| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| Congal |
The Cardinal,The Prods And The ProviesThe Irish News...Monday October 30 2006.Sinn Fein leaders have now rightly accepted that Cardinal Conway spoke the truth Several letters from disgruntled republicans have appeared in The Irish News recently and nobody has challenged them. 'Republican Still' [October 7] stated that the current policy of Sinn Fein leaders contradicts the long-held Provo position. It would be difficult to dispute the logic of that assertion. I would point out,however that the late Cardinal Conway - on behalf of Ireland's Catholics - told the republicans that it was futile to attempt to bomb one million Protestants into a united Ireland. And every nationalist party leader on the island agreed with him then. So the republican armed campaign was against the wishes of the Irish people and lacked any legitimacy from the outset. Despite that overwhelming opposition the early army councils of the Provos thought they knew better. Their mumbo jumbo about being the only legitmate leadership of Ireland is too ridiculous to consider. After 30 years of appalling bloodshed,however, Gerry Adams accepted the late cardinal's views and even uttered such sentiments to an American audience after the current ceasefire. He was acknowledging the futility of the Provo's armed campaign. Whether that futility has led to the crimalisation of the Provos by the current Sinn Fein leadership is for them to decide. But can they dispute that they belong to a fascist,bullying,murdering destructive machine which inflicted more misery in Ireland than the infamous British bad boys - the Black and Tans - ever did? If 'Republican Still' wants scapegoats he might look beyond the current McGuinness/Adams leadership and focus on those who shaped the Provos from the outset. He might consider the early leadership,made up mainly of those who had failed to deliver a united Ireland by force in 1956. Many have since received a hero's funeral but their major achievement was to turn a generation of Irish youth into killers and lead many others to an early grave. That these killers are still in our midst was apparent in the vicious slaying of Robert McCartney and the subsequent destruction of the forensic evidence. That the bullying characteristics of the republican movement have not gone away either is evident in the hijacking of Casement Park for the 1981 Hunger Strikers commemoration. If 'Republican Still' feels he has been criminalised by the current Sinn Fein leadership,perhaps he should reflect on his own youthful naivety in believing the Provo propaganda which obviously convinced him that killing and bombing could drive northern unionists against their will into a united Ireland. These activities were orchestrated by the various army councils. Hopefully he will conclude,that it was in those ranks that the real criminals were to be found. SB, Co Armagh |
||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Re: The Cardinal,The Prods And The Provies
This is true, and not just in relation to the Provisionals, or the 'border campaign' before that. The so-called 'armed struggle' was from it's instigation in 1916 completely illegitimate. The moral and political case for Home Rule (i.e. parliamentary devolution) for the whole of Ireland had already been won when the tiny minority of proto-fascist lunatics began murdering people at the Easter Rising. The population of Dublin lined the streets to jeer these criminals when they were brought to justice by the government. Their murderous behaviour drove Ireland into civil war and alienated mainstream moderate Protestants in the north, creating the divisions that exist to this day. The pattern of events in the late '60s was very similar. The civil rights movement in the north had widespread backing across Britain, the USA and Europe, and would almost certainly have lead to vast improvements in the living conditions and political representation of the minority Catholic population. But unfortunately a handful of gun-totting, drug dealing thugs hijacked the whole proceedings with their ludicrous cartoon version of Irish history and it has taken three decades for the inter-tribal violence to subside. The fact that their are so many Scottish people of third- and fourth- generation Irish descent who glorify the sickeningly murderous thugs from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland is one reason why I am not quite convinced about Scottish nationalism. Political illiteracy is one thing, but when it comes mixed up with the pig-ignorant racist tribalism that passes for Irish history then it is a real cause for concern. |
||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
by the way we have already had the drug dealing debate mate. no one could produce one shred of evidence. I was going to mention innocent until proven guilty but internment and diplock courts show that doesnt really apply in britain anyway.
You also fail to mention the ruc and their co horts attacking civil rights campaigners which actually led to the rise of armed resistance it wasnt the other way around. |
||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
That's true. Civil Rights campaigns are often met with violence. The Black Civil Rights campaign in the USA, which provided the pattern for the Irish campaign, certainly was. The British establishment behaved dreadfully. But it was the violence dealt out by the agents of the state that brought the world's attention to the sectarian structure of Northern Ireland; and the pressure of informed world opinion would have brought things to a much happier conclusion, had it not been for a bunch of anti-democratic thugs who started planting bombs and shooting people, effectively sabotaging the work done by moderates on all sides. |
||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
And blacks in america have equal rights to this day? keep dreaming mate. The irish people shouldnt be expected to bend the knee to accept that. As for undemocratic by who's definition? you have to be given the chance to have had a democracy for you to go against. The deaths of those arising from "the troubles" like squarely with the british government with the situation they created, ignored and then dealt with in their usual imperalistic fashion. |
||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I didn't say that Black Americans had equal rights. But by common consent, they get a much better deal on the whole than was the case in the early sixties. I don't doubt that there is still work to be done, and individual Blacks still do meet with discrimination in their daily lives. But I'd suggest that it would be completely illegitimate for gangs of black thugs in inner-city Chicago, Birmingham or Detroit were to start planting bombs and shooting people. It would also have the effect of preventing the very thing it was supposed to make happen. An exact parallel with Northern Ireland in other words.
I dispute the claim that 'bending the knee' is the only alternative to killing people. In any case many Irish people, including the majority in Northern Ireland, seem happy to accept the Union.
'Undemocratic' in that the IRB represented a tiny minority in 1916. Undemocratic in that the IRA were the minority group during the long and bloody civil war that followed partition; a war they started, and lost. Undemocratic in that 'republican' parties have never won anything but an utterly tiny percentage of the vote in elections to the Dail. Undemocratic in that most people in Northern Ireland want to remain part of the UK.
The responsibility for each and every death lies with the men who pulled the trigger or planted the bomb in each individual case. By association, it also lies with the emotionally retarded 'fellow travelers' who condone, praise and offer support from the comfort of their armchairs (or football stadiums) in other countries. |
||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
much the same as someone telling others to accept inequality from their arm chairs eh.
for your information the ira also didnt target civillians. they were fighting a guerilla war with bombings looking to disrupt the british economy which at the end of the day was the only thing the brits really care about. If the ira had sought to target civillians it would have made their bombings etc infinitely easier and fatalities would be far, far higher. As soon as the british were willing to negotiate the killing stopped. There was a ceacefire as far back as the early 1970's. rather than see this as an attempt to engage republicans in dialouge the brits took it as a sign of weakness and attempted to use it to break republicans. The ira have always been willing to negotiate. You should also be aware that both major parties in the 26 counties actually claim to be republican and fully support the unification of the island therefore your points about the south are totally incorrect. |
||||||||||||||
| Congal |
They murdered civilians......thats the bottom line. | ||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
No, quite different. I find it unlikely that anyone will be killed, maimed or hurt in any way by what I say on this forum. But the type of propaganda on behalf of mindless thugs that you post has lead directly to the death and injury of completely innocent people. I hope you are proud of that. In any case, I'm not encouraging anyone to accept inequality. I'm making an assertion that killing and maiming innocent civilians is a very bad way to tackle inequality.
That is purest Doublespeak. The IRA didn't target civilians in the same sense that the USA/UK don't target Iraqi civilians, or the Israelis don't target Lebanese or Palestinian civilians. Planting a bomb or firing a gun in the full awareness that civilians are very likely to get hurt or die as a direct result of your actions is no different from from targeting them specifically.
How did bombing a remembrance parade in Enniskillen, or a military band in Warrington, or a shopping centre in Manchester 'disrupt the British economy'? All it did was spread mayhem and misery. The IRA were 'fighting a war' with the demons in their own heads, no-one else. I think you'll find that most people, whether British or Irish or from Outer Mongolia 'really care about' their friends and family, more than about absurd territorial disputes. And quite right too.
That may be true. But it doesn't change the fact that civilians died, and that the IRA knew full well that civilians would die, but choose not to care. If the IRA had decided not to kill anyone, then fatalities would have been far, far lower.
Negotiations were ongoing between elements of the IRA and the British secret services from the time of the hunger strikes in the early 'eighties. The killing continued for many years.
Maybe so. The British establishment has often behaved with brutal stupidity in its dealings with Irish people. But that changes nothing.
No. Neither Fine Gael nor Fianna Fail have ever campaigned on a policy of supporting the unification of Ireland by force, which is the usual definition of republican' when discussing Irish politics. |
||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
they still claim to be republican though. wither not you or i disagree that they are is another issue. they still state unification as a goal wither they actually do anything about it or not.
by comparing the ira to the brits and usa you are also missing two crucial differences. The first one is that where as the british and usa have all the latest sophisticated military weapons, tanks etc. the ira were using whatever means they could manage. The most crucial difference though is that the brits and usa have actually gone out of their way to become involved in iraq and other conflicts. members of the ira were reacting to a situation on their streets and affecting their communities. The british forced themselves upon the irish not vice versa. It's always interesting though whats considered terrorism. Nelson mandela is regarded as an international hero when his group were essentially terrorist but because the mass media tell us its ok to like him then he's not a terrorist anymore. |
||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
No, it's not. I could claim to be Chinese, but it wouldn't make me Chinese. In the context of Irish politics 'republican' specifically means supporting the unification of the island by violence. Nothing else. No republican party has achieved anything more than a tiny minority vote in any democratic election in Ireland. Even the recent (relative) success of Sinn Fein has come about in direct ratio to their abandonment of republican beliefs.
It's called posing. Or pantomime. Or pandering to the lowest common denominator. It's irrelevant.
I agree we can all be thankful that the IRA didn't manage to get their hands on more sophisticated ways of murdering people. It's not much of an argument in their favour though.
I'm not interested in how it came about. 'How it came about' is a comic-book history, with goodies in white cowboy hats and baddies in black cowboy hats. I'm interested in reality, as lived by ordinary people. The IRA's 'reaction' was to spread murder and mayhem on the streets of their own and other communities, making the situation far worse than it would otherwise have been.
Mandela came to be regarded, rightly or wrongly, as the symbolic figurehead for a very oppressed group in his country. I find it hard to credit that even the most bigoted Irish terrorist really believes that the daily life of the average black South African under apartheid bears any comparison with the daily life of the average Northern Irish Catholic. |
||||||||||||||
| Congal |
But they do....they most definitely do. But I could be wrong 
|
||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
so its ok to resist violently as long as your totally opressed rather than moderately oppressed? | ||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I refuse to equate 'resistance' with killing people at random. |
||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
well is mandella a murderer and a terrorist or is he not? |
||||||||||||||
| Congal |
No nuthin or very little about Mandela. But I do know the ira were murderers, terrorists and child killers.
In S.A. as far as I understand it. The black people didn't have the vote. So maybe Mandela did have a case. |
||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I have no opinion on the matter. I know very little about South Africa. But either way, the IRA remain evil murdering scum, and to glorify their behaviour by cheering at the sidelines is the act of a pathetic accomplice to murder. |
||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
well thats two cop outs if ever i have seen them. why dont you make yourself aware of mandela and then come back to me. | ||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Because I doubt very much that even a very intense study of South African history would tell us anything about Ireland. It would tell us even less about the behaviour of emotionally retarded Scots, who attempt to cover up some deep emptiness in their personal life by publicly glorifying the senseless murder of some people they have never met by some other people they have never met. |
||||||||||||||
| Babygael |
I DO hope congal, yer kidding?? NOT only did the erm"Black" people NOT have a vote but they were non-persons!! How would you feel if you were a non-person?Och,but ahm sorry!! How would you know??? In your perfect world??
You are right agentman as an "emotionally retarded Scot" yew shuid watch yersel'!! Yer fekin eejit!! |
||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
we were discussing terrorism and i stated that a terrorist is now seen as a statesman of the world and heralded as a hero. the comparisons are very valid as they show how view points can change depending on what the mass media tells us but it also shows that history is written by the winners. |
||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
There is also the theory that a rise in nationalism has corresponded with a decrease in the importance of religion. in essence then nationalism is replacing religion. so under that theory you yourself as a nationalist could be considered emotionally retarded and using the belief in nationalism to cover an emptiness in your life. |
||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Are you suggesting that the mass media invented the thousands of senseless indiscriminate murders carried out by the IRA? History isn't written by the dead, that's for sure. |
||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
I agree that nationalism is often a vehicle for group-identity tribalism in the same way as religion is a often a vehicle for the same.
I am not a nationalist. But I do accept that constitutional nationalism is a perfectly acceptable form of democratic politics. On the other hand, killing people you have never met, and about whom you know nothing is not an acceptable form of politics. And glorifing people who do this is repulsive. |
||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
what about mandela's violence? why is he a hero and others are terrorist? will you also condem him? 1916 and men like james connolly and padraig pearse were defined as terrorists but now the 26 county state celebrates them and they are no longer viewed as terrorists. to prove my point do a internet search on people like mandela and connolly and you wont see the term terrorist used often, do it on the ira though and you will. why? all used non state sanctioned violence to achieve a goal. |
||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/369464.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/h...may/20/newsid_4326000/4326975.stm |
||||||||||||||
| Congal |
I don't know what your gettin at. I was only saying as far as I'm aware they didn't have a vote. So therefore they had no access to democracy,so there might be a case for a resort to the actions they took.
Thats all |
||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
an organisation that sets of car bombs which kill civillians is discussed as the best thing since sliced bread. the ira though are terrorists, murderers etc. i am pointing out the double standards. |
||||||||||||||
| Congal |
It doesn't make what happened in S.A. right......the car bombing etc. It was wrong.
But as I have said in S.A. they didn't have recourse to the ballot box. |
||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Surely gerrymandering and partition diminish the ineffectiveness of the ballot box for those it works against? |
||||||||||||||
| Congal |
Even sinn fein/ira said to use the Armalite and Ballot Box to get their way. And the Ballot Box. The Ballot Box must have been some use to them then. |
||||||||||||||
| Rinty |
tI think we have lost our way on this thread a bit. Despite whether or not anyone thinks PIRA fit the bill or not, it is surely clear that throughout history, the perception of who is the terrorist and who is the peacekeeper can be twisted by history and the media.For that reason we should not get bogged down in the old arguments about whether or not the IRA were drug dealers, killers or freedom fighters but instead concentrate on the original post and its suggested debate. To me, that was whether or not the IRA actually did plan to "bomb a million protestants into joining the republic", and if they did have such a plan, whether some cardinal or not was calling it right in some point in history. Personally I dont see the need to single out Conway as he was far from the only people saying such things, even within the republican movement the same debates were being held. I also do not think that the IRA strategy was to bomb protestants into submission so the whole premise of the thread is wrong. The IRA's perceptions of itself, whether right or wrong, would be that the armed campaign was to get Britain out of Ireland for the benefit of both protestants and catholics. I dont think they ever targetted the protestant population or even saw themselves at war with them. Some loyalist paramilitaries mistakenly saw the war as between them and the IRA but it was a conflict between armed organised republicans and the British state. The drug dealing thing is irrelevant really as all revolutionary movements will seek to gain money for arms from whatever source. But the PIRA were, as far as my information goes, very active against drug dealing in the estates, while perhaps leading members were importing drugs and passing them to the UVF and others. |
||||||||||||||
| Congal |
Paddy Joe McClean. Told how the shinners came looking for his vote. He talked with them and asked what they proposed to do about a million Protestants. Their answer was they'll have to swim..he asked them what they meant by that.......get back to where they came from,was their answer.
SLG mentioned the Ballot Box. I was just replying to him pointing out that the Ballot Box WAS there,for them to use,which they did, along with their Armlites bombs, rockets and whatever else they chose to use. But the point was it acessable to them. But that alone[the ballot box] was not enough for them. |
||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
I don't think the IRA, and later the PIRA, INLA etc wanted to bomb protestants into giving into an Irish Republic. They seems to be against the British State and symbols of the British state, it gets a bit 'grey' to say the least when it comes to bombs in civilian areas of NI and in England as this is going to get 'innocents' which in certain parts of NI is going to mean more Proddies than Catholics. They did themselves no favours, and from what I can see got no 'success' from doing this.
Regarding drugs, as I originaly claimed all those months ago, it may have been an 'unauthorised' thing in the drug dealing, but as with fuel smuggling it was going on, and again did them no favours. Was chatting to my wifes cousin over the weekend and he was in the army based out in NI breifly (ooh Parkhead's finest will love that!), and has pretty strong attitudes on NI - Sinn Fein shouldn't be involved in Politics but supports an United Ireland, because in his words "The place is Ireland, and more importantly it's fucked up. They are welcome to it" And he was telling me (with out me bringing it up) that he was involved in breaking up a fuel smuggling ring between NI and Eire involving Republicans and there was rumours that it was being sold to Loyalist groups which he found hillarious. |
||||||||||||||
| Rinty |
y
What the whole of Sinn Fein came to his door and made this a policy and aim of the IRA? Wow, what an important man paddy must have been, that isnt evidence. I was in Newry once when a local guy who claimed to be IRA siad that he would kill the soldiers, I was also told in the same town by a relative of mine who was a member of PUP that the best solution to the "troubles" was to repatriate the catholics south of the border "or to f***ing rome" he said. I would say that it would be wrong to sum up the troubles by trying to paint republicans as some sort of evil element determined to kill protestants. Lots of circumstances came to lead us into the nightmare that lasted 30 years, this is all var too simplistic. |
||||||||||||||
| Congal |
Do I detect a note of scarcasm [as usual] in the first paragraph.  Well it seems those that seek to defend republicans, as not a bad bunch of guys,always seem to bring a touch of scarasm into it.
OK then have it your way Paddy Joe McClean is a liar then. Its just a story. Whatever you say. But I supposed we'll have to say that when he was interned and claimed to have been tortured......he was lying too. Well we'll come to an agreement. When he said what he said about the shinners....that was a spoof. The same when he said what he did about internment .......that also was a spoof. 
Call it quits. |
||||||||||||||
| Rinty |
y
Now you are getting silly mate. I am not saying he is lying, I am saying that whatever two sinn fein canvassers said at his door during an election campaign does not equal the IRA tactics re the armed campaign, just as the people I spoke to in Newry dont represent the official tactics or views of SF or PUP. This thread is based on a proiest saying that the IRA tactic of bombing protestants into joining the republic was wrong, I dont think that was ever their tactic and I dont think what Paddy McClean says proves it either way. He is an intersting guy and I do agree with lots of what he says in an analytical sense about identity etc but I still don't think the premise of this thread is right. |
||||||||||||||
.So mandaela did have a case