparison
From Sutton database*, Republican paramilitaries killed 738 civilians,
Loyalist paramilitaries killed 873 civilians; that's Harry's concept
of "small time by comparison"- what more needs to be said?
Loyalist violence wasn't "small time". But there was less loyalist
violence than republican violence throughout the troubles.
A civilian killed by loyalists might be a Sinn Fein activist. A
non-civilian killed by the IRA might be a farmer who was in the UDR.
There were no legitimate targets.
I don't believe this thread !
"Our murdering bastards are better than your murdering bastards."
Where did I say the IRA or UDA represented ME?
If I didn't then how are they "mine"?
Post by SammyM
One fact no-one has quoted from Sutton - 155 "children" were murdered in
the "conflict".
Now who is singling out victims?
Post by SammyM
And no, I'm not giving a breakdown from Sutton. (I'm not into "point's
scoring." )
Actually thats EXACTLY what you are doing! And it woudl be significant if it
was related to a point about an inordinate amount of child murderers being
involved in the INLA or UDA or PIRA.

If you think there is no point in having the Sutton database then that is
your belief but the point is it exists and it breaks down deaths by the
orginisations who killed people or the religious denomination of the dead
etc.
Post by SammyM
Someone once said, "Murder Is Murder - - Is Murder"
Second degree murder is called "manslaughter"
And people can literally get away with the exact same murder under the same
circumstances. It is called "mens rea" . So someone was not 100 per cent
correct when he said that!


Also people would still want to know if there were five times as many women
murdered as men or if more Protestants, blacks or whatever were murdered.
Even if more cyclists say were killed than their proportion in the overall
population it might be worth looking into.

That does not mean killing a cyclist is not as bad as killing a woman does
it?
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
2008-11-05 09:17:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mavisbeacon
Post by SammyM
"Westprog" wrote in message:-
Post by Westprog
Post by Ex_OWM
it WAS the Republican Movement who decided to take up arms in the
first place to start genocide. What violence there was from the
Loyalists was small time by comparison
From Sutton database*, Republican paramilitaries killed 738
civilians, Loyalist paramilitaries killed 873 civilians; that's
Harry's concept of "small time by comparison"- what more needs to
be said?
Loyalist violence wasn't "small time". But there was less loyalist
violence than republican violence throughout the troubles.
A civilian killed by loyalists might be a Sinn Fein activist. A
non-civilian killed by the IRA might be a farmer who was in the UDR.
There were no legitimate targets.
I don't believe this thread !
"Our murdering bastards are better than your murdering bastards."
Where did I say the IRA or UDA represented ME?
If I didn't then how are they "mine"?
Post by SammyM
One fact no-one has quoted from Sutton - 155 "children" were
murdered in the "conflict".
Now who is singling out victims?
Post by SammyM
And no, I'm not giving a breakdown from Sutton. (I'm not into
"point's scoring." )
Actually thats EXACTLY what you are doing! And it woudl be
significant if it was related to a point about an inordinate amount
of child murderers being involved in the INLA or UDA or PIRA.
If you think there is no point in having the Sutton database then
that is your belief but the point is it exists and it breaks down
deaths by the orginisations who killed people or the religious
denomination of the dead etc.
Post by SammyM
Someone once said, "Murder Is Murder - - Is Murder"
Second degree murder is called "manslaughter"
And people can literally get away with the exact same murder under
the same circumstances. It is called "mens rea" . So someone was not
100 per cent correct when he said that!
Also people would still want to know if there were five times as many
women murdered as men or if more Protestants, blacks or whatever were
murdered. Even if more cyclists say were killed than their proportion
in the overall population it might be worth looking into.
That does not mean killing a cyclist is not as bad as killing a woman
does it?
Specious and spurious claptrap on your part mavisbeacon. Mere rhetoric. You
have to be a solicitor to come up with such meaningless jargon. You are
talking about human beings here, NOT some sort of pschycological monsters!
YOU, I think, produced the figures originally, then it is YOU who are guilty
by default of blame putting with the use of figures produced by who? Are
they reliable? I don't think so. What about those killed by the IRA who have
never been found? In any case, statistics will tell you anything you want so
long as you apply them in certain ways.
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).
Ex_OWM
2008-11-05 23:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by SammyM
I don't believe this thread !
"Our murdering bastards are better than your murdering bastards."
One fact no-one has quoted from Sutton - 155 "children" were murdered in
the "conflict".
And no, I'm not giving a breakdown from Sutton. (I'm not into "point's
scoring." )
Someone once said, "Murder Is Murder - - Is Murder"
SammyM
You're perfectly right, Sammy (and Westie) and I'm sorry I let Merrick
provoke me into it. As you know, I never intended to suggest that murder
from one side is worse or less bad than that from another side but Merrick's
dismissal of Loyalist violence as "small time" got to me. I should have
known better, the train has moved on, the bigots have been left behind on
the platform and we shouldn't bother to wave back at them.
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
2008-11-06 09:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ex_OWM
Post by SammyM
I don't believe this thread !
"Our murdering bastards are better than your murdering bastards."
One fact no-one has quoted from Sutton - 155 "children" were
murdered in the "conflict".
And no, I'm not giving a breakdown from Sutton. (I'm not into
"point's scoring." )
Someone once said, "Murder Is Murder - - Is Murder"
SammyM
You're perfectly right, Sammy (and Westie) and I'm sorry I let Merrick
provoke me into it. As you know, I never intended to suggest that
murder from one side is worse or less bad than that from another side
You did no such thing! You were merely provoked into voicing your real
feelings on the matter, rather than your usual contrived hiding behind a
cloak of inocence. You spend your time defending the actions and murders by
Republicans by trying to point out the faults and actions of Loyalists.
Blame putting, in other words. I have repeatedly said that there is no
excuse for murder by anyone, and yet you continually makes such excuses.
Along with everything else, you are a hypocrit into the bargain.
Post by Ex_OWM
but Merrick's dismissal of Loyalist violence as "small time" got to
me.
In the historical actions of Republican murders, Loyalist murders are indeed
small fry.
I should have known better, the train has moved on, the bigots
Post by Ex_OWM
have been left behind on the platform and we shouldn't bother to wave
back at them.
Then you should also be waved to, as you are hiding behind that famous claok
of respectability when you are as much a bigot as anyone else on this Group.
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).
eugene
2008-11-06 09:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Then you should also be waved to, as you are hiding behind that famous
claok of respectability when you are as much a bigot as anyone else on
this Group.
I must respond to this vile and despicable cretin again. For the record, I
am an unapologetic Republican and even though I can state that fact, I am
also a pacifist and always have been, preferring dialogue to physical
conflict. It took too many years to get to the stage of dialogue I feel but
that was the fault of those bigots like Merrick and stupid British
politicians who thought that they could solve the problems here by using
their inept armed forces. Merrick and ilk still have not learned anything
from the past! But, the main reason for my response here is to state
categorically that OWM is not a Republican and never has been. Taking into
account that I have been intimately acquainted with my brother for more than
half a century, I should know. I laugh every time that Merrick accuses OWM
of being a bigot and a hardened Republican, OWM is neither of these things
and never has been. Merrick should keep his big mouth shut because this
topic, just like everything else he comments on, is way beyond the scope of
his feeble imagination. Every time that Merrick accuses somebody of
.........whatever.............it simply displays his unadulterated bigotry
and deeply rooted self loathing. It's called projection Merrick and it is so
clear every time you write more of your claptrap!
Mavisbeacon
2008-11-06 10:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by eugene
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Then you should also be waved to, as you are hiding behind that famous
claok of respectability when you are as much a bigot as anyone else on
this Group.
I must respond to this vile and despicable cretin again.
[snip]
Post by eugene
his feeble imagination. Every time that Merrick accuses somebody of
.........whatever.............it simply displays his unadulterated bigotry
and deeply rooted self loathing. It's called projection Merrick and it is
so clear every time you write more of your claptrap!
It would seem Harry's "objective" criteria for what constitutes fair debate
is based on what Harry believes to be right. Any systematically collected
and observed data collected by any professional is obviously therefore
correct if it agrees with Harry view on the matter. And of course it is easy
for Harry to judge whether so called "objectively verifiable and reliable
data" is completely wrong. It obviously must be wrong - because it doesn't
agree with Harry's opinion.

Harry please TRY to look the CASE others are making. It makes no difference
WHAT they personally believe! The CASE is based on EVIDENCE which exists
whether you I or the wall think differently. go and tackle the evidence and
not the person giving it to you. Just how, based on the evidence, are
Loyalist killings "small fry"? You are in denial - and I do not refer to the
river Harry.
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
2008-11-06 16:09:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by eugene
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Then you should also be waved to, as you are hiding behind that
famous claok of respectability when you are as much a bigot as
anyone else on this Group.
I must respond to this vile and despicable cretin again. For the
record, I am an unapologetic Republican
And so supported the armed conflict by default!
Post by eugene
and even though I can state
that fact, I am also a pacifist and always have been, preferring
dialogue to physical conflict.
You still supported Sinn Fein/IRA and their decision to take the route of
armed conflict, murder and terrorism. By default you are no better than
those who murdered and terrorised, therefore.
Post by eugene
It took too many years to get to the
stage of dialogue I feel but that was the fault of those bigots like
Merrick and stupid British politicians who thought that they could
solve the problems here by using their inept armed forces.
Had the IRA NOT been involved, then neither would the BA. Neither would the
Loalist paramilitaroies for that matter, who were formed to protect and
defend Protestant working class areas from the ravages of Republican
terrorism, as you well know.
Post by eugene
Merrick
and ilk still have not learned anything from the past!
LOL! FWIW, Merrick had nothing whatsoever to do with the past.
Post by eugene
But, the main
reason for my response here is to state categorically that OWM is not
a Republican and never has been. Taking into account that I have been
intimately acquainted with my brother for more than half a century, I
should know. I laugh every time that Merrick accuses OWM of being a
bigot and a hardened Republican, OWM is neither of these things and
never has been.
Didn't know he was your brother, but that does explain a lot. If he is NOT a
Republican then he should shut the hell up and stop trying to defend the
actions of the Republicans
Post by eugene
Merrick should keep his big mouth shut because this
topic, just like everything else he comments on, is way beyond the
scope of his feeble imagination. Every time that Merrick accuses
somebody of .........whatever.............it simply displays his
unadulterated bigotry and deeply rooted self loathing. It's called
projection Merrick and it is so clear every time you write more of
your claptrap!
ROTFLMAO!! So, rattled YOUR cage at least. You have just confirmed all that
I have ever said about the Republican Movement and their supporters,
mealymouthed, arrogant, sectarian, bigoted, vindictive and lacking in common
sense and empathy. Bloody idiots in other words.

Catch yourself on and get back to your photography.
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

(Glac bóg an saol agus glacfaidh an saol bóg thú).
eugene
2008-11-06 16:17:03 UTC
Permalink
"Hal � Mearadhaigh." <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
"The UDA and UVF were formed to protect and
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
defend Protestant working class areas from the ravages of Republican
terrorism".
What are you raving about?

There's never any point in trying to get you to see the truth Merrick!
Mavisbeacon
2008-11-06 10:23:16 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Post by Ex_OWM
but Merrick's dismissal of Loyalist violence as "small time" got to
me.
In the historical actions of Republican murders, Loyalist murders are
indeed small fry.
You have been clearly shown that this assertion is historically inaccurate!
A large tract of statistics has been produced to show that you are entirely
WRONG in this assertion yet you still continue to assert that Loyalist
killings are "small fry" compared to those of Republicans. Since you deny
openly available statistical facts which anyone can go and check for
themselves e.g. the sutton database of deaths, one may only conclude you are
a wilfully ignorant blinkered narrowminded bigot!
Post by Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
I should have known better, the train has moved on, the bigots
Post by Ex_OWM
have been left behind on the platform and we shouldn't bother to wave
back at them.
Then you should also be waved to, as you are hiding behind that famous
claok of respectability when you are as much a bigot as anyone else on
this Group.
If you continue to claim Loyalist killings of civilans are "small fry"
compared to Republicans then you are indeed a bigot!
Westprog
2008-11-06 11:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ex_OWM
As you know, I never intended to suggest that
murder from one side is worse or less bad than that from another side
but Merrick's dismissal of Loyalist violence as "small time" got to
me.
FWIW, I had no doubt of your position on the matter. It was just a matter of
clarification.
SammyM
2008-11-06 16:13:33 UTC
Permalink
"Ex_OWM" wrote :-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - As you know, I never intended to suggest that
murder from one side is worse or less bad than that from another side
I know that is not what you were saying OWM.
but Merrick's dismissal of Loyalist violence as "small time" got to me.
It got to me as well. ( As someone who has witnessed their "small time"
violence first hand.)

SammyM
Eddie Wall
2008-11-02 11:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hungry Wolf! <rayh<spam>@iol.ie>
Thus my opinion towards NI changed... Because I was man enough to realise that I
was wrong...
Simply stating that, proves you are still not man enough. !

PLEASE stop changing your name and escaping my killfile.

*ploink*

Eddie
"Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any
more than going to a garage makes you a mechanic."
Loading...