Martin McGuinness is clearly gunning for the DUP in the propaganda war. His latest line is to characterise the Free Presbyterians in the DUP as the Taliban. Hmmm… Can’t see it taking off somehow… The wider news agenda is likely to throw the comparison into an awkward light: for example, here and here.
Colin Neill’s first novel Turas peeks into a world in which many Ulster Protestants feel uncomfortable. It’s 2020 and the Irish unification that unionists and loyalists confidently predicted would never happen has become a reality. President Adams is ensconced in Phoenix Park. The newsreader reported that … a short ceremony at Stormont had confirmed the [...] read our review »
It’s not published until 3rd March, but one book I recommend you place an advance order for from Slugger’s Bookstore is James Harkin’s Niche. Belfast émigré Harkin examines a number of stories from business, culture and politics and comes to a single insight: everywhere the broad middle is collapsing. He offers Woolworths as an iconic exemplar [...] read our review »
“Republican play the appropriation game,…..”
“If people are judged by the company they keep, then Sinn Fein is damned..”
My point was that Sinn Fein has allies worldwide. Tafkabo has lied and justified his lie with an unverifiable anecdote. Stalford has missed the point, and managed to prove that Taf was a liar while doing so. Unionists just don’t get it, but then if they did they wouldn’t be unionists!
TAFKABO: “When Loyalist kill catholics, it’s sectarian.
When Republicans kill Protestants, it’s a detail.
Do keep up. ”
Ah, but did the Republicans kill them for any other reason than simply being Protestant? Therein lies the rub. When you review the dubious stewardship the English and Scots have excercised over those parts of Ireland under their power, the line the used to seperate the sheep from the goats was almost always religion. Additionally, the disproportionate number of non-combatants killed by the various and sundry Loyalist “defense” associations would seem to indicate that their operational orders did include the notion that “any Taig would do.” In other words, historically, The Loyalist / Unionist / British side of the equation has almost always had a sectarian element.
The Republicans are a little bit more mixed. I cannot and will not defend the bombing campaign, esp. on soft targets. However, when PIRA attacked overwhelmingly Protestant police, especially in the earlier years of the campaign, were they being sectarian or were they simply attacking physical manifestation of the state’s violence and oppression? Where they to attack a police car with two constable, one Catholics and one Protestant, are you honestly suggesting that one murder was sectarian and the other wasn’t?
I would argue that the conflict was PRIMARILY political, with sectarian overtones, for the Republicans and PRIMARILY sectarian with political overtones for the Loyalist. The numbers and types of casualties, along with the lack of strong Loyalist political parties would tend to support this thesis, although I confess there is no statistical support, just mine own observations. The Republicans primarily attacked those who enforced the state’s will and the Loyalists primarily attacked non-combatant populace.
My point was that Sinn Fein has allies worldwide.
I thought your point was that the whole world hates Unionists with a passion.
Tafkabo has lied and justified his lie with an unverifiable anecdote.
Hmm.
You honestly think you are free to makes claims about what the whole world thinks, but then complain that me telling stories of my firsthand experiences are unverifiable?
When did I lie?
If you cannot prove that I have lied, please withdraw the claim, it does nothing for discussions when you allow yourself to come down to this level .
Stalford has missed the point, and managed to prove that Taf was a liar while doing so. Unionists just don’t get it, but then if they did they wouldn’t be unionists!
Well, given your rather petulant outburst and since this is ostensibly a thread about religious belief, it’s seems appropriate to quote Thomas More at this point.
“The devil… the prowde spirit… cannot endure to be mocked.”
lib2016
“My point was that Sinn Fein has allies worldwide”
Perhaps. But look at them – with friends like that….
Oh I almost forgot, they are in the same grouping in the European Parliament as the communists who ran Eastern Europe through a regime of brutal repression and political assasination of dissidents. What was Bob saying about the Gestapo? The Shinners are allied to the people who brought us the Stasi!
Gerry Adams, Erich Honeker and Nicolaue Caucescue – fellow travellers.
fair_deal: “When was this war declared? Who by? Was it within the limitations of the UN Charter? ”
One could argue the de facto declaration of war was received by the Catholic community on Bloody Sunday, although any of the violence against the NICRA marchers could be construed as providing evidence of the state’s intent vis-a-vis the Catholic minority.
fair_deal: “Care to provide the location of the gas chambers the RUC sent people to?”
Historically inaccurate, as the camps were the province of the Allegemeine-SS (sp?), not the Gestapo, who were primarily “secret police.” I do seem to recall internment camps, although these were more akin to the English “concentration camps” of the Boer War than German camps of the Second World War. all in all, a hasty lunge met with clumsy parry.
However, were Bob to riposte, juxtaposing the B-Specials with the stree-brawlers of the S.A. or some other similar organization, I think he would be nearer the mark than your clumsy thrust.
[i]“Where people praying in a church fair game? What about people attending a dog show? Did they deserve to die also? Comments like yours show me the true nature of the republican mindset – its utterly disgusting.”[/i]
But, when all is said and done, the PIRA killed 516 civilians and the British security forces and the death squads killed 1.064 — better than 2 doe 1.
And dead is dead, whether by bullet, bomb or fire. You cite two horrific incidents but, then, you turn around and ignore the horrors of the Shankill Butchers.
I say the unionist attitude in ignoring the horrendous killings of the security forces and the unionist death squads is utterly disgusting and I can say that with far more justification than you have for saying the same about the republican killings.
DC laid it out very clearly, IMHO. But, face it, Christopher: there cannot really be any lasting peace in NI until unionism faces up to and admits its own failings and guilt and puts it violent thugs out of business. As long as people like you continue to demonize the PIRA and ignore the demons in your own community, I don’t believe true peace is possible.
I have said it before and I say it again to unionists: [b]Clean up your own act before you insist that others clean up theirs.[/b]
Dread
The B-Specials are to be compared with the SA now? This would be the SA, the same SA that was part of the NAZI movement, the same NAZI movement supported by the IRA during the war? I remember reading in the book about Joe Cahill that he and his comrades being held in the Crum, cheered when news came through of NAZI victories on the radio. Lovely people these Shinners, really they are in the same league as Martin Luther King, don’t ya know?
bob
I utterly, completely and totally condemn ALL paramilitaries and there disgusting campaigns. They are beneath contempt. So don’t try this holier-than-thou nonsense with me. Anyone who knows me, knows full well my attitude towards the thugs on both sides of our community.
You are attempting to justify Kingsmills, Darkley and La Mon. What about Enniskillen? Was it legitimate because as well as killing civilians there was the off-chance that soldiers would be killed also? You disgust me.
As to the actions of the Army and the RUC here – if they intercepted terrorists out on a mission to kill people and destroy property, they have and will continue to have my full support.
bob mcgowan, yes, dead is dead.
So why are you categorising people into civilians to suit your silly argument?
The IRA killed far more than anyone else,, and a fair number of cathlics who they were supposed to be defending.
The stupidity of nationalists who still havent woken up to the ira’s fat profits and control of criminality is staggering.
And lastly; Unionists like me do not vote for paramilitaries. Unlike your community we believe in democracy and are against violence.
Until the nationalist community get rid of the IRA and STOP voting for murdering scum, then you are right; there will never be peace indeed.
[i]“the Gestapo, who were primarily “secret police.”[/i]
Until the civic police were folded into the Gestapo during WW2 (1943, IIRC) the Gestapo’s task was to suppress political dissent, i.e. they had no dealings with ordinary criminal acts. They were the “secret police”/
My point is that the RUC were both political and criminal police — and, IMO, that’s not a good combination.
Here in the US, ordinary criminal acts are the province of local police forces under local control and most crime is treated in State courts under State law by State judges.
Though it provides services to local police — basically forensics — the FBI is the counter espionage and counter terrorist police here with relatively little involvement in “orinary” criminal acts.
DC
“Historically inaccurate, as the camps were the province of the Allegemeine-SS (sp?), not the Gestapo, who were primarily “secret police.”
1.I didn’t say the gestapo managed the camps I said sent people to
2. Also the management of camps is not as clear cut as you try to claim
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/mar2000/ger1-m17.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp_Theresienstadt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjica_concentration_camp
3. The separation you imply is also a false impression. The security structures of the German state meant the Gestapo working in full partnership with and accountable to the SS.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-gestapo.htm
A notable quote from this article
“Section B4 of the Gestapo dealt exclusively with the “Jewish question” http://www.holocaustcenter.org/Holocaust/nazi1944.shtml
You might also like to read the transcript of the interrogation of a Gestapo member, he thought the Gestapo’s hands were clean too
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/imt/nca/supp-b/ftp.py?imt/nca/supp-b//nca-sb-02-kaltenbrunner.06
A gestapo directive ordered
“September 9…Polish citizens who behave improperly are to be assigned to special sections at Dachau.
“http://www.holocaustcenter.org/Holocaust/nazi1939.shtml
Another example
In the early morning of 10th November, 1938, Heydrich sent a telegram to all offices of the Gestapo and SD giving instructions for the organisation of the pogroms of that date and instructing them to arrest as many Jews as the prisons could hold “especially rich ones,”
Also that
“A special detachment from Gestapo headquarters in the RSHA was used to arrange for the deportation of Jews from Axis satellites to Germany for the “final solution.”
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-accused-organisations-03-02.html
[i]“I utterly, completely and totally condemn ALL paramilitaries and there disgusting campaigns. They are beneath contempt. So don’t try this holier-than-thou nonsense with me. Anyone who knows me, knows full well my attitude towards the thugs on both sides of our community.”[/i]
Maybe so, but you are here demonizing the PIRA and totally ignoring the far worse record of HMG and unionists. I haven’t seen any comment from you telling us the unionism has its demons and that it should get rid of them. You are very careully ignoring the 800 lb canary in the room
[i]You are attempting to justify Kingsmills, Darkley and La Mon. What about Enniskillen? Was it legitimate because as well as killing civilians there was the off-chance that soldiers would be killed also? You disgust me.’[/i]
I have made absolutely no attempt here to justify any PIRA killings of civilians. Feel free to point any such justifications out. If you can’t — and you can’t — I suggest you withdraw the comment.
[i]“As to the actions of the Army and the RUC here – if they intercepted terrorists out on a mission to kill people and destroy property, they have and will continue to have my full support.[/i]
We are NOT talking about guerrillas (to use the correct term) on a mission against a military target, but about the Army and RUC killing civilians, i.e. innocent bystanders, and helping the death squads to kill civilians.
Please address the issues raised.
Bob – I have already shown that your figures are nonsensical as you group all loyalists and british forces together, and yet isolate the pIRA from all other republicans. Also, if you look closer at the Sutton figures, you will see that ex-military personnel (i.e. retired or now working as a milkman etc.) do not count as civilians. Neither do prison guards.
It is correct that the IRA killed less civilians than the loyalists or british as a proportion of their overall killing; but their targets wore nice uniforms that made them easy to identify and walked into the very areas where they could be most easily targetted. That they then still killed more civilians than any other identifiable group (no, I’m not going to lump them all together) shows the nature of the beast.
How did we get from Martin McGuinness to the Gestapo in two pages? It should only take one.
bob
An American are you? Well, if you hail from the land of the free, or even if you reside there, how do you feel your neighbours would react to the fact that Sinn Fein is in cahoots with the Communists that suppressed democracy in Eastern Europe for forty years?
“I would argue that the conflict was PRIMARILY political, with sectarian overtones, for the Republicans and PRIMARILY sectarian with political overtones for the Loyalist”
Well of course you would. It makes it easier to justify the acts of republicans instead of seeing all murders as murder. And you might take comfort in asll the nauseating statements from PIRA about killings such as Jean McConville, a spy, and the dozens of “mistakes” like the family of 3 blown up at Killeen. Oh, and the off duty policemen and UDR soldiers weren’t milkmen, busdrivers, teachers and students. No uniform, no weapon-no problem!
darth
well said
“One could argue the de facto declaration of war was received by the Catholic community on Bloody Sunday, although any of the violence against the NICRA marchers could be construed as providing evidence of the state’s intent vis-a-vis the Catholic minority. ”
One could also argue that the de facto declaration of war was received by the Unionist community when Dublin armed PIRA in 1970, and thus the Dublin and Monaghan bombings were a legitimate act. But one wouldn’t, would one?
Bob,
What do you think about FARC?
This is the most enjoyable thread for ages.
They don’t like it up em.
Stalford has now connected Irish republicanism to both Nazism and Communism. The British government had peace treaties with both regimes so perhaps Bush should get the bombers ready – hell, the Brits even have oil so they definitely need the Bush treatment.
Tafkabo,
People don’t hate unionists. There’s nothing wrong with the average unionist that wouldn’t be cured by a short spell in a re-education camp. (That’s a joke, by the way!) My point, however imperfectly made is that unionism has passed it’s sell by date. The British Empire is over, gone, defunct, a dead Empire. I’m not even going to try to make that point with Stalford so please realise that I do believe there is hope for you!
pith,
How did we get from Martin McGuinness to the Gestapo
Is Gestapo the name for the Sinn Fein Restorative Justice programme? I noticed they’ve an article on Garda Reform http://www.sinnfein.ie/policies/document/180 but don’t see the PSNI or RUC mentioned on this page http://www.sinnfein.ie/policies/justice about their policies on Justice & the Community.
Will this discussion move on from Martin McGuinness to the Gestapo to the Gardai…PSNI…Women http://www.sinnfein.ie/policies/women
Martin McGuinness and women who are and have been the women in his life and are they treated the same way the Taliban treat their women?
lib
A nice attempt at a side-step, but foolish nonetheless. You were the person telling us all about these great international pals of the Republican Movement, don’t get angry at me for wanting to discuss who the Shinners have kept company with/keep company with now.
So Sinn Fein’s allies down through theie history have included:
Nazi Germany
The Farc
The PLO
Colonel Ghadaffi
Castro
ETA
The former communist rulers of Eastern Europe
Have I missed anyone?
Yes Bob, I’m sure your American friends would find this very interesting.
lib2016
Can you point to any of my comments that have been inaccurate on this thread?
Christopher,
It’s not merely that they are inaccurate and at time mendacious. My main criticism is that they aren’t sensible.
The British who weren’t under attack for anything like the length of time the Irish have been nevertheless were forced to make treaties with both the Communists and the Nazis yet no-one suggests that Britain was in some kind of close rapproachment with either of them.
Irish republicans suffered a much longer and at times more vicious attack from England. It is no surprise that they had to accept aid where they could get it.
lib
So a dalliance with Nazism, at a time when the horrors of the concentrations camps was known, is OK? That’s good to know.
Bob,
I’m also wondering about your figures:
Out of the 516 civilians killed by the Provos, 260 were protestant. By my calculations, that works out to be approximately 15% of their total of 1706. I can understand you saying that not all of those 260 victims were deliberately sectarian (improvised bombs tend to be indiscriminate), but I don’t see how you get the final number you mention.
Is there a crosstab function that permits a search by sectarian killing that I’m not aware of?
Christopher,
Are you referring to the British concentration camps or their later German imitators?
lib
You’ve said quiet enough now.
Darth Rumsfeld: “Well of course you would. It makes it easier to justify the acts of republicans instead of seeing all murders as murder. And you might take comfort in asll the nauseating statements from PIRA about killings such as Jean McConville, a spy, and the dozens of “mistakes” like the family of 3 blown up at Killeen. Oh, and the off duty policemen and UDR soldiers weren’t milkmen, busdrivers, teachers and students. No uniform, no weapon-no problem! ”
So, unable to refute substance, you launch into emotional diatribe. Bravo.
Can you make a refutation on the facts? Or is emotional harangue the best you can do?
The casualty numbers would seem support the thesis, with Loyalist inflicting a disproportionately large number of civilian casualties. The history would seem to support the thesis, as the division between the religions was created and enforced by the colonial powers. The best you come up with is a bitter rant that addresses none of the points.
The casualty numbers would seem support the thesis, with Loyalist inflicting a disproportionately large number of civilian casualties.
By what rationale do you say it was disproportionately large?
Given that they didn’t have a visible enemy to target, it’s inevitable that they would attack the community which was percieved to be harbouring that invisible enemy.
By all means, argue that it was sectarian, unjustified and unforgiveable, I’ll not disagree with you over that, I don’t see how you can say it was disproportionately large.
what size should it have been, and how do you arrive at that figure?
Oh, and whilst we’re on the subject.arguing that yes, people may have been killed, but at least it wasn’t sectarian, is like saying rape isn’t so bad if the rapist wears a condom.
Christopher: “The B-Specials are to be compared with the SA now? This would be the SA, the same SA that was part of the NAZI movement, the same NAZI movement supported by the IRA during the war? I remember reading in the book about Joe Cahill that he and his comrades being held in the Crum, cheered when news came through of NAZI victories on the radio. Lovely people these Shinners, really they are in the same league as Martin Luther King, don’t ya know? ”
Let’s see… cudgel wielding bully boys attacking protest marchers, in the pay of their political masters.
Can you honestly say the B-Specials deserve a better epitaph?
As for the Nationalists being comparable to Martin Luther King, mayhaps not. But, frankly, the preludes were different, thusly will the outcomes be different. Do you imagine that if the part-time bully-boys and Orange mobs weren’t unleased on the NICRA marchers we would still be in the same place, with the same history? The same problems, perhaps, but without the mobs and the foolish decision to deploy the Parachute Division (light assault troops do not make good cops — the training and the mindsets are incompatible). Unfortunately, the chance for MLK, jr., was missed, so, we’ll never know. What, between the B-Specials and Para One, were the angry young men, the radicals who had been proven “right” by the assaults.
dread
Oh aye, the NICRA, was a mild-mannered collection of trendy leftie hippies idealists, and in no way infiltrated by the Provisional IRA. As to the point I was making re. Cahill – he was the one cheering the successes of the Nazi’s not the Unionist Party. Maybe you should think about that before throwing accusations/foolish analogies between Unionism and the Nazi’s.
TAFKABO: “By all means, argue that it was sectarian, unjustified and unforgiveable, I’ll not disagree with you over that, I don’t see how you can say it was disproportionately large. ”
Look at the numbers in the Sutton database. The plurality , if not majority, of those killed by Loyalist “defense associations” are non-combatants, suggesting that no credible effort was made by these “defense assocations” to either defend or to discriminate in their targetting whatsoever. Meanwhile, the more active Republicans, as demonstrated by the casualties inflicted, did make some effort to target combatants, i.e. discriminate between targets at least part of the time. Even receiving training and intelligence support from the state, the Loyalists simply operated on the basis of ‘any Taig will do.” The Republicans had at least some more focus to some of their campaigns.
TAFKABO: “Oh, and whilst we’re on the subject.arguing that yes, people may have been killed, but at least it wasn’t sectarian, is like saying rape isn’t so bad if the rapist wears a condom. ”
Hardly. While I do confess challenging the thesis that both sides’ violence was wholly sectarian in nature, I have been careful not to say that violence, sectarian or otherwise, is good, nor violence of stripe better than the other. Your scurrilous analogy only works if I elevate one sides violence over the other on some moral basis, which I have not. As partian shots go, I’ve seen far better.
[i]“By what rationale do you say it was disproportionately large?”[/i]
Hmmmm…… Of the 1,020 people killed by the death squads, 873 were civilians. That’s about 85% of all those killed by the death squads. Yeah, I think “disproportionately large” is a pretty good description.
[i]“Given that they didn’t have a visible enemy to target, it’s inevitable that they would attack the community which was percieved to be harbouring that invisible enemy.”[/i]
That’s what we call terrorism, Taf. Soyou agree that HMG, the Army, the RUC and the death squads were terrorists. Good fellow!
[i]“Oh, and whilst we’re on the subject.arguing that yes, people may have been killed, but at least it wasn’t sectarian, is like saying rape isn’t so bad if the rapist wears a condom.”[/i]
No, but it’s reasonable to assume that combatants who were attacked were attacked becasue they WERE combatants, instead of their religious beliefs. So, the RUC — all of them == were combatants and were legitimate targets. If you want to blame someone for that, I suggest you look to HMG who created the Constabulary as an armed militia to suppress dissent instead of an civic police service.
[i]“Oh aye, the NICRA, was a mild-mannered collection of trendy leftie hippies idealists, and in no way infiltrated by the Provisional IRA”[/i]
I guess you haven’t cvhecked out the incident at Burntollet. Preacefuyl demontrators beaten up by the cops and their friends from the local unionist community. Long before there was a Provisional IRA.
‘Free Presbyterian Taliban’
Didn’t our very own Jimmy Sands come up with that several years ago? He uses it on a regular basis.
Maybe McGuinness is using Jimmy’s material.
Look at the numbers in the Sutton database. The plurality , if not majority, of those killed by Loyalist “defense associations” are non-combatants, suggesting that no credible effort was made by these “defense assocations” to either defend or to discriminate in their targetting whatsoever.
Or,as I have posited, it suggests that since Republicans were by nature, secret and not nearly as easy to target, another approach was taken.
Meanwhile, the more active Republicans, as demonstrated by the casualties inflicted, did make some effort to target combatants, i.e. discriminate between targets at least part of the time. Even receiving training and intelligence support from the state, the Loyalists simply operated on the basis of ‘any Taig will do.” The Republicans had at least some more focus to some of their campaigns.
That’s being disingenuous.Republicans were engaged in a blatantly sectarian war in the beginning, but decided to play a different game.
their actions over the course of the troubles clearly show a willingness to engage in sectarian murder when it suited them.they also had the luxury of being able to decide who was and wasn’t a legitimate target.Since they knew protestants were by and large unionists, and unionists supported the state, they simply targted protestants who were supporting the state and gave a different reason for their murders.
Any actions which disproportionately affect one group of people can be said to be discriminatory, racist, or sectarian.
The IRAs campaign was aimed at people who were overwhelmingly protestant, therefore it was sectarian in nature.
You may argue that this was never their intention, but I fail to see how they could not have been aware of this.Indeed, the republican ovement as a whole has been and still is engaged in a process of keeping the communities divided, with never an opportunity to demonise Unionists and protestants missed.
Hardly. While I do confess challenging the thesis that both sides’ violence was wholly sectarian in nature, I have been careful not to say that violence, sectarian or otherwise, is good, nor violence of stripe better than the other. Your scurrilous analogy only works if I elevate one sides violence over the other on some moral basis, which I have not. As partian shots go, I’ve seen far better.
Why do you assume that my every remark is directed at you?
You are surely aware that there are a number of people on this site who make the very argument that you claim you would never make.
[i]“I have already shown that your figures are nonsensical as you group all loyalists and british forces together, and yet isolate the pIRA from all other republicans. Also, if you look closer at the Sutton figures, you will see that ex-military personnel (i.e. retired or now working as a milkman etc.) do not count as civilians. Neither do prison guards.[/i]
Since you simply seem unaware of the links between the British forces and the death squads, I guess we’ll just have to disagree. But, I suggest that you open your eyes to the ever-increasing evidence of HMG’s knowledge of and support for the loyalist paramilitaries, i.e. the death squads. Now, you may not like the evidence but it’s there and it’s growing almost daily. So, since it is becoming ever more clear that the whole crowd worked under the same control, it is perfectly reasonable to group them all together.
[i]“It is correct that the IRA killed less civilians than the loyalists or british as a proportion of their overall killing; but their targets wore nice uniforms that made them easy to identify and walked into the very areas where they could be most easily targetted. That they then still killed more civilians than any other identifiable group (no, I’m not going to lump them all together) shows the nature of the beast.[/i]
Sorry, DK, I’ve already answered your complaint about 3 times. Continued repetition without evidence does not make a statement true. Repetition of what has alread ben shown to be erroneous is not conducive to discussion.
I have cited the numbers with sources and drawn some conclusions from them. Too bad you don’t like those conclusions but, to date, you have not provided any evidence that those conclusions are wrong.
Sorry, Taf, but the bottom line is that less than 1/3 of the PIRA’s victims were civilians while over 1/2 of the vctims of the security forces were civilans and beter than 4/5 of the victims of the death squads were civilians.
The PIRA’s record is far better than that of either the security forces or the death squads, no matter how many excuses you may post.
[b]HMG waged a terrorist campaign in NI[/b]
Bob.
The bottom line is that people were killed.
Now I understand and accept that you differentiate between members of my community and fellow countrymen.You don’t seem to understand that to me they’re all the same.
And no one did more killing than the IRA.
Being a policeman does not mean you become a legitimate target, until you argue that people shouldn’t have chosen to become policmen, and then your argument becomes one that supporting the state and being a unionist makes you a legitimate target, which brings us back to the sectarianism of the IRAs campaign.
Bob,
I ask again. View on FARC please.
[i]“Out of the 516 civilians killed by the Provos, 260 were protestant. By my calculations, that works out to be approximately 15% of their total of 1706. I can understand you saying that not all of those 260 victims were deliberately sectarian (improvised bombs tend to be indiscriminate), but I don’t see how you get the final number you mention.[/i]
The 134 figure comes from the statistics in the appendix to the Sutton book. Here’s the URL to the appendix but you’ll have to work down it to get to the breakdown for the PIRA:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/book/index.html#append
[i]“Is there a crosstab function that permits a search by sectarian killing that I’m not aware of?”[/i]
Not that I’m aware of.
Cheers, Bob.
[i]“Now I understand and accept that you differentiate between members of my community and fellow countrymen.You don’t seem to understand that to me they’re all the same.[/i]
Sorry, TAF, but there is an essential difference between combatants and civilians that cannot be ignored. Killing combatants in an armed conflict is part of the war. Killing innocent bystanders, conflict or not, is murder. That is a BIG difference.
[i]“And no one did more killing than the IRA.
Being a policeman does not mean you become a legitimate target, until you argue that people shouldn’t have chosen to become policmen, and then your argument becomes one that supporting the state and being a unionist makes you a legitimate target, which brings us back to the sectarianism of the IRAs campaign.”[/i]
Sorry, TAF, wrong again. Generally speaking, policemen are civilians during an armed conflict, but in NI HMG used the RUC as combatants, i.e. as a secret police and as scouts, etc for the Army units. The Ulsterization policy of the 1970′s made the police legitimate targets.
“being a unionist makes you a legitimate target, which brings us back to the sectarianism of the IRAs campaign.” That is, most certainly, NOT what I said. I said being a cop makes a person a legitimate target. Neither a person;s religious beliefs nor his/her political preferences make him/her a legitimate target.
Do quote me correctly, please.
TAFKABO: “Or,as I have posited, it suggests that since Republicans were by nature, secret and not nearly as easy to target, another approach was taken. ”
Terror tactics, where the civilian population is targetted in an effort to cow the populace. Government supported “anti-gang” tactics, of the sort used in Kenya and Yemen. State-sponsored terrorism.
TAFKABO: “their actions over the course of the troubles clearly show a willingness to engage in sectarian murder when it suited them.they also had the luxury of being able to decide who was and wasn’t a legitimate target.Since they knew protestants were by and large unionists, and unionists supported the state, they simply targted protestants who were supporting the state and gave a different reason for their murders. ”
I think it is you who are being disingenuous, TAFKABO. The Republicans, as demonstrated by the Sutton database, targetted, generally, the state’s mechanisms of control, such as the police, the paramilitary forces of NI and the British Army. If the police were disproportionately Protestant, whose fault was that? Were the IRA’s goal to simply murder Protestants, there were far easier targets — they would have had numbers similar to those of the Loyalists, rather than those reflected in the Sutton database.
TAFKABO: “Any actions which disproportionately affect one group of people can be said to be discriminatory, racist, or sectarian. The IRAs campaign was aimed at people who were overwhelmingly protestant, therefore it was sectarian in nature. You may argue that this was never their intention, but I fail to see how they could not have been aware of this.”
All Hessians shot during the American War of Independence were German… are you suggesting there was an anti-German sentiment among the colonials? That the police were disproportionately Protestant was not in the control of the IRA. Their role as the state’s enforcers made them a target, not their religion. Ironically, it was the state’s discrimination against Catholics that made the RUC creates the scenario you’re attempting to use.
To illustrate my point, let us consider Cuba for a moment. Cuba, for good or for ill, has made it policy to quarantine HIV-infected indiviuals. Now, were a census of the quarantined reveal there to be a disproportionate number of blacks in these quarantine camps, would you say that they quarantine, which is wholly based on one independent variable (infection) was sectarian / racist, based upon a second, probably independent, variable (race of the infectee)?
A more rational analysis of IRA activities would be:
1) The Unionist power structure, over the decades since partition, had actively discriminated against Catholics in employment, creating a disproportionately Protestant RUC.
2) The IRA targetted the RUC, the police being the mechanism by which the Unionist gov’t enforced its, the state’s, power.
To accuse the IRA of sectarian violence ignores the reality that the scenario of a overwhelmingly Protestant RUC was created by the state. Likewise, the few Roman Catholic police were not spared the IRA’s attention.
TAFKABO: “Why do you assume that my every remark is directed at you?
You are surely aware that there are a number of people on this site who make the very argument that you claim you would never make.”
Starting with the obvious, the phrase “Oh, and whilst we’re on the subject” would suggest that you were speaking with me, rather than making a general comment, especially following closely on to your post directed to me. Likewise, as we were discussing whether or not it was sectarian violence, you post would seem to be directed to be contextually.
Oh, and I never said I would never make such an arguement, ever. I simply stated I did not make such here.
Sorry, TAF, but there is an essential difference between combatants and civilians that cannot be ignored. Killing combatants in an armed conflict is part of the war. Killing innocent bystanders, conflict or not, is murder. That is a BIG difference.
Simply put, the police were policemen.You are suggesting that they placed themselves in the position of being legitimate targets by being Unionists.
Both Bob and Dread are arguing that they were killed for being agents of the unionist state, but how else would unionists choose to act?, unionism by definition believe in the union and the state.
You can’t argue that Unionism was a legitimate target but not accept that Unionists were the de facto expression and focus of the violence.
The republican campaign was and is sectarian on those terms.
You’re blurring sectarianism with respect to religion and sectarianism as it may apply to political doctrine.
On these grounds, WW II was a sectarian war as well.
You’re also ignoring the issues of power, discrimination, etc., but I suspect you know that.