"Belfast" vs "Good Friday" agreement

I'[m not talking about glorifying anything. Most history is grubby and most victors are the people who were willing to stoop lowest. There's no glory is war. None. Ever. Wars are when rich old men send poor young men off to die.
Terrorism is worse than war and what the PIRA did was terrorism, not war. They were not a state. They had no democratic mandate, unlike the real Sinn Fein, the one that became Fianna Fail. The PIRA were a minority of murderous extremists who ignored the will of the majority and killed children in order to perpetuate a tribal conflict. Their new found commitment to democracy is skin deep. We can agree that the actions of the IRA and Sinn Fein (the real, original, versions of both) were bloody and brutal and shouldn't be glorified but your attempts to conflate them with the PIRA, are laughable.
 
Purple said:
Terrorism is worse than war
Click to expand...
Please... stop! You are better than this.

Purple said:
They had no democratic mandate,
Click to expand...
1916. An event commemorated annually to this day.
What is to stop any armed grouping taking over Belfast City Hall for a good ol' shoot up of the town in the pursuit of an Irish Republic as set out in the 1916 Proclamation?

Purple said:
The GOIRA were a minority of murderous extremists who ignored the will of the majority and killed children in order to perpetuate a tribal conflict.
Click to expand...
 
WolfeTone said:
1916. An event commemorated annually to this day.
Click to expand...
Yep, no mandate in 1916 but a massive one by 1922. Tom Clarke was murdering people long before that but we've a long history of British people coming here and causing trouble, sure just look at James Connolly and Jim Larkin and all the trouble they caused!
WolfeTone said:
What is to stop any armed grouping taking over Belfast City Hall for a good ol' shoot up of the town in the pursuit of an Irish Republic as set out in the 1916 Proclamation?
Click to expand...
Nothing. There's also nothing stopping anyone doing the same thing in pursuit of a republic as set out in whatever proclamation the Iranians used in 1979.

And please don't edit what I said and present it as a quote.
 
1916 was suicide bomber stuff, but the 1918 election was a clear mandate for independence. The UK had failed to deliver home rule, allowed "Ulster" to arm. The UK could take itself off whenever it liked, eventually it did, not before the Black & Tans disgraced themselves. So there was an outcome for the GOIRA that was foreseeable and achieved. It wasn't all Queensbury rules but then war never is.

In NI through the late 70s, 80s, 90s what was the foreseeable outcome?, if the British Army went home then what then? Did the 6 counties not require a police force? The 'Long War' was a totally futile sectarian exercise, killing protestant farmers along the border in low level ethnic cleansing, never an endgame in sight. All war is horror, sometimes it is necessary, from '69 to '73 you could argue that the IRA had a role to play in community defenderism, but once you had the Sunningale Agreement with powersharing then the means were there end the conflict (votes, housing, powersharing - Civil Rights aims achieved). The RA terrorised for another 25 years to achieve nothing - the GFA that a vote for a UI would be carried, that was always going to be the de facto position anyway & the PIRA could have negotiated that at Sunningdale if they'd joined in. As the former IRA man said crying on the documentary "What was it for, what the __ was it all about".

As for the "you like the GOIRA but not the Provos" argument, lets move on from the GOIRA, change the train station names, take down the portraits, far better to do that than sully our name with the crimes of the Provos. That won't do SF though, so vigilant we must be.
 
Betsy Og said:
1916 was suicide bomber stuff, but the 1918 election was a clear mandate for independence
Click to expand...

It was a clear mandate for independence, but there was never any mandate to go to war.
The Dáil, which presumably GOIRA were answerable to, never endorsed military force against the British. In fact, the only time the Dáil voted on a motion to declare the country at war with Britain was in January 1921. And that motion was defeated.
GOIRA never commanded the support of the majority of people. This is reflected in the paltry numerous, estimated at 15,000 relative to the Irish Volunteers before them of some 150,000+.

GOIRA had no mandate to carry out its sectarian massacres, its summary executions, its litany dead disappeared bodies.
It's an inconvenient truth that most across the political spectrum cannot fathom. So Dev and Collins are painted as war hero's. In reality, they sowed the seeds of further conflict in this country through their bloody campaign of murder.
 
The PIRA regarded the government of this Country, our Judges, our Police and our Army as their emeries and as legitimate targets. Their political wing has not disavowed that position but now they want to run this country and be in charge of our Police and our Army. When their members murder our Police and our Army they consider the murderers to be heroes and collect them from prison. It takes wilful blindness not to see the difference between the IRA that was killing people before this country existed and the PIRA who fought against this country.
 
Constable James O'Brien of Dublin Metropolitan police officer was on duty at Dublin Castle when the Rising commenced. His authority as a police officer derived from his appointment by Government, the legal lawful authority, British government, as mandated by the people of Ireland. Ably represented at Westminster by duly elected representatives of both Orange and Green persuasion.
The rebels of 1916 regarded him as an enemy and blew his head off.
For this, our President stands to salute the men and women of 1916 each year.

Stop the feigned outrage, you cannot be a supporter of the institutions of this 26 county state without acknowledging its origins are from a murderous, indiscriminate, sectarian campaign of violence that had no mandate in 1916 or in 1919.
If the institutions of the State, and the political pillars that support them, acknowledge their murderous past, take down the portraits of Dev and Collins, stop naming bridges after Clarke etc... then perhaps I can take moral outrage seriously.
But it is total hypocrisy in my view that those who were under siege from loyalist mobs, interned by British Army, living in a sectarian discriminate State, could not defend themselves and pursue the same goals as their predecessors of 1916-1921.

The difference being today that in 1998, the people of Ireland as a whole, voted overwhelmingly that from that point on the gun is out of Irish politics. It has made the PIRA conflict redundant, it has made 1916 redundant, save the attempts by some to overthrow that mandate.
 
Yes. No argument there.
WolfeTone said:
Stop the feigned outrage, you cannot be a supporter of the institutions of this 26 county state without acknowledging its origins are from a murderous, indiscriminate, sectarian campaign of violence that had no mandate in 1916 or in 1919.
Click to expand...
There's no feigned outrage, I'm just pointing out that you support the enemies of this country.
I take it that when you refer to the 26 county state you are talking about the country called Ireland?
WolfeTone said:
If the institutions of the State, and the political pillars that support them, acknowledge their murderous past, take down the portraits of Dev and Collins, stop naming bridges after Clarke etc... then perhaps I can take moral outrage seriously.
Click to expand...
I think most politicians acknowledge the crimes committed during our war of independence and the period leading up to it. They also realise that the political, legal and social structures in place now, a hundred years later, are vastly different and therefore that what is acceptable and unacceptable are also different.
WolfeTone said:
But it is total hypocrisy in my view that those who were under siege from loyalist mobs, interned by British Army, living in a sectarian discriminate State, could not defend themselves and pursue the same goals as their predecessors of 1916-1921.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone thinks that those who were under siege from loyalist mobs, interned by British Army, living in a sectarian discriminate State, could not defend themselves. The issue is thinking that they are the descendants of those who fought in 1916. They simply aren't. FF and FG are the descents of those people. The PIRA criminal gang which perpetuated sectarianism for 40 years by murdering children, Nuns, Farmers, builders and members of the British and Irish security forces are the issue.
Yes, and the unrepentant political wing of the PIRA are unrepentant about their crimes.
 
Purple said:
I think most politicians acknowledge the crimes committed during our war of independence and the period leading up to it.
Click to expand...

And they still continue to commemorate those crimes and the perpetrators of those crimes.

The Stanley affair comparing Warrenpoint and Kilmichael was met with wrath from the righteous about the 'glorification' of Warrenpoint. None of whom could bring themselves to speak of Kilmichael.

Purple said:
They also realise that the political, legal and social structures in place now, a hundred years later, are vastly different and therefore that what is acceptable and unacceptable are also different.
Click to expand...

I would beg to differ. Now, and at the outbreak of the conflict in 1969 the political and legal structures remain very much the same.
 
The two schools of Stanleyism. The orthodox school holds that the PIRA are just as heroic as the GOIRA. The Wolfie school holds that that they are equally despicable. Grisly, who is a broad minded sort of individual, would accept either school. In fact his main mantra is that PIRA Volunteers and their activities were on a par with that of British Army in the "Troubles". It always struck me that anyone looking for parity of respect in a dirty conflict must know deep down that they are the baddies.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
It always struck me that anyone looking for parity of respect in a dirty conflict must know deep down that they are the baddies.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is how I view the British State and its agents in all of this.
They want immunity from prosecution, for hideous crimes no less than murder.

They want to hide the truth of the extent of their involvement in prolonging the conflict.
They want to sell an official narrative, just as 26 county State sells the official narrative of the hero's of 1916. To large extent they have succeeded.

But the hypocrisy is so glaring, so bare-faced that it is prompting the British government to try and bury the past - like in Kenya, and perhaps many, many other places.
 
WolfeTone said:
Yes, and that is how I view the British State and its agents in all of this.
They want immunity from prosecution, for hideous crimes no less than murder.

They want to hide the truth of the extent of their involvement in prolonging the conflict.
Click to expand...
Johnson is a rogue under any heading you want to pick. I don't agree with whitewashing what happened - people should be held accountable for their actions - maybe they won't serve prison sentences but it still matters to victims that the culpable are brought to account. Many feel it is lumping all security forces into the same bin as terrorists. Was every RUC man a sectarian bigot out to kill CNR people and therefore a legitimate target?, no, not in my view. Nor was the cook at the army base, the builders doing some work, the guy teaching leatherwork in a Derry prison, the innocent shoppers in Belfast.

Absolutely there was instances of state murder, and collusion, & loyalist paramilitaries, but would the death toll be worse if the Brits never came? - no question about it. So the charge against the Provos is that they instigated a Long War (& could've stopped at any time) which had no prospect of succeeding, picking off defenceless people in a mindless sectarian campaign, and now they want to gaslight us into accepting these actions, whether by a) drawing parallels to 1916-1921 or b) saying "sure they were at it too", we're all equally innocent or guilty. It was a mistake lads, ye may never admit it, we will never accept it, SF would be wise to let sleeping dogs lie.
 
SF are desperate for parity of respect with the "constitutional" parties down here (less need up there). Without that parity of respect they will not break into the middle and public service classes which would be necessary for any hard leftist movement to achieve power.
They are thus very keen to seek parity between PIRA, GOIRA and BA. In a sense the PIRA baggage of SF is something of a guarantee that the hard left will not gain or even share power in the South.
 
Betsy Og said:
Absolutely there was instances of state murder, and collusion, & loyalist paramilitaries,
Click to expand...
Terrorism. Call them for what they are, terrorists.

Betsy Og said:
So the charge against the Provos is that they instigated a Long War (& could've stopped at any time) w
Click to expand...

Provos didn't even exist at outset of Troubles. IRA was an old man's thinking club, predominantly in Dublin and clueless how to react to attacks on civilian population by loyalist mobs aided and abetted by organs of the British State, namely the RUC.

Betsy Og said:
which had no prospect of succeeding,
Click to expand...

As did the leaders of 1916 recognise in advance of their decision to shoot up the city wreaking carnage that would ultimately divide the country.
An utter failure by any measurement, but hey, they are 'our heros'

Betsy Og said:
picking off defenceless people
Click to expand...

Derry, Ballymurphy, Dublin, Monaghan, Beltubert....


Betsy Og said:
drawing parallels to 1916-1921
Click to expand...

It's impossible not to - the sectarian massacres, the disappearing of bodies, no mandate from the people.

It's impossible not to equate GOIRA and PIRA.
 
Briefly;
- I don't think the RUC were terrorists, as a force. Loyalists obv were. The British Army were an army, over 35 years there were, what, 20 separate occasions of murder of civilians, we could name most of them off - certainly "our" ones. None justified, all should be prosecuted. You'd want an encyclopedic knowledge for the IRA ones. On this Day the IRA wouldn't be bad start.
-The Long War was a mid 70s "strategy" - as I said you could make an argument for 1969 & early 70s.
-As you can tell I'm not into lauding 1916.
-Yes, security forces and loyalist murders are acknowledged. "Once the IRA stopped it all stopped" - the Book of Duke
-Re GOIRA & PIRA, I refer to my earlier post drawing some crucial differences.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
In a sense the PIRA baggage of SF is something of a guarantee that the hard left will not gain or even share power in the South.
Click to expand...
They could have formed a government of headbangers last time but they collectively soiled themselves at the prospect of needing something other than slogans to get themselves through the week. While the toxicity of the RA & the gaslighting is something that turns off older voters, the young care not a jot, so I'll be surprised if SF don't get one tilt at it in the next decade, just keep 'em away from justice and finance. I think once will be enough to show the electorate that there's not much going on beyond self serving commemorations.
 
WolfeTone said:
But it is total hypocrisy in my view that those who were under siege from loyalist mobs, interned by British Army, living in a sectarian discriminate State, could not defend themselves and pursue the same goals as their predecessors of 1916-1921.
Click to expand...
I don't like to play the "I wuz there card" but really when I hear this nonsense from armchair 26 county republicans it makes me want to scream.
I lived in Andersonstown as a young man in 1972. For 9 months the PIRA were in control of our estate. You had to pass PIRA barricades to enter and show ID. These barricades were supposedly to protect ourselves from a pogrom by the BA. For about a day or two in 1969 barricades were also mounted to protect against the loyalist mob. They were arguably justified but the quick deployment of the BA made them redundant as indeed was acknowledged by the residents including the IRA.
But in 1972 the idea that the BA might launch a civilian massacre was as ludicrous as the idea that the barricades would stop them if that was their intention. Nobody including myself thought that there was such a threat to be defended against. The PIRA were first and last an offensive terrorist army, they had no defensive role whatsoever.
The No Go areas gave the PIRA the chance to strut their stuff. I didn't feel threatened by them. Indeed ironically these were the sort of hard hombrés that I would normally cross the street to avoid (I had been beaten up a couple of times pre Troubles but I guess that is par for the course in working class estates) but now that they could openly prance around brandishing their guns (firing machine guns into the air outside our home was a regular occurrence) they couldn't be bothered picking on little ol' me. Though I am sure anyone with an ASBO disposition would not have such a favourable view of their new guardians of the peace, and presumably had their chance for Olympic glory permanently compromised.
Nonetheless, as I watched BBC and saw the highly publicised plans for an imminent dismantling of the barricades - Operation Motorman, I was looking forward to being parted from my defenders. The PIRA also watch BBC (no RTÉ in our area) and duly took the hint to escape across the Border.
Operation Motorman was the biggest military operation in Ireland since the WoI. It involved 22,000 British troops in an effective invasion of Catholic estates such as mine. If I were to believe the @WolfeTone narrative I should have been mightily terrified, au contraire I was mightily relieved. The operation had an unbelievably low casualty rate but a couple of people were killed, including Daniel Hegarty in Derry. In revenge that afternoon the PIRA, as led by their quartermaster the local priest, exploded car bombs in Claudy, killing 9 innocent people including a child. We hear a lot about Daniel (he shouldn't have been killed) from @WolfeTone but we hear nothing about the Claudy bombs.
 
Last edited:
@Betsy Og i appreciate the sincerity of your post. I simply cannot agree, mostly.

Betsy Og said:
I don't think the RUC were terrorists
Click to expand...

We have to define terrorist? As an organisation, they were the legal authority under British law for policing. So not classed as a terror organisation. Yet, they killed innocent civilians. Their crimes were not investigated. They failed to investigate crimes of loyalist terrorists. Some of its members colluded with loyalist terrorists.
So while not classed officially (unsurprisingly) as a terrorist organisation, they did have terrorists within their ranks and they did collude with terrorists.

This is supposed to be the police force.
No wonder on 7% of its members were Catholic. That stat should sound alarm bells in a region with some 40% + Catholic.
Betsy Og said:
The British Army were an army, over 35 years there were, what, 20 separate occasions of murder of civilians, we could name most of them off - certainly "our" ones
Click to expand...

I do not know where to begin with this. British Army alone were responsible for some 300 deaths. Some 80% of those were Catholic. I think, but I will have to look it up, some 20+ children 17ys old and younger.
Betsy Og said:
None justified, all should be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Well, we are agreed on that.


Betsy Og said:
The Long War was a mid 70s "strategy"
Click to expand...

The Long War was a strategy adopted in response to the low level covert dirty war being applied by Britain. The massacres at Derry and Ballymurphy were to cease, instead a policy of criminalisation was adopted. This policy would include covert operations colluding with loyalist paramilitaries to attack Catholic areas to try get Catholic communities turning on the IRA. It failed.
Betsy Og said:
As you can tell I'm not into lauding 1916
Click to expand...

No, but you must be put off by our political class, right up to the President who lauds these terrorists every year?

Betsy Og said:
Yes, security forces and loyalist murders are acknowledged. "Once the IRA stopped it all stopped" - the Book of Duke
Click to expand...

Once the British ending the policies of criminalisation, collusion, internment, shoot to kill, and opened the door to political negotiation, did the political impetus take the ascendency.
The policy of the British and Irish governments was to criminalise the Republican movement and to discredit it amongst nationalist communities in the North. Do you remember the mantra of "we will never negotiate with terrorists"?
How long did this policy add to the conflict?

This policy was an abject failure and in turn it was when the two governments conceded that they would negotiate that the conflict started coming to an end.

It is not a credible insight to think that the IRA could have stopped at 'anytime'.
Who was going to give the order to stop? Unconditionally? This is not credible, there are grave injustices inflicted on nationalist Community over the period. The idea that the IRA would stop unconditionally is simply a bullet in the head for anyone trying to push that to be replaced by more hardliners.
 
WolfeTone said:
I'm happy to discuss the disappeared or any other injustice inflicted on innocent people by the IRA.
Click to expand...

Duke of Marmalade said:
We hear a lot about Daniel (he shouldn't have been killed) from @WolfeTone but we hear nothing about the Claudy bombs.
Click to expand...

On the contrary Duke. I have already set out my stall on this as shown above.

We hear a lot about Daniel Hegarty because the events surrounding his murder are topical.
It's the constant pushback against highlighting any injustice inflicted by BA or British agents against innocent Irish people on these pages that is puzzling.
I get which side of the fence you stand on when it comes to your perspective of matters. That is fair enough, but why the constant "but look over here at what IRA did?"

Daniel Hegarty was 15. He was unarmed, he no threat, they shot him dead in cold blood. There is not much else to add to it other than the person(s) responsible be held to account. If not, what moral authority does the British government, or anyone else have over the IRA for any of their cover-ups?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register