“the community will accept that it is a necessary use of lethal force..”
Perhaps inadvertently, the DUP’s Ian Paisley Jnr, a member of the Policing Board, provides another reason to delay the devolving of policing and justice powers. He’s apparently concerned about the recent use of Semtex. And, perhaps, the attempts to exert control in certain areas. From the iol report.
Mr Paisley claimed people would now accept it as necessary to finally crush the dissident threat. “Sooner or later there will be a murder of a police officer unless the police are able to deploy ruthlessness in tracking down and wiping out these dissident members,” said the North Antrim MLA. “I believe the community will accept such measures and if dissidents are shot on sight, the community will accept that it is a necessary use of lethal force to prevent dissident republicanism from growing.“Finally, given the seriousness of this most recent murder attempt, I believe the (Stormont) executive ought to ensure that a full discussion on the security situation must take place with a view to ensuring every encouragement is given to the police and army in the eradication of dissident republicans.”
West Belfast – ask youself this: how many of the 3,500 or so deaths were worthwhile to get something that was quite probably going to be on the table in 1971 or 72 through peaceful protest and was, whatever way you look at, explicitly on offer from the end of 1973 onwards?
Indeed one might argue that this could have been on offer from about 1912 and that the men of Easter rose up to stop it, not to bring it on.
Like you my flag is a tricolour but I am not sure it was worth anybody’s blood.
how many of the 3,500 or so deaths were worthwhile to get something that was quite probably going to be on the table in 1971 or 72 through peaceful protest…
You lost me at the word ‘probably’. Mind you, peaceful protest…1972…rings a bell.
Indeed one might argue that this could have been on offer from about 1912 and that the men of Easter rose up to stop it, not to bring it on.
Are you suggesting, with the benefit of hindsight, that the Easter Rising was ill-advised as it curtailed the chances of Home Rule for future generations?
Like you my flag is a tricolour but I am not sure it was worth anybody’s blood.
Don’t think anybody’s flag is really, but the world is what it is.
“Depends on the interpretation. As you say Ulsterfan the police already have the ability to shoot in order to protect themselves and others. If you interpret his remarks to mean this then his (Paisley’s) remarks are as redundant as anyone else’s her”
It is literally a crock of shit. The boys a fool
How did (eg) the two policemen shot in the back of the neck (in Portrush) by republican merders have an opportunity ” to protect themselves”.
Republican murder gangs concentrate on
(1)Unarmed civilains (judges etc)
(2)Sneak shootings in the back
(3)Murders by bomb from a distance
(4 Ambush
On the few occassions where the intended victim fought back the murder gang fled- leaving a marked brown stain evident
Total hypocrisy. If Ian Jur’s “policy” had been followed over the last thirty years more than half the SF ministers he shares power with would be pushing up daisies.
Barnshee
Spare us the bollocks. Whatever your opinion of the IRA and its aims, it cannot be argued that they regularly engaged a vastly better equipped enemy in battle – the list of IRA volunteers killed on active service is testimony to that. By nature of the conflict (guerilla force vs regular army) it’s primary advantage was surprise (ambush). Hence no large scale tank Battles or aerial dogfights over South Armagh.
British special forces employed similar ambush tactics throughout the conflict though I doubt you were equally morally repulsed when they did.
“they regularly engaged a vastly better equipped enemy in battle”
Battle?!? If this weren’t a serious subject that statement would be worthy of a belly laugh. Perhaps you should follow your own advice “Spare us the bollocks.”
Dec,
“the IRA…regularly engaged a vastly better equipped enemy in battle ”
So how were they engaging Douglas Deering in battle? Marie Wilson? The retired policemen they murdered? Roy Bradford?
The list goes on and on.
GG
Ok
they regularly engaged a vastly better equipped enemy.
Happy?
Turgon
Whatabout…
Whatabout…
Whatabout…
I’m sure there are plenty of online resources that will explain to you the difference between the words “regularly” and “always”.
Dec,
I think more accurate would be infrequently and even then they tended to plant a bomb and hide a safe distance away or shoot people who had no idea they were there and who at the time were far less well equipped than the IRa terrorists.
Still in your romantic dystopian world I guess you can see what you want.
Turgon,
All combatants in conflict choose, as much as they can, their terms of engagement based upon their relative strengths. Which is why we saw the IRA use ambush, plant a bomb & hide a safe distance etc and we see the US / UK Navy fire cruise missiles at their enemies and hide a safe distance (out of enemy firing range) in their warships, drop smart bombs from high (out of enemy firing range).
Which one we approve of is normally more to do with the objective than the method.
Attacking a barracks holding members of an armed force that props up a foreign state which discriminates against your fellow native people is not the same as “murder”.
Turgon,
Sorry to but in – and perhaps these points have already been covered.
I would agree that it is hardly an heroic act to shoot a retired off duty polieman or similar in front of his family – any yet it seems to me to have been the ‘official’ policy of the Provos. I would like Marty or Grizzly to explain how such people and such actions ever got into their list of legitimate targets.
In relation to bravery/cowardice – presumably you must admit that the Hunger strikes demonstrated that the Provos thought of themselves as soldiers and were brave enough to face the consequences.
Unlike modern day muslim suicide bombers, I dont think that Grizzly, good salesman that he is, could sell them the one aobut the quareones waiting for them in the after life.
“did all the members of the security forces, who gave their lives for what they believed in, die in vain as Martin McG runs this place with Peter R?”
No because the two things arent the same. They were fighting for very different things.
On one side you had a group of terrorists who wanted to force their will on the community.
On the other you had a Government, Police Force and Army who wanted to stop them and allow democratic parties to negotiate a solution.
I know you will diagree with this but look at the evidence. Behind the scenes political negotiations were going on for over 20 years…even involving the hated Thatcher. This was part of a British policy (not a SF policy) to try to move the conflcit into politics and away from violence. SF was only the tool. Despite all the crap from the SF leadership about ‘securocrats’ etc, at one point one of the Securocrats was even helping the Great Leader write speeches for the Ard Fheis!!!!
What we have seen is the outworking of a security strategy that spanned over 2 decades, forced PIRA to realise that they could not win militarily and pushed them to the negotiating table where they took the best deal on offer.
That is not to decry the SF leadership. Far from it. They did an amazing job in realising their true position and bringing their movement to the realisation that they were more of a hinderance to Irish unity than a spur and that the violence had to stop. They also negotiated an excellent deal – better than they might have hoped.
I know that, raised on years of propaganda and empty slogans and taught to follow dogma rather than think for yourself, you will find all this difficult. Losing a war is. Remember though …as you said…. you have to look at the long term picture!
Now perhaps we can try to all get on (in several senses) and all win the peace together in the interests of both communities.
Here endeth the 1st lesson
Still in your romantic dystopian world I guess you can see what you want.
To paraphrase Mick:
Indeed Turgon. Indeed.
You earlier engaged in a bit of myth-busting yourself (re sean south). Unsurprisingly, sauce for the goose is not sauce for your gander. The circumstances of the deaths of all victims in the conflict give the full picture of what happened, not your or my personal beliefs. (And just to remind you, no justification or defence of any of these actions was offered.)
“they regularly engaged a vastly better equipped enemy in battle”
On yes…and some examples…….
* women and children queuing in a fish shop in Belfast?
* Jean McConville kidnapped murdered and ‘disappeared’ for 30 years?
* Lesley Gordon (Age 10) murdered by a bomb planted in her father’s car
* 12 dog lovers burned to death at a dinner at La Mon house.
The list goes on and on. PIRA were just as bad as the loyalists. Two sides of the same ugly sectarian murderous coin.
>>On one side you had a group of terrorists who wanted to force their will on the community.
On the other you had a Government, Police Force and Army who wanted to stop them and allow democratic parties to negotiate a solution.<<
*shakes head*
I can’t believe a supposedly sensible individual actually believes that.
Think about how quickly the conflict came to an end as soon as the IRA started hitting the establishment in the pocket by redecorating the commercial centres of London and Manchester. The Republican movement had decided long before the Brits that a negotiated solution was the only way out of the stalemate. Killing 18yr old sodjers from Scunthorpe, Falkirk or Wreham was ok as long as it wasn’t affecting the establishment.
Dec,
What I meant was, as I am sure any reasonable person would have understood, is that if the “provisional” tactic of turning the events of August 69 into a war had been rejected in place of tactics designed to make the sectarian disposition unsustainable through non-violent means.
That was a real option in those days as those of us remember them know.
In any case violence meant that by 73 that was the case anyway – was anything real “won”, even inside the logic of republicanism that wasn’t available at Sunningdale or which Sunningdale didn’t gave the “freedom to achieve freedom” (eg policing reform which the Brits would have driven through).
As for Easter 1916 it is pretty clear to me that the IV/IRB knew their actions made partition inevitable, they just thought they could subsequently destroy it through physical force and then give the unionists the choice of submission or the boat. The result of that policy was perdition for northern nationalists and a re-enforcement of the siege mentality of the unionists.
What would have happened had Easter 16 not taken place is a game, not real. But suffice it to say that Ireland and England are today in union with a single parliament and executive and nobody much seems to mind – it is called the European Union and it is a loose federation, but it is still a union. Who is to say that, like the Low Countries, Ireland and England could not have reached some independent/interdependent arrangement on a 32 county basis by 1945 or 1949 or even 1973?
CS Parnell
>>As for Easter 1916 it is pretty clear to me that the IV/IRB knew their actions made partition inevitable<<
Don’t mind a bit of “What if” speculation myself. Kinda exciting. How though in the name ae the wee man did you come to the conclusion that they knew anything was inevitable, never mind partition?
“Think about how quickly the conflict came to an end as soon as the IRA started hitting the establishment in the pocket by redecorating the commercial centres of London and Manchester. The Republican movement had decided long before the Brits that a negotiated solution was the only way out of the stalemate.”
Sorry but that’s just a Republican myth designed to bolster the ‘we won’ philosophy and good for a round table discussion over a few pints down the Armlaite and Ballotbox. Think about it. What are you really saying? “Hey boys, we won….. we bombed our way ….into Stormont?” Try making a good rebel song out of that one.
The truth is that PIRA were bombing GB targets for years before this and the hated Brits just absorbed it. You need to remember that the negotiations started (initiated by the Brits) in the early 1980′s. Indeed, its arguable that they started even earlier when a bearded young one was hauled out of Long Kesh to negotiate with Whitelaw (although of course at no stage was he actually a member of the IRA, oh no).
Have you forgotten the Anglo Irish Agreement, so hated by the DUP and which predated the major attacks in Manchester and London by over a decade? And what about all the negotiations going on behind the scenes even through the Hunger Strikes and all the bombing campaigns?
The reality is that the Brits always realized that a political solution was an essential component of any long term settlement. What use was a military victory on its own if they couldn’t get a political deal behind it. The question was how to engineer that deal. How, not if. Part of that was containing and wearing PIRA down militarily. Part was persuading the movemnent that politics was the future. The Brits were successful in both.
Read Powell’s book. I personally find it quite cold and detached but what comes through is the attitude … particularly the bit about watching the children take their first steps
Cynic,
“Sorry but that’s just a Republican myth designed to bolster the ‘we won’ philosophy and good for a round table discussion over a few pints down the Armlaite and Ballotbox”
Just saying something is a myth doesnt make it so – the view that the flattening of the financial centre of London encouraged a deal is not only common sense but was shared by many Unionists outraged by the GFA.
There can be no doubt the Provos were miltarily under pressure and that coupled with the really big red bills that started landing on the Downing St mat finally shifted the pigheadedness of both sides.
Cynic
What Sammy said plus your later reasoning is only part of the picture. Of course everyone knew that a negotiated settlement was the obvious solution, but what was the catalyst?
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.”Matthew 5:6
Will you rise to the bait?
—————
Only a nationalist/republican would considered terrorism/murder a righteous cause.
Maybe it is time to bring stormont down until these barbarians are house trained
CS
Sorry but your analysis that the players in 1916 knew that partition was copper-fastened by their actions is entirely baseless and frankly, bizarre, However how unreasonable that may sound.
Beyond that I’m sure you’ll agree that that on the 31st of January 1972, it would have been difficult to make the case that peaceful civil rights marches were the way ahead. Then again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Observer,
“Maybe it is time to bring stormont down until these barbarians are house trained ”
My good man – thats exactly what some republicans are also saying.
Funny old game as ‘arry late of the ‘ammers and now of Portsmouth FC might well say.
” ………. but what was the catalyst?”
I believe it was a triple track process not one thing.
1 SF had to be seen to be successful and make gains.
2 PIRA was hollowed out to the point where, outside a few small areas, it was generally ineffective in its own terms
3 there was huge financial investment leading to low levels of unemployment and a sense of ownership in society among the wider nationalist community.
“Just saying something is a myth doesnt make it so – the view that the flattening of the financial centre of London encouraged a deal is not only common sense but was shared by many Unionists outraged by the GFA.”
Sammy
……… but the reality is that we now know that the talks had started long long before this and that the leadership had a good idea of the likely end state. It was always alleged that some of these bombings were to encourage the Brits to keep going / make concessions but the reality was that for SF the Brits weren’t the real problem. It was how to get the Unionists to engage. On balance bombing London was counter productive.
Dec and Prionsa, you should read the recent historiography on this. My conclusion – that the IV/IRB “Irish Irelanders” were prepared to pay the price of partition in pursuit of their hope of an independent Ireland is hardly disputed by any serious historian these days.
That doesn’t mean they liked it/wanted it, but they were prepared to live with it.
It is also why the Dail treaty debates turned not on partition – all sides accepted it – but on the oath.
Both sides (and the Northern IRA was loyal to Collins) thought they could blatter the unionists into submission. History has shown us they couldn’t, obviously.
Dec,
By the time of Bloody Sunday the provies (and the sticks) had been following the military road for two years.
But it is worth noting that what brought down Stormont was no IRA bomb but the way in which the unionist state butchered protestors.
Once Stormont went more or less everything that was every going to be “won” in the next thirty years was in the bag. But the Republicans were still caught up in the myth of the blood sacrifice and their inability to actually understand that their principal “enemy” were in fact other Irish men and women (namely the unionists) who had a different vision of Ireland’s future from themselves. They still thought (and the comments above show that many others still do) they were fighting the Tans.
In the end, in a cold analysis never mind a human one, that is why the provisionals strategy was bound to fail (as it did – we don’t have a 32 county state whether unitary or federal after all): because it was based on the idea all they had to do was drive out some “alien” force as opposed to actually engage with fellow residents of the island.
That is, of course, why the latest grave robbers of Pearce – the knuckleheads of Lisnaskea – are in the end going nowhere.
“Maybe it is time to bring Stormont down until these barbarians are house trained”
Which set of the barbarians do you want house trained?
1 Those that used to be terrorists
2 Those that fomented disorder at Drumcree?
3 Those that won’t negotiate? (Sinn Fein says NO – now where did they borrow that one from?)
4 Those that want Gays hounded in line with biblical principles (and as a true expression of love of course)
And has anyone actually listened to some of the ‘debates’ in the Chamber? At times when the UUP or SDLP are speaking there is a general background of what seems like cat calls and animal noises most of which seems to come from the DUP benches. It’s truly shocking and disgraceful. Like a zoo.
So perhaps you are right.
Ian is of course wrong. What the community will support is intelligence-directed police action to identify, arrest, and put in jail those responsible for attempting to bring back armed terrorism. We are supposed to have a working justice system and no death penalty.
Kill loyalist terrorists too, there`ll be no tears shed in unionist communities, unlike the squeals here from repulicans who LOVE their terrorists, pass the fish supper bobby
This is quite wrong. The DUP, including Ian Jnr I believe, were right there supporting Billy Wright’s father in his efforts to get an inquiry into his death. Why would the DUP be so concerned in identifying those responsible for putting a dangerous convicted terrorist and drug dealer out of circulation ? Mr Wright being the chap that a senior DUP MP chose to take a public podium with.
This is the sort of question that people like Observer, fair_deal and Turgon go to specific lengths to avoid. DUP politicians obviously do not believe it is in their electoral interests to take a tough line on loyalist terrorism, indeed they obviously believe it is in their interests to support the families of dead terrorist leaders in their efforts to establish the circumstances of the deaths of notorious terrorist kingpins. How could all this be the case if the electorate oppose terrorism in the way that we are told they do ?
[BTW I can't say I'm sorry about the recent passing of Wright's killer. A pure, unbridled psychopath using politics as a very thin cover for his bloodlust. He'll not be missed. ]
Unionist politicians will never demand stiff action against loyalists. Against “terrorists” in general, maybe, but you’ll never hear a unionist politician talking of the need to shut down the UDA or UVF using force.
Dec:
it’s hard not to correlate this recent rash of exercising of free speech with Peter Robinson’s ascension to the throne. He may have replaced Ian Paisley but who’s replaced Peter Robinson?
Actually, I wouldn’t be too surprised if Robinson had some kind of involvement in the efforts to discredit Ian Og, and will be slightly annoyed that the various inquiries into financial matters held recently did not put him out of the picture. Despite how it may seem, Ian jnr is not a popular figure within the DUP and he has lots of enemies. This latest outburst is the latest in a series recently whereby he is trying to put himself back in the spotlight and re-establish his political career.
Cynic,
“Brits weren’t the real problem. It was how to get the Unionists to engage”
No. There was very a simple way to “get the Unionists to engage”. Mention the ROI role in Non Iron. It forced Trimble to tear his party apart in signing the GFA and it forced Ian by his own admission to sign the STA. Robbo was also admitted his fear of the potential role of the ROI in his First Minister’s acceptance speech. SF simply left the Unionists to the Englezes and they duly delivered them. The reason Unionists didnt like the GFA was because they were shafted by what they thought was their own side. But hey its the Englezes we are talking about here – and you dont win and lose and empire without learnig a few tricks along way in how to deal with your troublesome colonies.
Basically this thread has demonstrated that as regards the history of the irish-british conflict…irish violence is bad (even though it was reactionary)
British/unioinst violence good (even though it perpetuated the subjugation of a people who had no wish to be part of the union)
We pesky natives have it now, to resist the violence of the colonial overlord is immoral, but to spread and keep the last vestiges of the empire with violence is noble. Which is why there are so many movies made about how grand an idea Unionism is.
RepublicanStones,
This isn’t the oscars. 3500 people died in a conflict that took us, in the end, nowhere in particular.
I certainly don’t say state violence good, popular violence bad. But I do say, as a nationalist, that violence has consequences and republican violence failed in all its key aims after 6 December 1921. All of them.
Republican Stones
“British/unioinst violence good (even though it perpetuated the subjugation of a people who had no wish to be part of the union)”
Again you ignore the fact that at every referendum the vast majority of protestants and what must be a substantial minority of catholics vote for union with Great Britain. Those are electoral facts.
So what you advocate is the “subjugation of a people who had no wish to be part of the” Republic.
And on your own logic, if a majority ever did vote for a Republic, the oppressed then minority of unionists in the north would be justified in rising up and murdering their fellow citizens to resist. That, in your eyes, would make them heroes resisting the colonial overlords.
Now I can understand why, if you have supported the violence of the last campaign, you need to do something to rationise in your own mind the murder of so many people for so little. The problem is here you are trying to present this as rational analysis. It just doesnt stack up.
Cynic
I hope you don’t believe that fomenting disorder at Drumcree was about the height of Unionist political culpability in the conflict. About as naive as the first comment regarding good guys and bad guys I butted in on. Comrade Stalin has written a taster above, I would be happy to furnish you with more though he has undoubtedly a deeper understanding of this topic than practically anybody on here.
Regarding just how the end came to the conflict Sammy sums it up simply and effectively
>>SF simply left the Unionists to the Englezes and they duly delivered them<<
The Brits supported unionism even when they were happy to live in the first tier of a two tier society. They then had to drag them kicking and screaming through various reforms right up to the beginnings of the present process. PM Major(ignore the comrades views on this;¬)) almost derailed the process because he needed Unionist votes to keep his fledgling government alive, allowing the process to stall and intransigence, bombings and killings to win the day. Blair nursed and then eventually had to show the rod to Unionism who would probably never have compromised at all if they weren’t pushed.
The final catalyst(partially destroying the financial and commercial centres of Manchester and London) only pushed us to where we would have been much earlier. If you think Republicans think they have won anything then you seriously know nothing about Republicanism.
No. There was very a simple way to “get the Unionists to engage”. Mention the ROI role in Non Iron.
Still babbling this shit, Sammy. Did the unionists engage as a result of the Anglo Irish Agreement ?
Prionsa:
I hope you don’t believe that fomenting disorder at Drumcree was about the height of Unionist political culpability in the conflict. About as naive as the first comment regarding good guys and bad guys I butted in on. Comrade Stalin has written a taster above, I would be happy to furnish you with more though he has undoubtedly a deeper understanding of this topic than practically anybody on here.
That’s very kind of you, but I fear you flatter me too much. I just remember things.
PM Major(ignore the comrades views on this;¬)) almost derailed the process because he needed Unionist votes to keep his fledgling government alive, allowing the process to stall and intransigence, bombings and killings to win the day.
I cannot accept this analysis. A British government is never going to vote itself out of office in order to protect anyone or anything over here (a valuable lesson for loyal unionists). In one respect it seems selfish, in another, Major had bigger fish to fry and the idea that the British government (or Dublin government for that matter) must drop whatever it is doing to placate our stupid politicians here is one that I’m not sympathetic to.
I completely disagree with the idea that Major was responsible for the IRA’s return to violence. The IRA’s army council was responsible for the return to violence. They chose, as they have chosen before, to take upon themselves the right to wage war on behalf of Ireland despite the almost complete opposition of the Irish people to armed struggle. The causes are, I think, well understood by now; the return to violence wasn’t a strategic move but a temporary period within which the hawks in the IRA regained control over the agenda.
And if you want to start talking about the causes of that, you might want to think about Sinn Fein’s still-unchanged tendancy to oversell things. Did they oversell things to the IRA leadership ? I remember when the ceasefire was called. Sinn Fein demanded all-party talks, while the government fobbed them off over the definition of “permanent”. Talks happened a few months later, but I think Sinn Fein had told their supporters that, as a result of the ceasefire, they expected the government to begin negotiations for the reunification of Ireland. I don’t believe that the IRA was persuaded to call a ceasefire on the basis of what was subsequently agreed four years later on Good Friday 1998.
Blair nursed and then eventually had to show the rod to Unionism who would probably never have compromised at all if they weren’t pushed.
I have to agree though, you have to hand it to Blair. He made it clear to the unionists that he wouldn’t be taking crap from them. That said, the unionists were never put in the position where they actually had to compromise that much. It was Sinn Fein which threw away most of it’s core principles.
In the end, we didn’t really get much out of the unionists, and we’ve still not got a stable government right now.
The final catalyst(partially destroying the financial and commercial centres of Manchester and London) only pushed us to where we would have been much earlier.
I don’t accept this either. If the IRA had the capacity to keep doing this, they would have kept doing so until British withdrawal was secured. The IRA were, in fact, defeated, and that’s why they came up with the ceasefire idea, to try to make as much political capital out of their defeat as they could.
If the IRA had the capacity to keep doing this, they would have kept doing so until British withdrawal was secured. The IRA were, in fact, defeated, and that’s why they came up with the ceasefire idea, to try to make as much political capital out of their defeat as they could.
Comrade Stalin is aboslutely bang on the money about the bombing but I think wrong about “defeat”.
They weren’t defeated, they just got around to grasping what Collins did in 1921, Dev in 1926 and Goulding in 1972 – that they could never win.
Of course thousands had to die before they caught up with “Downing Street for Slow Learners” and even their apologists here haven’t yet woken up to it.
‘Again you ignore the fact that at every referendum the vast majority of protestants and what must be a substantial minority of catholics vote for union with Great Britain. Those are electoral facts.’
‘And on your own logic, if a majority ever did vote for a Republic, the oppressed then minority of unionists in the north would be justified in rising up and murdering their fellow citizens to resist.’
You have missed the point by the proverbial mile Cynic. Did the Irish ever get a vote, one man/woman, one vote, as to wether or not they wanted to be part of a union with its colonial overlord, before said union was created. Answer is no. So therefore unionism would not be justified in resisting irish freedom because the union they wish to protect was and is corrupt from the outset. The fact that unionists form a minority in Ireland is not the fault of the irish, don’t blame us for your quandry. It is your beloved Britiains fault. Oh and you delightfully skip over the fact that the irish were also murdered INTO your beloved union. Kind ‘a takes the shine off it don’t you think?
So it depends on how you define defeat. Not achieveing all your objectives, decommissioning your weapons and disbanding isnt defeat …….. on this definition!
Before we can all make progress we need to sacrifice some sacred cows on both sides, grow up and move on. This is one of the green ones.
Comrade Stalin,
“Still babbling this shit, Sammy.” Still a bit more work for you to do on your debating skills..
Did the unionists engage as a result of the Anglo Irish Agreement. The simple answer to that is Yes.
Since the Alglo Irish Agremenent (AIA) was imposed on them Unionist politics has been driven over the past 25 years by fear of betrayal. Remember the AIA was not a threat it was an imposition and served to remind Unionism that the Englezes no longer would be treating them like they would be treating the good folk of Kent.
In any negotiations you will always be aware of the other negotiatiors strengths and weaknesses and to suggest that the Engleze wouldnt play the unionist weakness is nearly as silly as Wee Dave playing the tough guy before he changed his tune on negotiations over the Police and Justice ministry.
“The IRA were, in fact, defeated, and that’s why they came up with the ceasefire idea, to try to make as much political capital out of their defeat as they could.”
Although there is no doubt that the Provos were war weary it is always good tactics to negotiate from a position of strength and accepting it cetainly didnt suit them to carry on the Englezes knew that the had to cut them a fair deal or they would. (Dont forget they broke their ceasefire with the Docklands bomb to remind them of that.)
John Major had to cover some ground from the Tories ‘a crime is a crime is a crime’ to OK I’ll let all your fine people out of prison and I will also create the funniest political system in the world that will ensure some of your fine people get a few ministries – not to mention asbolishing the RUC etc, etc, etc.
Can we declare shoot to kill on politicians who have dodgy dealings with discredited property developers?
On the Canary Wharf bombing – hasn’t it been shown that this was planned & arranged long before the talks with major stalled?
Tovarich
Regarding Unionism and Unionist politicians, if I had a quid every time I agreed with you on their culpability in the conflict I’d be a rich man(which reminds me must get fiddler on the roof tickets)
Anyhow;
>>A British government is never going to vote itself out of office in order to protect anyone or anything over here< <
It didn't have to vote itself out of office, by deliberately being vague about wording, increasing demands and as a result stalling the peace process their "deal" to secure Unionists votes in Westminster was secured. If you are saying that Major do not share culpability with the IRA here then we will have to digress, the IRA were always going to have to respond, the inevitability was all pervasive. The "hawks" in the IRA as you put it were always going to be heard after nothing but stalling after all the anticipation and goodwill shown by Republicans. God I remember those frustrating days well.
>> If the IRA had the capacity to keep doing this, they would have kept doing so until British withdrawal was secured.<<
Not at all, it’s all about achievable targets. The Brits were never and could never be seen to be defeated, their prestige would never allow it. And withdrawal was never achievable, probably ever. All that the IRA wanted at this time was a negotiated settlement that they could live with. People were war weary and without their support the IRA could no longer prosecute the war, hence the euphoria at the ceasefire, and subsequent letdown by Major. Also defeat is over-egging the pudding, being sensible in the face of pointless armed conflict perhaps, all they needed was a willing partner in peace. And as you say Unionists were always going to be the wallflowers.
“So therefore unionism would not be justified in resisting irish freedom because the union they wish to protect was and is corrupt from the outset. The fact that unionists form a minority in Ireland is not the fault of the irish, don’t blame us for your quandry. It is your beloved Britiains fault. Oh and you delightfully skip over the fact ”
Republican Stones
You really do need to get out more.
Every time the spurious logic of your arguments is unpicked you invent new criteria of your own making.
You assume for example that nationalists and unionists are different ethic groups with different territorial rights in Ireland. All the genetic studies show that they aren’t. Our ancestors were all sleeping with each other for many many generations. We have developed different cultures but that is a different matter. We are really one ethnic group (and very closely related to the dreaded Brits too….I know …. better sit down ….. that’s good British blood coursing through your veins too)
And when it comes down to it, who do you think you are to tell me how I must define myself and to reject my claim to the bit of this Island I live on and may family has lived on for countless generations? It’s just as valid a claim as any you can put forward and if you don’t like that, tough.
And in this, in effect, you redefine Unionists as some sort of under-mensch with no real rights in their own country. That is a classic fascist and racist position but your big big problems are that it rubbish and that the unionists wont accept your thesis or do what you want.
Look around. Ireland is changing. Its more and more a secular and diverse society. What do you propose to do? Export all those nasty Proddies who dare to think differently? Where to? This is where they live? Will you also get rid of all the people from ethic minorities who must now endanger the supposed purity of your true celtic gene line and risk undermining your claim of territorial integrity?
Alternatively you could perhaps leave the culture of the 15th Century behind you and start to try to live with your neighbours in the 21st. Perhaps though that’s too much to ask. What then would you have to be aggrieved about and how could you define yourself?
Actually, I wouldn’t be too surprised if Robinson had some kind of involvement in the efforts to discredit Ian Og, and will be slightly annoyed that the various inquiries into financial matters held recently did not put him out of the picture. Despite how it may seem, Ian jnr is not a popular figure within the DUP and he has lots of enemies. This latest outburst is the latest in a series recently whereby he is trying to put himself back in the spotlight and re-establish his political career.
Comrade
I would tend to hold this view myself however it doesn’t explain the repeated blunders by his wife both on radio and in the british parliament (and I’m including her spectacularly misjudged nine-finger salute to the (for now) shadow cabinet.
“however it doesn’t explain the repeated blunders by his wife both on radio and in the british parliament (and I’m including her spectacularly misjudged nine-finger salute to the (for now) shadow cabinet.”
….. but that is easily explained by her own (actually touching in its honesty) remark on another issue “I am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier”
Just read Suzanne Breen’s interview of her and you will get the measure of her. She has strong (barking mad in my opinion) views and she just expresses them from time to time.
‘Every time the spurious logic of your arguments is unpicked you invent new criteria of your own making.’
Afraid not Cynic. As history is obviously uncomfortable for you, you seem to have nicely sidestepped the issues I raised and indeed you segwayed into a rant about ethnicity and genes.
‘It’s just as valid a claim as any you can put forward and if you don’t like that, tough.’
Afraid i don’t cynic, what i do reject is your belief that another country which for some reason you hold dear (I wonder why?) should occupy/govern/rule part of this country which you also claim.
‘you redefine Unionists as some sort of under-mensch with no real rights in their own country.’
Actually unionists and the british actually treated the Irish in such a manner. like I said history is obviously uncomfortable for you.
‘Export all those nasty Proddies who dare to think differently?’
What nonsense, Irish freedom is about freedom from foreign rule. the only thing british which has to go is British govt rule. You seem to like to propagate the falsehood that republicans want all british/unionists/protestants to upsticks and leave, which is bullshit. Nowhere have i advocated that. You also childishly mention immigrants and racial purity etc etc etc, and you said i need to get out more. Your sad pathetic attempts to portray the irish struggle for freedom as being a fascist one is typical unionist hyperbole.
‘Alternatively you could perhaps leave the culture of the 15th Century behind you and start to try to live with your neighbours in the 21st.’
Hang on a unionist telling someone to leave the past behind and live with their neighbours???? Have i got that right? I suppose the rest of Ireland were not unionism neighbours when they set up their little sectarian statelet against the wishes of the vast majority of which people? Also tell your orange mates that one about living in the past will ya?
>>You assume for example that nationalists and unionists are different ethic groups with different territorial rights in Ireland. All the genetic studies show that they aren’t. Our ancestors were all sleeping with each other for many many generations. We have developed different cultures but that is a different matter. We are really one ethnic group (and very closely related to the dreaded Brits too….I know …. better sit down ….. that’s good British blood coursing through your veins too)<<
Either you misunderstand the information or you have deliberately bastardised this cynic.
Republican Stones
The most recent version is fascist. Its a nationalist creed based on a false doctrine of some distinct celtic race that has an inherent right to rule and that has sought to impose that by violence. It has also always flirted with fascism – thats in the history books too – read them.
It was you who denied the unionist right to self determination not me. You also rail against ‘British rule’ but the Brits you hate are living here. There are 1,000,000 of them.
” Irish freedom is about freedom from foreign rule. the only thing british which has to go is British govt rule
and Unionists can argue that Unionst freedom is about freedom from Irish rulke. There are two sides and two views. Myopic? Or do they just not have the right to have a view?
“Hang on a unionist telling someone to leave the past behind and live with their neighbours???”
Yes, and what’s wrong with that? The only problem here is your self-serving attempt to stereotype all unionists as some orange coloured cardboard cut out.
“your orange mates”
have you read what I have posted about the OO on here? whoops…sorry…a Unionists view so not worth bothering about.
You are obviously annoyed because i have highlighted the serious gaps in your logic and exposed the nasty sectarian undercurrent in your postings. You really do have some serious self examination to do on this. But clearly my post got under your skin – so that’s a start.