Wars and Conflicts permalink
The Troubles. Fact, Fiction, or Myth ?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Saturday, 21st March 2009
Yesterday was the 27th anniversary of one of Northern Ireland's worst atrocities, when seven people died, and 150 were injured after conflicting warnings sent hundreds of shoppers away from safety, and into the blast area of a 200lb car bomb in central Belfast.
On Tuesday 23rd March, it will be the 26th anniversary of the murders of three unarmed and off-duty British servicemen, who had been lured by some women and the promise of a party, to a flat on the Antrim Road, Belfast. Once there, the women were replaced by armed Provisional IRA "volunteers who made the servicemen lie on a bed, where each was shot in the head. A fourth serviceman survived the shooting.
And it went on and on, day after day :
"Bloody Friday". La Mon Restaurant. The Kingsmill Massacre. The Dublin and Monaghan bombs. The Miami Showband, The Abercorn bomb, where "only" two died, but the injuries to the survivors were horrific ; One young woman lost both legs, an arm, and an eye. Her sister lost both legs. A young man lost both legs. A young woman lost an arm and a leg. Other victims lost limbs, eyes, or were maimed or scarred.And yes, "Bloody Sunday". The border customs post bomb. Claudy and Enniskillen.
The men and women who committed these acts of terror are called heroes or freedom fighters by their supporters, but I see no heroism here.
3,720 dead 1966-2006), 40,000 injured. Of the dead, Republicans were responsible for 2,152 (Provos : 1,768), Loyalists 1,112 (UVF 550, UDA/UFF 431). 639 of the deaths for which the Provos were responsible were innocent civilians.
By contrast, the Army and Marines were responsible for 138 civilian deaths. If those killed in traffic or other accidents,or because of mistaken identity, other mistakes, civilians caught in crossfire and stupidity, are removed from the total, the number is reduced by more than half.
509 members of the RUC and UDR died. The vast majority were murdered in their own homes, or at work, in the garden, or washing the car, or at church.
So why do some people call their killers "heroes"?
If this thread takes off, I'd like to concentrate on the period 1966 - 1979, and look at why the Troubles started, and ask if they could have been stopped in 1969, and the 70's, the period when well over half the deaths occurred.
The politics has been minutely examined in hundreds of books, while the victims have been largely ignored, with only a single book concentrating on all those who died.
This is wrong.
I can think of some heroic acts, real ones, that happened in the province, but none of them involve the murder of civilians, or retired police officers and part-time UDR members, or children.
Can someone define this "heroism" for me ?
Then again, perhaps I'm the only one with an interest. -
Message 2
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 21st March 2009
hi delrick
no ure not the only one - and its a question i have often asked
i lived through it from start to finish - a para mate was at bloody sunday - another was helping his radio op to climb a hedge as he was blown up (and is now a shattered recluse )
a friend was injured in the deal barracks bombing and his dad lost a leg - and i had a burning hhred for the ira and anything irish
but in calmer days since the peace broke out i have to think
if there were foreign troops patrolling my street (chinese/russian?) would i care if they were killed - or their families)
i think not - and the more killed the better - and the people who killed them would be my heroes !!
its horrible re the ira because its people who live amongst us and talk our language and are our friends -
Message 3
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Sunday, 22nd March 2009
I think we have to draw a line between those who were killed or injured "in the line of duty", and those who were innocent. I know some servicemen who had a grudging respect for the man who would take on a military patrol with a handgun or rifle, in much the same way as the Taleban will attack a far superior force in Afghanistan today. The cowardly attack is very different.
British troops did not burst into the home of a known terrorist and murder him or her in front of the family (or in some cases, murder family members as an afterthought). Nor did they plant bombs in the cars of active or retired "volunteers", often taking the lives of his grandchildren or passers-by.
They didn't knee-cap petty criminals or tar and feather young girls (have you ever seen what hot tar does to a face ?) on the strength of a rumour.
I'd like to hear someone from the Republican or Loyalist communities attempt to justify this, but I wont hold my breath. -
Message 4
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Sunday, 22nd March 2009
Your question goes to the very heart of human morality and the ethics of human conflict.
639 of the deaths for which the Provos were responsible were innocent civilians.
By contrast, the Army and Marines were responsible for 138 civilian deaths.Â
Killing innocent civilians is totally wrong and there can be no excuse for it – ever. Whether those civilians are in Northern Ireland, London, Dresden or Nagasaki – their murder is inexcusable.
I'd like to hear someone from the Republican or Loyalist communities attempt to justify this Â
They can’t, although I suppose that some will try. Nobody can justify the killing of civilians. Can you? Is there anybody on these boards who wants to justify the taking of innocent life?
Our morality tells us that people have the right to certain natural and inalienable rights. We should accord it to them at all times otherwise we provoke a reaction, a desire for redress. Whenever conflict arises, and in our attempts to defend ourselves or obtain redress, we perpetrate injustices on others. Two wrongs don’t make a right! Even in self-defense you are only justified in using commensurate force, i.e. enough force to neutralize the threat and no more.
The men and women who committed these acts of terror are called heroes or freedom fighters by their supportersÂ
Not by me they ain’t and I am an Irish republican. Of course, it is easy for me to say that – I live happily and freely in the Republic – but I am sure any right thinking Loyalist/Unionist must say the same about those who killed innocents in their name. Lenny Murphy, the Shankill Butcher, comes to mind, for example. Anyone who deliberately kills civilians for military or political purposes is a criminal in my book, and there are NO exceptions. -
Message 5
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Sunday, 22nd March 2009
Evening Mick_mac,,
I don't know if you've read Kevin Toolis' "Rebel Hearts, Journeys Within the IRA's Soul", but in it you'll find exactly the things I'm talking about. Family members, friends, and supporters of terrorists calling them heroes.
In one case 4 PIRA volunteers to over a remote cottage, holding the elderly occupier hostage. They then called out the local dog warden (a part-time UDR man) saying they had concerns about a black labrador. When the 48 year-old warden arrived and parked, he was ambushed by 2 of the gang who opened fire with Kalashnikovs. The warden returned fire with his legally held weapon, killing one of the attackers. The other three took off. Although badly wounded, he managed to call for help and another two of the gang were captured. I see some bravery on the part of the warden, but it was the dead Provo who got the hero label, with the full paramilitary funeral and speeches commending his "brave and heroic sacrifice". I can't see it. Once the gang realised the opposition was armed, their "bravery" seems to have deserted them, and they legged it.
Even if (and it's a big "if") we believe that the warden was a legitimate target because he was a UDR part-timer, I can't see the Provos actions as brave.
I'm waiting for a book about the now dead Lenny Murphy and the Shankill Butchers to arrive, but I know enough about him to call him and his gang psychopathic monsters. But he too was seen as a hero, this time by a large part of the Loyalist community. After his trial his mother said "my Lenny wouldn't hurt a fly". She'd have been better to have said nothing.
Looking at various Republican and Loyalist websites a few months ago was depressing. No mention of any of the atrocities committed by their "heroes", but much about "Bloody Sunday", or brave loyalist attacks on "the enemy" (murdering innocent Catholics in other words).
The casualty figures don't lie, but those responsible for those figures still do. -
Message 6
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Sunday, 22nd March 2009
I'd agree that the word 'heroism' is hard to swallow in this context, though perhaps it is always too subjective a concept for an historical perspective. Distance and retrospective morality tend to make terrorists into freedom fighters.
I'd suggest all governments, nations or political movements need to mythologise past actions and create heroes from what is sometimes pretty tainted clay - perhaps just a variation on the old lie, Dulce et Decorum Est etc. -
Message 7
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Sunday, 22nd March 2009
Evening Dukess,
That's the reason I worded the title like that.
There are facts, there is fiction, and it's up to us to sort out which is which before they become unverifiable myths, and eventually history.
This could have a profound effect on the future of the province, and the way we can now exchange information gives us the opportunity to get it right. I've probably read 50 books (there are well over 500 apparently) about the Troubles, and I own most of them. All of these books claim to be factual, but they obviously can't be. In some cases I actually witnessed the events being written about(or the aftermath) and I know the truth. Authors obviously rely on statements from people who in most cases are passing on second or third hand information, often from a biased position. Most of them don't seem to try very hard to find credible eyewitnesses, and cherrypick other information rather than give the reader the full picture.
I'm also interested in the politics of the 60's. From what I've read or heard, all of those involved missed numerous opportunities to stop the problem before it started, and in most cases it was simple incompetence and a lack of vision, rather than sectarianism or bigotry that led to the nightmare of the 70's.
There is one poster who has claimed that the British government was behind "Bloody Sunday", and he's said so on three different boards/threads recently. He has bought into a myth, and there are millions like him. -
Message 8
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Monday, 23rd March 2009
Heroes and Villians are just labels for those who are on 'our side' or 'their side'. Every British solidier killed in Ireland/Iraq/Afghanistan was instantly labelled a 'Hero' in the press, as was every IRA or UDA thug killed in the troubles, by their respective propaganda machines. It is all part of the myth that we need to create about ourselves, and our 'history', and bears no relationship to reality.
-
Message 9
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Monday, 23rd March 2009
Giraffe,
I don't think that a British serviceman would be called a hero if it was known that he was responsible for the murder of a dozen innocent civilians. He would be demonized.
You're right when you say that simply being killed is not a heroic act, but this seems to be more of a media thing that the MOD has bought into. In the 70's, deaths were usually just reported, with perhaps a brief outline of the circumstances.
What I don't want to see is the terrorist mass murderer becoming a historical, factual hero simply because his/her side says so, but that's the way it's going. -
Message 10
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Tuesday, 24th March 2009
“Anyone who deliberately kills civilians for military or political purposes is a criminal in my book, and there are NO exceptions.â€
Does this include the many who continue to be killed in Afghanistan and Iraq by the British and US?
The way they operate in those countries civilian casualties are highly likely in practically every operation: if they are shot at by the Taliban or Iraqis they reply over distances or into villages with huge firepower including 2,000lb bombs, artillery etc.
Do you believe they are criminals for this and if so should they be indicted in the Hague? -
Message 11
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Tuesday, 24th March 2009
‘British troops did not burst into the home of a known terrorist and murder him or her in front of the family (or in some cases, murder family members as an afterthought). Nor did they plant bombs in the cars of active or retired "volunteers", often taking the lives of his grandchildren or passers-by.’
According to many impartial witnesses the British were up to their necks in this sort of killing using the loyalists as proxy agents.
Many of the loyalists are well known to have been British agents, killing with impunity and receiving light sentences when, if ever, they were caught. -
Message 12
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Tuesday, 24th March 2009
RyanO,
I've seen no evidence of impartial witnesses saying these things. I've heard second or third hand stuff, passed on from an anonymous source, or unattributed claims made by Loyalist or Republican newspapers (or websites today), but nothing more substantial.
As for your second statement, there was a huge difference between the UDR and the regular British forces.
I know that there was collusion between the UDR and Loyalist paramilitaries, and only a fool would say there wasn't. It's also likely that certain clandestine groups within the British machine turned a blind eye.
In the early years the British military had to rely on information from the RUC, and this was shown to be flawed when on the night that internment was introduced they ended up detaining people like paper-sellers and 80 year-old veterans of the Easter Rising.
I know of one regular unit that kept arriving to search the homes of Loyalist suspects at 5am to find the whole family awake and with the kettle on. How did this happen ? Because the rules said that the RUC had to be told in advance of all searches. This unit changed tactics and a close cordon was put in and the searchers were at the door when the call was made to the RUC, who were a little miffed.
One of the most depressing photographs I've seen was taken showing a part-time UDR company posing with their Loyalist flags, in 2001 !
So when you say many, I would say some, and the term "British" should be "Ulster/UDR/Loyalist/RUC/RUC(R)".
You also have to remember that light sentences were also handed out by the Southern Irish courts (I'm thinking 18 months for possession of 50 tons of weapons, ammunition, and explosives), something that wasn't missed by the media in the North.
Sorry Ryan, but the actual casualty figures don't support you argument.
And how many Republican killers were never caught ? Considering they were responsible for almost two-thirds of the dead and wounded, the number must be very high. -
Message 13
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Tuesday, 24th March 2009
RyanO,
We can't compare what's happening now with events in Ireland, north and south, 40-45 years ago. The only 2,000lb bombs then were planted in border culverts by the IRA, and the smaller bombs in the towns and cities were either aimed at civilians (Dublin, Monaghan, Claudy etc.), or the operation was so badly planned and executed that civilian deaths and casualties were inevitable (Bloody Friday, Donegal Street), as the figures show.
I don't know who you mean by "they", but if you mean politicians, then you'd have to have Adams and McGuinness standing beside them.
"Deliberately" means just that. -
Message 14
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 25th March 2009
Delrick53, I couldn't agree more about terrorist 'heroes', but what about our own 'Heroes' of the past?
How would the Â鶹ԼÅÄ of the time have reported on William Wallace, Robin Hood (whoever he might have been), Hereward the Wake, Llwellyn, etc? Were they all clean-cut, well-spoken chaps, with a keen sense of moral rectitude? Time is a great cleaner, even more so than a great healer!
Sometimes politics 'cleans' even faster than time! I was greatly amused by the pictures of 'Dubya' Bush smiling between Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson a while ago - The leader of the 'war against terror', with Western Europe's most successful terrorist, and the man who led a UDA 'invasion' of the Republic, taking over the village of Clontribret in the dead of night.
If only Americans understood irony . . . -
Message 15
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Wednesday, 25th March 2009
Evening Giraffe,
First, the Americans will never understand irony.
The "historical" heroic figures you've mentioned are the reason why we should be working to stop our "baby" myths becoming historical fact. Communication is so much easier. The exchange of information so quick. And record keeping should be exact. But it seems that it is only the supporters of violence who are using these things to promote their version of history. If this carries on, then my grandchildren will grow up believing that Ireland's mass murderers were on a par with Mandela (I've already heard this). At least one respected author/journalist has written that Adams should have received the Nobel Peace Prize.
I firmly believe that if direct rule had been imposed at any time prior to 1972, then the Provos and the UVF would have found themselves isolated from their own communities.
Many of the politicians of the time say the same thing, but by doing nothing, they effectively handed control to Craig, Adams, Twomey, and Paisley.
I'd actually forgotten about Robinson's "invasion". It was a hefty fine though.
I'm not sure about time being the healer in the case of NI. The guns are still there, and so is the hate. I'll start to believe it when the "peace walls" come down (and nothing happens), and the tribalism ceases to exist. That will not happen in my lifetime. -
Message 16
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Thursday, 26th March 2009
Interesting you should use Mandela (A man I also admire, incidentally) as an example, because he would have been one of the 1960s/1970s 'Axis of Evil', as a man convicted of 'Terrorism', or something similar, by his own Government. The Michael Collins in Ireland, Archbishop Makarios in Cyprus, and the Mau-Mau in Kenya were equally 'cleaned up' by success. Even Ghandi was considered a total subversive and a threat to civilization (as WE knew it) in his day.
I doubt if history will consider the means - success is the only criteria that counts, and you are only permanently evil if you use terrorism and fail. Even then, you may be restored to goodness if your 'country' subsequently gets independence!
Time in a British Jail was almost an essential career move for political success in some of the British Colonies in the post-war era! -
Message 17
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Thursday, 26th March 2009
Perhaps history may forget 'the means', but it shouldn't. Mandela was very quick to establish infrastructure as the primary target of ANC terrorism, with every attempt to spare human life. Hence the focus on blowing up electricity pylons etc.
-
Message 18
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Thursday, 26th March 2009
It's not me using Mandela Giraffe, it was a Republican "talking head" and website some years ago. Apart from both Adams and Mandela having been interned, I don't thing there's anything to link the two.
Mandela saw violence as a last resort, Adams took the opposite view, and said so on numerous occasions. Mandela had world opinion on his side, while outside the Republican heartlands of Northern Ireland (and some in the south), a few delusional anarchists, and some romantically inclined people of Irish descent, Adams was largely ignored.
I took delivery of several related books today, including "The Shankill Butchers". As expected, Lenny Murphy is seen as a Loyalist hero. Full paramilitary funeral, 87 death notices in the Belfast Telegraph, and the leading inscription of his headstone reads "Her Lies a Soldier". We both know what he was, but what will history say about him? -
Message 19
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Thursday, 26th March 2009
Evening Mike,
The IRA (pre-split) blew up the same things, but the events of '68-'69 ramped up the violence (on both sides), and "Bloody Sunday" and the involvement of those who seemed to enjoy killing made it impossible to stop. The moderates on both sides were sidelined, and thousands died.
What chance was there for peace when senior politicians like Craig were calling for more killing ? If he said the same things today he'd be arrested. At that time he increased his support !
He's someone else with a "hero" label. The man was a monster. -
Message 20
Posted by The Ice Cool Prophet (U2308740) on Saturday, 28th March 2009
Delrick
Caveat 1 to all - Although I will try and highlight those views that I held and now disgree with you may suddenly find yourself reading something rather offensive. I apologise for this but feel it necessary to represent these views, if only to make it easier to counter them.
Caveat 2 to all - Please feel free to turn any of this around and see it from a Republican pont of view - there is no real difference anyway.
The troubles allowed an already polarised community to accentuate their differences. Thus it is easy to use a specific PIRA atrocity and highlight that whilst most Catholics say they do not support violence they certainly support the aims - ergo the support PIRA really!!!! This is wrong but it opens the door to justifying attacks on the genearl population.
By the time I moved from sectarian Southern Scotland to indifferent England the troubles had already been mired in myth and fantasy.
I believed that the Irish Republic had laws that discriminated abainst Protestants and the the Catholic Community as a whole were willingly defending PIRA murderers. At a failrly young age I realised that the English were indifferent and the Americans hated "us" (Though a Scots Protestant, I still saw Ulter Protestants as "us").
Whenever the British acted against PIRA there was uproar whilst true British heroes like Mountbatten and Neeve could be murdered and the US senate maintained support for PIRA. (That last bit is definataly a falsehood, I will not name names but some senetors supported NORAID and despite what some Americans have said on these boards - it was as much a part of PIRA as SF is!!!! Though prominant memebrs of PIRA have muttered to TV and print journalists that NORAID is funding RIRA).
I began life hating ALL terrorists, whether Red Army Faction, PIRA, the ANC or the UVF, but the more I looked on the more I realised that I was naive and stupid. (Actually I still agree with that stance but for very different and in many respects more contraversial reasons)
The government was neutered and no one would act on "our" behalf or in "our" defense. I saw no option but to support the UVF. This automatically meant justifying the odd (alright, the more often than not) criminal atrocity. "We" were fighting for our survival and the odd innocent Catholic death was acceptable in that context. (Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!!!!!! Of course every innocent Catholic that was murdered by the Loyalists was a weapon against "us" and the brilliance of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness meant that every single one was used to maximum effect!!!)
When you leave us with no other ways of defending our rights and culture we will choose the only one left. PIRA did this because when you a a minority in a democracy you have no hope of winnning the arguement. When that democracy had allowed open discrimination Catholic Ulster may have well have been Gaza!!! By the time that the lies about the Republic, the truth about English indifference and the half truths about the USA are taking into account then the Protestants were left like jobless youths in Gaza with only one more option left.
I will never again justify the murder of innocent people, whether in Iraq, Gaza or Ulster and my bigotries against Catholics should not go without a heartfelt apology to all Catholics; however still will not apologise for sympathising with the UVF. I do not hide behind that fact that I never gave them money and was certainly never involved personally - anything but. Simply sitting in a bar supporting murder is making onesself as bad as the perpatrators.
If we look on the estates of our inner cities and see the wanton lack of any education and something worse than simply not having any money - a complete poverty of oppurtunity. We rail against hoodies and we we are comnplicit in their creation by our silence. Why should they respect any part of our society when we refuse to give them any oppurtinity whatsoever, we serve them with 4th rate schools and watch them fail and then wander why they turn against society.
Wait to be offended, When you place religious discrimination into the mix then the minority and a minority that are left trapped on these estates will be even more galvanised at the right moment.
PIRA is a product of this, but 7/7 is no less a product of this either. It only takes one or two inteligent people with twisted ideas to move amongst the disposed and offer them hope. I am not excusing the brains behind Al Quida terrorism, but am am excusing many of its supporters in this country.
If you leave us no other options then we will take what is available.
Look to Gaza, look to Northern Ireland in the 1960's and look on our education free housing estates and ask what option were available.
When I stopped hating all terrorism I believed that the ends justify the means which was equally crass. However I now see that means are a sympton of injustice and that requires us to look at ALL terrorists in a different light, and to judge each one on a case by case basis. That means we must stop thinking in terms of what side "we" are on, or of "them and us" and looking at the person. Many, if not most, of those that support Al Quida, HAMAS, Hes B'Allah, UVF, PIRA etc etc will have some very good reasons for supporting these groups. You and I may not like those reasons but they are not all as unjust as we think.
Adams and Mcguiness have to recognised for one thing - they are the most skilled politicians these islands have seen in my lifetime.
The G -
Message 21
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 28th March 2009
The Ice Cool Prophet Many, if not most, of those that support Al Quida, HAMAS, Hes B'Allah, UVF, PIRA etc etc will have some very good reasons for supporting these groups You can by extension state that many who supported Bolsheviks and Nazis had good reasons for doing so.
-
Message 22
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Sunday, 29th March 2009
‘R²â²¹²Ô°¿,
We can't compare what's happening now with events in Ireland’
Why not? Your statement said “Anyone who deliberately kills civilians for military or political purposes is a criminal in my book, and there are NO exceptions.â€
The IRA (AFAIK) almost always claimed their actions were aimed at military targets. If civilians were killed it was unfortunate ‘collateral damage’. There is no difference what so ever between what they claim and what the US/UK bombers claim when they kill civilians.
Check some of your info: 40-45 years ago? Dublin/Monaghan bombings were carried out by loyalists with British MI5 collusion.
I’m not sure how you expect casualty figures to support or not support either argument. -
Message 23
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Sunday, 29th March 2009
RyanO,
I suggest you have another look at the evidence regarding the Dublin/Monaghan bombings, in particular the final commission report of 2007. What you appear to have done is read some of the content of Republican websites or books written by Republicans over the past 30 years. The facts as we know them are very different.
I've no doubt that elements within the RUC/UDR colluded with Loyalist terror groups, but the fact that a British Army officer was in Dublin around the time of the bombings does not "prove" that MI5 were involved.
I'm more concerned that almost half of the statements (550 out of 1200) taken by the Garda in relation to the bombings went missing.
The final Commission report is 250 pages long, but is is online (pdf).
Nor do I believe that there is much point in comparing Northern Ireland of the 60's and 70's with the military operations of today.
The military did not launch air strikes on the Falls or New Lodge after they had been engaged by small-arms fire.
As for your claim that "the IRA almost always claimed their actions were aimed at military targets", the actual events and casualties show that their claims were nothing more than propaganda and lies. The same applies to Loyalist terror groups. A bomb placed or thrown into a crowded Catholic or Protestant pub is not an attack on a military target, and it never will be.
Separating a group of people into Catholic and Protestant, and then shooting those of a particular religion, is not an act of war. It is terrorism.
I've already listed some of these events, and I could list a hundred more. This was not "collateral damage". It was murder. It was planned, and carried out by those that many now call "heroes", and those that do so are as bad as those who planted the bombs or pulled the trigger. -
Message 24
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Sunday, 29th March 2009
'You can by extension state that many who supported Bolsheviks and Nazis had good reasons for doing so. '
Or Thatcher and Bush etc -
Message 25
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Sunday, 29th March 2009
Ice,
I don't know if you realise it, but tomorrow (30th) is the 30th anniversary of Airey Neave's murder (number 2085). He was also a victim of the INLA, not PIRA. Because of their Marxist philosophy, the INLA received no support from the USA. He was also the second victim of a bomb that used a mercury tilt switch, the first being an off-duty UDR man who died in the INLA "trial run" a few weeks earlier.
Today is the 25th anniversary of the deaths of James Mitchell(38), and Joseph Donnelly(24). Both Catholics, they were removing a UVF gas cylinder bomb from Conway's Bar on the Shore Rd., Belfast, when it exploded. The bomb was smoking when they were in the process of carrying it outside. If I remember correctly, they'd actually managed to get the bomb outside when it exploded, and their actions undoubtedly saved the lives of many others. They were heroes. The 3 armed men who placed the bomb (and another that was safely defused) were not.
I've spent 20 years in the South of Scotland, and 25 or so in the capital (and a few more elswhere), and although I witnessed sectarianism in the Central belt,in the south of the country I've witnessed none. I remember some people attempting to organise an Orange Walk in 1971, but this was met with public outrage, and the proposal was quickly dropped.
When I read your post the name Gusty Spence came to mind. His attitude changed drastically during the time he spent in prison, and it's possible that had Spence been a free man, Lenny Murphy and his gang would never have been allowed to exist.
I don't know what you and others think the influence of religion had on the years leading up to the Troubles, or what affect it had during the early years, but I've always said that it was the main reason for the Troubles. It was used by both sides to instill fear and hatred into the minds of the people, and terms like "Republicanism" and "Unionist" were used far less than Catholic and Protestant at that time.
Of course, it's not PC to say this, but the truth and PC rarely mix. -
Message 26
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 30th March 2009
RyanO Or Thatcher and Bush etc I can just guess the best I can, but the gist of your point here appears to be that "legitimate" governments are no better than the "terrorist" ones in terms of the means they apply to achieve the ends. However, "legitimate" governments depend on the support of larger, more diverse and therefore moderate populations than most of the terrorist ones, and therefore are much more constrained. But - apart from this last modifier - suppose that they all could care less about the means. The choice then only comes down to the ends: some prefer imperfect democracies, occasional crises, etc, etc. Some, on the other hand, prefer genocidal regimes with anointed life-time leaders, slave labor, 'new speak' PC police, etc, etc. Hey, at least we still have a choice.
-
Message 27
Posted by The Ice Cool Prophet (U2308740) on Monday, 30th March 2009
Delrick
I was not aware that it was the aniversary of such a black day. In addition I had forgotten that it was an INLA atrocity and not a PIRA one.
The only opinions that I hold now that I held so firmly in the old days are Thatcherism. But the thing about Thatcherism is that ut had nothing to do with the sainted one that introduced it. The architect of Thatcherism was Airey Neave, a Colditz veteren and a true hero of this nation.
I went to a Protestant school in the Central Belt and so ingrained is the divisive mentality that during an arguement I once said "I may be a Pagan, but I am a Protestant Pagan!!!"
If you have grown up the Central Belt or Northern Ireland that makes perfect sense.
Religion is a side issue to the debate that has much deeper roots in Northern Ireland. In addition the people of the Central Belt and Northern Ireland are no more religious than the English. Being a Catholic or a Protestant is not about who your god is, but who your neighbours are.
When the Bhoys and the Gers are playing people think that the religious element adds to the heightened animosity, but in reality it is little worse than any major derby. Norwich and Ipswich are renowned as two of the most friendly football clubs in the country. Both have a reputation for mickey taking but few leave either Norwich or Ipswich, after a match feeling fearful or angry.
In this one I swap colours as my team are in green and the enemy are in blue. Trust me Ipswich is a seething couldren of hate, spite and nastiness if you are a Norwich fan. It is easy for me to blame them for all the bricks, fag buts and what ever that have been thrown at me in Ipswich without ever stopping to think that Norwich fans are just as bad.
When it is football we laugh when ultra posh middle aged ladied on the train describe that Suffolk TOWN as "enemy territory".
When I was a bigot I was into cricket and rugby and not football. I once said that I never wanted to hate everything about a certian TOWN just because it was the derby. I could applaud a 6 when Viv Richards was slaughtering England at the same time as believing people like him had no right in my country!!!! It was insanity. Incedentally I can still watch cricket and applaud the opposition and Viv Richards is a god of one the finest sports ever played.
I stopped being a bigot, something that was started by teachers in Protestant schools telling us of the evils of the idolitrous Catholics. However as I grew older I saw that sometimes wars had to be fought.
Though the final lesson came from the one backward step that I made in this journey. I started going to Carrow Road to watch Norwich City lose, and lo it came to pass that I began to hate a certian TOWN with a passion.
Tribal drums are beating.
Me from big protestant tribe, ug, me club dangerous other tribe. I may well be a Pagan but I am still a Protestant, I was born a Protestant and merely changing my religion will never change that. I talk loike a Norficker an' wear green an yellow shirt, but oi hint never stopped bieng a Proddy. Thas moi troibe.
Recently in my own personal war against Christianity I decided to go to Norwich Cathederal to meditate to the ancestors and ask their guidance on the matter. To feel such hate is a great harm, even thoughI do not hate Christians but their religion, any harm is against my religion.
I explained this to one of the clerics at the cathederal and asked if it was OK to sit in a designated quiet space for a while. He suggested that sometimes it is only in the house of our enemies that we will see the truth. It was there that I indeed found a great truth.
So whilst I believe that it is right and proper for the West to be at war with Al Quida, do not discount the chance that our enemies will provide us with some great truths.
Forget the cynical elite and look at the foot soldiers, whether you have sympathy or emenity with their cause and you will recognise that such deep and bitter division is never just political, racial or religious, it is a mixture of all three in many cases. Through into the mix the disaffected and those that were born to fail through lack of oppurtunity and we see only similarities.
If you want to understand the heart of goodness, sometimes you have to sup with the devil, to use some Christian terminolgy.
There is another great truth that those that engage in bigotry and tribalism deliberatley ignore. The vast majority of Human Beings and good decent people, good decent Christians, Good decent Muslims, Good decent balck or white people, even good decent people from that TOWN.
Regards
The G -
Message 28
Posted by The Ice Cool Prophet (U2308740) on Monday, 30th March 2009
suvorovetz
Yes, you are right.
Look at the UK at present and see where the BNP and the Islamists are.
With the exception of a handful of people the main constituency of both is on the estates.
As a former National Front supporter I have more insight into the people that turn to the BNP and race hate, but I have more sympathies with those Muslims that support 7/7 and the like.
Please do not misunderstand me, 7/7 was an atrocity that attacked everything that I believe in. I do not support it in any way, but if I were a younf Muslim growing up on a sink estate with almost every newspaper printing Great Islamist Conspicary lies about me I would be tempted toward the extreme elements of protest as well. if we are not careful we are sleep walking into another holocaust. Those that do not believe me read the newspaper articles of 100 years ago and then glance at some of the scare mongering today. The only difference is the use of the word "Muslim" instead of "Jew".
I am not saying that we have to support the cause, or not be disgusted at opinions and methods, I am just saying that I understand it.
Incedentally the Bolshavics were not all bad. Had Trotski not developed a head ache and managed to keep Stalin out then the worst elements of Communism would not have been seen in the USSR.
Lenin was a Materialist of the finest order and if you actually look at what he was attempting then you see that there is a core element of democracy. Sadly Communism is state heavy and open to dreadful abuse.
Most Communist states begin to slide into dictatorship to maintain the ideal. The Materialist got it wrong during the French Revolution and they were wrong during the Russian Revolution. When the Rationalists held a Revolution in the USA they got it about right!!!!
But there in lies another great truth - The Enlightenment was more than an esoteric philospophy. It was the attempt to create societies of the people, by the people and for the people, free from religious and autocratic domination. Through Smith and Marx Capitalism was born. The Rationalists chose liberalism and free trade whilst the Materialists chose state control and mass participation democracy.
As Thatcher was a good Christian I am sure she would not be happy at the idea that she was a great rationalist, politically speaking, Likewise it was the Christian Atlee that achieved many Materialist aims in this country.
The so called capitalist West and the Communist East were no more than two sides of the same philisophical and economic debate, just as Catholics and Protestants are both Christian movements. It is often the schizm that causes the deepest wounds.
The G -
Message 29
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
RyanO
"The IRA (AFAIK) almost always claimed their actions were aimed at military targets"
Such as Jean McConville?
The Pub Bombings, The Warrington Bomb? Sorry - Wrong on that point. -
Message 30
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
The Ice Cool Prophet Incedentally the Bolshavics were not all bad. Had Trotski not developed a head ache and managed to keep Stalin out then the worst elements of Communism would not have been seen in the USSR Right. Had Trotsky been in power, he'd try to start world war without building industrial base first - as Stalin meticulously did for over a decade – and the Soviet Union would collapse much earlier, but not without much bloodshed, that's for sure.
Lenin was a Materialist of the finest order and if you actually look at what he was attempting then you see that there is a core element of democracy The materialist of the finest order personally ordered teenage girls taken hostage and executed (guess what else they had been subjected to) to break the will of the opposition in the bloodiest civil war in the history of mankind the finest materialist had subjected his people to. I wonder if this is what you attribute to the 'core element of democracy' here.
Communism is state heavy and open to dreadful abuse No kidding.
Marx Capitalism What's that?
The so called capitalist West and the Communist East were no more than two sides of the same philisophical and economic debate, just as Catholics and Protestants are both Christian movements. It is often the schizm that causes the deepest wounds. Somebody help me understand the point here. I’m lost. It must be the schism that did it. -
Message 31
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
A Military Target is anything you define it as, Mani, regardless of who you are. La Mon hotel, a Dublin Street, Dresden, any tiny anonymous village in Vietnam. Anything they want to kill is a legitimate target in the eyes of the killers.
-
Message 32
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
giraffe47
Actually it's not. It's quite clearly defined under articles of war.
However, even the IRA didn't claim these to be 'military targets' but part of a campaign in the case of the bombings (Actually, the Warrington bomb was an act of revenge.) -
Message 33
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
In order for the Republican paramilitary campaign of 1972-94 to be lawful, it would be necessary for PIRA, INLA etc to qualify as irregular forces engaged in a national resistance/liberation campaign.
Recognition of such movements begins with the 1907 Hague Convention and evoloves from then on. Some main points would be:
* All peaceful means of resolving the dispute have to be exhausted or impossible. (Fail)
* The combatants must be acting in the name of and with the authority of a legitimate state. Numerous treaties such as the UN Charter, Treaty of Rome and Helsinki Accords which confirm the legitimacy of the Irish border, the Dublin govt and NI's status as a UK province, all of which Reps denied in favour of their mandate of 1918 and claim to represent 'a 32 county socialist republic.'
* Every effort must be made to avoid civillian casualties.
* All prisoners to be treated as POWs or released and not summarily executed unless they pose an immediate, direct and unavoidable threat to life.
* No armed force to be used to remove or modify an established national border between UN member states without authorisation of the UN Security Council.
And I'm sure there's loads more. -
Message 34
Posted by The Ice Cool Prophet (U2308740) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
suvorovetz
I am a Thatcherite and was originally a "better dead than Red" type. I will bring this round to the purpose of this thread as well.
Communism was a progression of Scientific Socialism and that was the political element of the Materialist Movement. In his speaches Lenin talks of Materialism as source of his inspiration. Can I help it if I am a Thatcherite who enjoys reading the speaches of Lenin.
"Das Capital" was not an ironic title bemoaning capitalism but was proposing a radical new way of channeling the capital wealth of the nation to the benefit of all its people.
The problem with Soviet Democracy was two fold, firstly the traditionalist West never tried to understand the Bolshavics and simply chose to believe mythical stories about them. By the time we had paid to prolong the civil war in the new USSR they had become hardened to anything Western and a deep political barrier was developed.
Each side chose to believe the myths about the other rather than make any attempt to see what we had in common.
This is no different to the Catholics and Protestants. The number of lies, some of which are almost beyond belief, that I believed about Ireland and Catholics is matched by the similar nonsensical lies about the British.
We are trapped in stories of events that happened 850 years, 470 years, 150 years and 90 years ago. Each side claiming that it was the other that started it, but it was so long ago that no one can put their finger on it.
To listen to Ulster Republicans is to listen to a gross distortion of the truth that is only matched by people like me spouting utter bull manure from the other side.
It does not matter whether we are talking about Al Quida, PIRA or the Soviet Union - all of which I would say I am opposed to implacably - we are mired in bull manure on both sides.
That is why a thread dedicated to dispelling some of the lies is a good thing.
Trying to see our enemenies, real or imagined as an extension of "us" is not some hippy dream, it is a hard nosed attempt to defeat bigotry and end conflict.
Your post clearly shows that you do not wish to understand the economic schizm in the Englightenment, otherwise you would know all about the encyclopedists, Communards and latterly the Materialists.
The G -
Message 35
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
The Ice Cool Prophet
Communism was a progression of Scientific Socialism and that was the political element of the Materialist Movement. In his speaches Lenin talks of Materialism as source of his inspiration. You don't have to tell me what Lenin talks in his speeches. I've read more of them than you will ever be able to read Â鶹ԼÅÄ World News headlines in your lifetime, just trust me on this. Can I help it if I am a Thatcherite who enjoys reading the speaches of Lenin. I'm not a shrink by trade, so, no, not really.
"Das Capital" was not an ironic title bemoaning capitalism but was proposing a radical new way of channeling the capital wealth of the nation to the benefit of all its people. I agree with the "radical new way" part, but not with the "benefit of all its people" part.
firstly the traditionalist West never tried to understand the Bolshavics and simply chose to believe mythical stories about them. You are mistaken. Woodraw Wilson tried to understand them so hard that he missed an excellent opportunity to rid the world from Lenin once and for all in 1918. By the time we had paid to prolong the civil war in the new USSR they had become hardened to anything Western and a deep political barrier was developed. You got it all completely backwards, by amazingly even 180 degrees.
This is no different to the Catholics and Protestants. Honestly, I don't know anything about this, and I'm not particularly interested. But I believe that you don't understand quite a lot or don't quite want to understand a lot about Marx, Lenin and the rest of the gang. -
Message 36
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
suvoretz,
In the 50's and 60's there was one IRA, but a large part of it's membership was moving towards Marxism. The others were "romantic" Republicans who believed that the only way to resolve the Irish situation was reunification by force, whether the public wanted it of not. They were not interested in politics or dialogue with any government or opposition group. This part of the IRA were also devout Catholics who saw their campaign as a religious duty (Steele, McKee, and others). The Marxists (Goulding, Bunting), obviously, thought that religion should play no part in politics or the running of the country, and were willing to talk with anyone who would listen.
This was the reason for the split in 1969, into the "Official" IRA, and the "Provisional" IRA. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Catholic Church (unofficially) supported the Provisionals, via the Citizen's Defence groups.
Had direct rule been imposed in 1969, it would have been the Officials who would have entered into dialogue with the other parties, leaving the Provisionals isolated, and with little support.
Some of the Official's leadership were actually lapsed Protestants who saw the dangers of the sectarianism that both sides were threatening because of the power of faith in the Province. They also realised that there were many working-class Protestants who has been disenfranchised by the land-owning Unionist elite who held ALL the political power, and to a large extent, still do. -
Message 37
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
delrick53, thanks for the information The Marxists (Goulding, Bunting), obviously, thought that religion should play no part in politics or the running of the country, and were willing to talk with anyone who would listen. I wonder if you know of any affiliation of this group with Moscow. It is no secret that many European Marxist groups were subsidized by the Kremlin for publishing periodicals, organizing all sorts of actions and Lord knows what else.
-
Message 38
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
suvorovetz,
I'll have a look at the books I have here, but I don't remember reading anything. It's an area that historians and authors seem to have neglected, which is a shame because many of those involved are still with us.
I do know that the Official IRA (and it's splinter group the Irish Republican Socialist Party) had regular contact with many of the European terrorist groups during the early 70's, as well as the PLO. -
Message 39
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
delrick53 It's an area that historians and authors seem to have neglected, which is a shame because many of those involved are still with us. There may very well be the reason...
-
Message 40
Posted by The Ice Cool Prophet (U2308740) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
delrick
This is an un coroberated story, I personally believe it entirely but is still anecdotal.
There was a priest, who's name escapes me, that Belgium refused to extrodite to the UK in the 1980's and there was a bit of a stir about that.
My father walked into a bar in Communist Budapest in the early 80's and began talking to a man he believed was Irish by accent. It was rep chat, two people from the British Isles, both spoke English, it was natural that they made small talk.
My father, despite his dislike of Ireland, had travelled exrensively through that country and ask what part of the Republic the Irishman came from. At this point the guy jumped up, saying he was not Irish and left.
Not long after two guys walked into the bar and there was something familiar about the way they spoke that reminded him of Libya. He struck up a conversation with them and realised that he may even have met them when they were children back before the revolution, whilst he was stationed at King Idris Airbase. Unlike most Brits he did not always stay on base or eat and drink at the NAAFI and went to the local villages. One particular village took his fancy and these two young men were from there. They told how they used to follow the British airman, asking for sweets and chocolate. My father would sometimes stop off at the NAAFI to buy sweets before going to the villages and joked that he may have given them some.
The Irishman and a couple af Libyan people looked into the bar and saw my dad talking to these two men and they were ushered out of the bar at some haste.
My father spoke to a young German for the rest of the evening and that was that.
When the news reports about the Belgique incedent cropped up he immediatley said that he knew the priest!!
Weirder still when the Libyan government handed two patsies over to the West for our little British show trial in the Netherlands he turned and said the name of the village that they were from. They were the two young Libyans in the bar.
Now I do not doubt that the men were indeed involved in anti western terrorism, but I do not believe that they deserved to be the only ones on trial for Lockerbie. That is by the by, it is not the fact that that Libyans and PIRA were in the same place, the connection is well documented. It is the fact that it was taking place in a Soviet satalite state in full sight of the KGB.
The G -
Message 41
Posted by The Ice Cool Prophet (U2308740) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
suvorovetz
Back in the old days, when my political opinions were less than savoury, I replied to a South African advert.
They were offereing free propoganda about the ANC that linked it with the Commununist movements around the world.
I have no doubt that much of what was printed was true, but the presentation was deliberately skewered to heighten Western fears of all thing Soviet. I was a true "better dead than red" type and lapped it up wholesale.
The fact is that by as early as the 30's the Capitalist West and te Communist East were locked into an ideological war that was to develope into the Cold War. Trotski was a master at infiltration and when we talk of the Trotskiite Labour Party in the 80's we may not be 100% off the mark. In Trotski's own lifetime he was known to have made plans to infiltrate the party. One look at the 1983 manifesto would suggest that maybe his successors had succeded. Personally I believe that the CPGB manifesto's influence on the Labour Party at that time was 10% conspiracy and 90% simple political shift. Without the the mass movement of ever increasingly left wing people into the party, the infant conspiracy would have failed. I do not believe that the conspiracy particularily aided that mass movement either.
The Manifistos of the ANC, the CPSA, CPSU, CPGB and the Labour Party were aligned to an amazing extent. Though it has to be said the the Labour Party manifesto was not as bad asthe press made out and the ANC manifesto was, likewise, not as bad as the Aparthied government made out!!!
There were all sorts of conspiracy theories that the right peddled about the USSR and some of them were right. Our pathilogical paranoia about all things Soviet may have led to huge errors of judgement, but I still believe that the USSR funded drugs and terrorism in the West.
The Red Army Faction (RAtF as I refuse to abreviate them RAF!!!!) were almost certainly funded from the East, and I have no doubt that the USSR facilitated PIRA.
Lenin was intent on spreading the message of the revolution and his aim was indeed a democratic soviet new world order. Just as our aim is a liberal democratic market orientated world order. There is no difference in the way that the Soviets were intent on leaning on governments to create compliant states and the way that we did and are still doing. The Soviets and the West believed that we were right and the the true road to democracy and liberty of the people lay in our system of government.
The Soviets were wrong because their system failed and necessitated dictatorship to prop it up. However the idea of soviet democracy is still by far and away the best model ever devised. I would suggest that local democracy in the UK should be extended by use of soviets, within the multi party, liberal democratic system. ie we adopt the mechanics and not the policies!!!!
If you know all about the Materialist movement, then why were so mocking. Materialism is nothing to do with some idiot singer from the USA that thinks she can buy anything at all, including children in Africa. It is about believing only in the material evedence before us. There is no god etc. The Rationalists are no different in that respect and it has to be saidthat my belief in the Earth as a living Goddess is utterly irrational, by strict definition.
The G -
Message 42
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
The Ice Cool Prophet Lenin was intent on spreading the message of the revolution and his aim was indeed a democratic soviet new world order. Just as our aim is a liberal democratic market orientated world order. There is no difference in the way that the Soviets were intent on leaning on governments to create compliant states and the way that we did and are still doing. Lenin and his henchmen dislodged the first ever democratic government in Russia, banned and brutally suppressed all political opposition, attempted several times to launch another world war to spread Marxist revolution - in strict accordance with Marx's guidelines - and finally succeeded in doing so in 1939. Bolsheviks committed mass murder and atrocities unheard of even in quite a thick-skinned country as Russia; they turned Russia into a wasteland armed with nuclear missiles. Russian negative growth population trend still cannot recover from the shocks of the Communist rule.
There is no god etc. The Rationalists are no different in that respect and it has to be saidthat my belief in the Earth as a living Goddess is utterly irrational, by strict definition. I fail to see any rational logic in your jumping around from the intricacies of British fringe political groups to Lenin and Trotsky who you seem to know very little about; to some broad philosophical statements of yours. I think it is a better indication of paranoia than the mostly feeble attempts of the western governments to counter the spread of Communism in the 20th century. But - as I said - I'm not a shrink and I can't help you with more than basic information about Russian Communism obtained from much better sources than the Morning Star editorials. -
Message 43
Posted by The Ice Cool Prophet (U2308740) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
suvorovetz
If you are correct then why, in the first years of the Communist "wasteland" did the living standards of the mass population rise in the USSR.
As I have stated the system is doomed to failure in the long term becuase it does not work, only regulated free markets in liberal democracies create wealth for the masses.
No revolution can be sustained without bloodshed. One of the reasons people like myself were able to spread anti Irish propoganda is because they were forced, by necessity, to use violence to win their independance. That left a party, FF, that was founded in blood. All I had to say when FF were in power was that it was an IRA party. Not strictly speaking true but close enough. Most of my fellow English are too ignorant of Ireland to understand the difference between the IRA and PIRA, so I got away with "proving" the the governments of Eire supported PIRA. (apologies to Delrick for over simplifying the origens of FF)
The April revolution failed because it attempted to implant democracy on a country that had never known it. With the White Army on one side and the Red Army on the other it was doomed to failure unless it acted to crush its enemies. It did not and it fell. The Red Army was not about to make the same mistake!!!!!
I do not see how Lenin could have possibly acted in any other way. In addition the USSR did not become a truly murderous regime to the extent that you appear to be reffering to until Stalin came to power. Stalin was to the Bolshavics, what Hussain was to Ba'Athism. Ba' Athism is one of the key movements in the Middle East and one that we shouldhave supported from the start. In the end by the time we support it we shun the true Ba'Athists and support a murderous lunatic who hijacked its name.
I come back to the name of this thread - you should not believe or peddle myths about one side or another without understanding the context.
Even the mild mannered democratic revolution, Thatcherism, did not come without blood on the streets and the odd death. Only the Velvet Revolution in Checkoslovakia appeared to achieve that, and then the two republics divorced amicably as well.
Across the former USSR people are dying to this day following the fall of Communism. In some countries the revolution has yet to happen as regimes have taken hold that are direct decendents of the old Soviet thinking.
There is a civil war or revolution or two to come yet from the former USSR.
Putin and Medvedev are dictatorial and many complain about their dilution of democracy in Russia. However I do not see what else they can do. I support much of their intentions, even those that are anti Western as I can see that they are trying to build a sustainable nation.
Yeltsin made Russia a basket case, littered with mafia warlords and oligarchs - all the worst elements of capitalism.
Neither the Rationalists nor the Materialist can be described as fringe groups when their legacies created the West and the Eastern Bloc.
Oh and I have never read the Morning Star, I stick to the Daily Mail for ease and the Telegraph if I want to know more about the world.
The G -
Message 44
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
The Ice Cool Prophet
If you are correct then why, in the first years of the Communist "wasteland" did the living standards of the mass population rise in the USSRÂ Where did you read this? In the Daily Mail and the Telegraph? And what years exactly are you talking about?
The April revolution failed because it attempted to implant democracy on a country that had never known it. With the White Army on one side and the Red Army on the other it was doomed to failure unless it acted to crush its enemies. It did not and it fell. The Red Army was not about to make the same mistake!!!!! You are way over your head in this one, pal. Nikolas the Second abdicated the throne in February of 1917, and hence it is called FEBRUARY Revolution. The reason it failed was because the Provisional Government had been poorly run given the harsh circumstances of the continuing war, sabotage from the Monarchists and German all-out support of Lenin and his goons, which the former rightly saw as their last ditch hope for turning the momentum of the war around.
USSR did not become a truly murderous regime to the extent that you appear to be reffering to until Stalin came to power This is one of the most popularized fallacies dispelled by Solzhenitsyn, Shalamov et al long time ago for everybody but willfully blind and deaf. Stalin is guilty of many things, but he was the only person in the world who tried and executed his peer war criminals from the old Bolshevik Guard, such as Bukharin, Kamenev, Tukhachevsky, etc. Ironically, he is being called the most brutal dictator in history only because he went after his fellow mass murderers - hence the myth about 1937 as the bloodiest year of Communist repressions. Yet, his biggest crime - the meticulous preparation and initiation of the second world war - is the biggest taboo in the academic world across the world. -
Message 45
Posted by The Ice Cool Prophet (U2308740) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
Sorry about the wrong month.
However you then go on to highlight my ignorance and prove my case at the same by adding further reasons why the Bolshavics had to act in the way that they did.
I actually can not remember where I read that living satndards were raised inthe first years off the revolution, however they were raised in the early years of Stalin as well.
Russia was on the verge of famine under the Csar and has never had a natural famine since then. (Yes I know there was one under Stalin but that was avoidable, he chose not to avoid it, or rather assisted in making it worse.)
The point is that you are looking at one side of a debate and not attampting to understand why the people acted in the way that they did.
I despise Communism because it fails as an economic system.
That is why Deng Zhou Peng is one of my political heroes.
I am not that interested in Human Rights or democracy per se, only the journey toward equality and wealth for all. The fact of the matter is that the brain dead fools that claim only socialism and communism care about the masses and the brain dead fools that think there is nothing good about socialism simply miss the point.
The only values that matter are socialist values, For the people, of the people by the people may be a Rationalist ideal and not strictly speaking Socialist but it represents socialism just as well.
The fact of the matter is that only ligjhtly regulated free markets pay for these socialist values.
Take away the "them" and you are only left with us.
What did the Bolshavics want, as seen in the speaches of Lenin?
What do the Republicans in Ulster actually want?
What do the islamists want?
If you do not bother to ask the questions with an open mind you will remain at war forever.
The G -
Message 46
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
The Ice Cool Prophet I actually can not remember where I read that living satndards were raised inthe first years off the revolution, however they were raised in the early years of Stalin as well. Perhaps you should remember that, because I contend that you are very very wrong here.
Russia was on the verge of famine under the Csar and has never had a natural famine since then. (Yes I know there was one under Stalin but that was avoidable, he chose not to avoid it, or rather assisted in making it worse.)Â Before the first world war Russian Empire was the major food exporter in Europe; in fact, Ukraine was called the Bread Basket of Europe. There were some issues with food supplies during the war due to the Tsar's government's utter incompetence, but nowhere near the scale of famine that the Bolsheviks brought about by their brutal war against their own people. Stalin, in particular, launched his genocidal programs of Collectivization and Industrialization that led to Golodomor (artificial famine) in Ukrain and Povolzhye in the late 20s and early 30s.
I am not that interested in Human Rights or democracy per se, only the journey toward equality and wealth for all. You won't ever find wealth where you have equality. As for equality, you'll find it in any jail closest to you. Prison populations are the closest approximation of a succesful Marxist society ever to be implemented. You see, you need coersion to have equality, and the more equality you need, the more coersion you will need either. So, yes, in order to achieve equality, you MUST abandon any concept of individual freedom and human rights. But you will NEVER generate wealth within such a society. -
Message 47
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Saturday, 4th April 2009
‘Such as Jean McConville? The Pub Bombings, The Warrington Bomb?’
Well of course if you want to go through all incidents one by one!
JMcC was shot as an informer (1973?) – I don’t believe they were justified in this but they were bloody confused desperate times.
The pub bombings (1974?) happened after bloody Sunday when the IRA involved believed the British had targeted civilians – an eye for an eye – The unit involved were wrong to target areas were civilians casualties were inevitable but so are the UK/US/Israelis etc in more recent times; war is hell and civilians always pay a high price.
Warrington was a commercial target, the 2 deaths were unfortunate collateral damage. Its easy to prognosticate from on high and with hindsight. When the RAF pilot targets what he believes are enemy troops/terrorists from 30,000 feet but in fact is targeting a wedding (as in Iraq) he should make sure his target is in fact what he believes it to be or IMO he should be treated as a mass murderer. You can’t have one rule in one case and a different rule just because they are from your own country.
There were many deaths caused by British actions in NI which you have chosen not to instance. None of these things happened in a vacuum… -
Message 48
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Saturday, 4th April 2009
One quick point Ryan.
Civilian deaths caused by the military were 138.
Civilian deaths caused by the RUC were 27.
Total civilian deaths were 2,087. In 89 of these cases the killer(s) are unknown, meaning that either no group claimed responsibility, or there was insufficient evidence to apportion blame.
Do the arithmetic.
Your knowledge of Bloody Sunday and the aftermath seems to be very limited, and I suggest that you do some serious reading.
You can pick any instance you like, and I will give you chapter and verse, and the information will not come from a Republican, Loyalist, or government source. I will be as impartial and objective as it's possible to get. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose of this thread, which is to reveal the truth. -
Message 49
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Saturday, 4th April 2009
I'm also not sure who your last post is directed at, but I was directed back to the first message, in which I listed attacks that targeted civilians, rather that instances where civilians died as "collateral damage".
The murder of those suspected of being informers is very different, and although there is confirmed evidence of the "interview" techniques used by the security forces, the techniques used to extract confessions from suspected informers by terrorist groups could not be printed here. They were barbaric in the extreme, and you will find similar methods used by the Inquisition. Some of the priests summoned to give absolution to the condemned still have nightmares about what they witnessed, and the fact that those responsible would turn up to confession a few days later. -
Message 50
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Saturday, 4th April 2009
‘Civilian deaths caused by the military were 138. Civilian deaths caused by the RUC were 27.’
I don’t understand the point you are making re- the post you are replying to. The point I was making was in order to reinforce my statement that the IRA (in their words) did not set out to act against civilians, but that civilians were collateral damage.
Many catholics were killed by Loyalists who were working as RUC or military agents. They are usually toted up as loyalist killings; loyalist groups lose their cohesion and effectiveness when working without British assistance from my reading of the issue.
‘Your knowledge of Bloody Sunday and the aftermath seems to be very limited’
I doubt it, I’ve read most of the literature involved and the case against the British is fairly well established.
‘the information will not come from a Republican, Loyalist, or government source. I will be as impartial and objective as it's possible to get’
I doubt that as well. Where is your info from (Cain?); most sources IMO is tainted as being from one of the sides who were involved and have an axe to grind. I’ve yet to hear of a totally objective source.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.