Murials - what's your feeling?

GlynD

lazer wrote: »

The polie and Army could not be trusted - if the could would the civilians have died on Bloody Sunday?

Has it now been proven that there was collusion between the crown forces and unionists paramilities?

Some of the claims may have been exaggerated, but there was some truth in it.

The IRA attacked the police and army - but is that a valid excuse for the police and army not protecting innocent civilians.

I accept that part of the reason the RUC was almost 100% unionist is that the Republicans stopped the Cathlics joining - that much is true - but why could the protestants not serve the whole community fairly?

The security forces largely did act fairly but one of the problems with a locally raised police force and militia is the potential for abuse. Both loyalist and republicans joined to get training and weaponry which they then handed over to their respective paramilitaries. There was also collusion with the IRA from the security forces. In the propaganda war however the government is losing and always has done to Sinn Fein who highlight loyalist collusion and ignore their own.

It is true however that, in the most recent bout of troubles, it was the loyalists who gained more than the republicans. It is proven but it wasn't as serious a problem as SF are trying to make out. For a start, take the UDR: their access to intelligence was very small, plus most of those who tried to join to further paramilitary activities were weeded out in the early 70's.

The police and army also did their best to maintain control over the two local forces by bringing in staff from the rest of the UK who weren't as affected by partisanship as locals may have been. For example: did you know the UDR only ever had one local battalion commander? The rest were all on posting from the regular army.

Look at the figures I posted above too. The security forces were responsible of 10% of the killings during the troubles. I believe that to be an example of restraint.

There's also the problem with orchestration, particularly by republican activists. Get the kiddies to start a riot to bring the police and army in then start shooting. If a kiddie gets killed by an army bullet passing through solid walls then it's a propaganda victory - that happened more than once. If PIRA killed somebody they shouldn't have they just stayed schtum or started a rumour which justified the killing but if the SF killed someone by accident well, we're still hearing about it today.

The security forces made mistakes that's for sure. During the period of martial law they shouldn't have deployed paratroopers in my opinion. They are shock troops and think only of killing. Line troops are much steadier.

In general though I think the local security forces did protect the local population very well. Even to the extent of the UDR being deployed to keep loyalist rioters away from Catholic areas. Did you know too that when Gerry the Liar was shot it was an off duty UDR soldier who apprehended the gunmen? Sinn Fein don't tell you about that do they? Ironically too, when Bernadette McAlliskey was riddled by loyalist gunmen it was the Parachute Regiment who gave her immediate first aid and got her to hospital by helicopter, thus saving her life. She was asked by Gay Byrne did she thank them. I can't remember what she said but her reply was in the negative.

Why are these things never talked about?

GlynD

chunter wrote: »

Ah now.
Anyway, I've checked the Irish census of 1901 and 1911.
There were no families with both a murial and a poppy.

Worth reminding people that around 80-100,000 irish nationists signed up at the start of WW1. By 1914 Redmond had become a nationalist hero of Parnellite stature. He encouraged Irish Nationalists to join the British Army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Redmond

By the time those who survived the war came back to Ireland, the political climate had completely changed.

So when you're kicking the wreaths off the war memorials, just remember that there are a substantial number of Irish Nationalists on that list, and the closer to the border you go, the more there'll be.

You're absolutely correct. Redmond was a dedicated Home Ruler and he believed that by encouraging the Volunteers to join he would get more support from Westminster, and he did. Home Rule was passed and would have come in around 1919 if it wasn't for the Rising.

lazer

GlynD wrote: »

The security forces largely did act fairly but one of the problems with a locally raised police force and militia is the potential for abuse. Both loyalist and republicans joined to get training and weaponry which they then handed over to their respective paramilitaries. There was also collusion with the IRA from the security forces. In the propaganda war however the government is losing and always has done to Sinn Fein who highlight loyalist collusion and ignore their own.

It is true however that, in the most recent bout of troubles, it was the loyalists who gained more than the republicans. It is proven but it wasn't as serious a problem as SF are trying to make out. For a start, take the UDR: their access to intelligence was very small, plus most of those who tried to join to further paramilitary activities were weeded out in the early 70's.

The police and army also did their best to maintain control over the two local forces by bringing in staff from the rest of the UK who weren't as affected by partisanship as locals may have been. For example: did you know the UDR only ever had one local battalion commander? The rest were all on posting from the regular army.

Look at the figures I posted above too. The security forces were responsible of 10% of the killings during the troubles. I believe that to be an example of restraint.

There's also the problem with orchestration, particularly by republican activists. Get the kiddies to start a riot to bring the police and army in then start shooting. If a kiddie gets killed by an army bullet passing through solid walls then it's a propaganda victory - that happened more than once. If PIRA killed somebody they shouldn't have they just stayed schtum or started a rumour which justified the killing but if the SF killed someone by accident well, we're still hearing about it today.

The security forces made mistakes that's for sure. During the period of martial law they shouldn't have deployed paratroopers in my opinion. They are shock troops and think only of killing. Line troops are much steadier.

In general though I think the local security forces did protect the local population very well. Even to the extent of the UDR being deployed to keep loyalist rioters away from Catholic areas. Did you know too that when Gerry the Liar was shot it was an off duty UDR soldier who apprehended the gunmen? Sinn Fein don't tell you about that do they? Ironically too, when Bernadette McAlliskey was riddled by loyalist gunmen it was the Parachute Regiment who gave her immediate first aid and got her to hospital by helicopter, thus saving her life. She was asked by Gay Byrne did she thank them. I can't remember what she said but her reply was in the negative.

Why are these things never talked about?

They aren't highlighted simply because that is what should happen - that is exactly what arm and police should do - protect.

Collusion between people paid to protect the people and paramilitaries is wrong regardless of which side - and I condemn both equally, I am disgusted that the people we are paying collude with people to aid and abet murder.

I think 10% of the deaths in the troubles being at the hands of security forces is terrible - that is 350 died at the hands of the people who are meant to protect them.
Some of these may be during ambushes etc, and were possibly reasonable - but some are innocent civilians - even 1 death of an innocent civilian by the very people who are meant to protect them is 1 too many.

I can never understand the equating of deaths caused by paid security forces with deaths caused by illegal organisations.

If you have innocent 10 civilians killed today elsewhere in the UK - one by a drugs gang and the other by Army/police gunfire (For example during the London Riots, or even during some peaceful march etc) - would you be saying that that is a success for the police as they only caused 10% of the deaths today?

It the army had caused 350 (10%) deaths elsewhere in the UK because some people were in the wrong place at the wrong time would you be asking for a full unbiased investigation?

emmett123

GlynD wrote: »

I've no wish to write off historical events Emmett, Irish history is fascinating and I love it. For the purposes of posting on this forum however I'd prefer to concentrate on the here and now because that's what matters to the living and the people who read these threads.

This idea of your that Crown Forces are "unconvicted terrorists" smacks of republican rhetoric. In the event of crisis the government has no-one else to turn to except the police and armed forces to try and maintain law and order. The simple fact is that most of them did their job well in difficult circumstances and there is no complaint about them. Some figures I heard the other day bear that out. 60% of deaths in the troubles were caused by PIRA; 10% of deaths were caused by Crown Forces, yet 90% of past and current investigations and resources have concentrated on deaths caused by Crown Forces. Most of the deaths caused by PIRA were actually Northern Ireland Catholics.

The security forces could never "kill with impunity". The rules of engagement for Northern Ireland were strict and quite a few soldiers were imprisoned for breaching them.

My conclusion as regards this is that most current investigations backed by SF are being unnecessarily pressed to gain some sort of propaganda value to enable people like you to spout the results.

I agree that bigotry is behind some Orange Order marches. I find the whole concept of Orangism to be based on bigotry and don't support it. I've said before an repeat it now that, when I was at school, flegs were flown on 18 designated days a year. I see no reason to change that and wish the loyalists would stop their protests.

As for voting. As long as we have people connected with the troubles putting themselves up for office we're going to have the partisan vote and yes, it's because some people are too stupid to realise that voting for purely political issues is more important than a vote for the DUP or Sinn Fein.

I don't need to lie to you on this forum or even in person. My belief is that integration in housing and schools is the only way forward. Only when people here start treating each other as equals in citizenship will sectarian hatred stop. This is a British country however and as an ex-serviceman I firmly believe in remembrance and war memorials and I don't think there should be any public memorials to those who broke the law for all those years: no matter whom they claimed to represent or what their ideology was. So no: no Easter Lillies. Although I see no harm in our politicians respecting republican dead by traveling to Dublin to lay wreaths of Easter Lillies.

As a compromise I would suggest that the nationalist and republican parties moot a proposal for the establishment of a memorial and memorial gardens in an appropriate place. Somewhere where relatives can pay tribute to their loved ones.

You're not breaking anything to me at all Emmett. Many changes have taken place and many more will and we will accept them all as long as they are for the betterment of our community.

Ultimately my vision would be for a settled and peaceful community where you and I could share a pint in a nice bar in any area and talk through our respective opinions on the history of our country without fear of offending anyone in earshot. Will that be in a United Ireland? For the foreseeable future, in my lifetime, I doubt that. If it were the case however I wouldn't object because I know that any settlement would include safeguards for the likes of me. I already have many friends who served in the army with me living south of the border. That's where they came from and they receive their pensions and enjoy life as British ex-servicemen in Ireland.

I hope you and other readers of this post understand my genuine and heartfelt opinions, even if some of them are futile at best. I would like to see an end to bitterness. The kind of bitterness I see in your words my friend, and it saddens me.

Well there has been a lot of posts since I was last on here so I will respond to the above.

that the Crown force are Unconvicted terrorists isn't republican rhetoric, rather, its my firm belief and it one that is shared by quite a lot of people in the 6 counties. As you point out the Brits "only" killed 10% of the total. and that, according to you is, "did thier job well" and there is "no complaint"
I see how your mind works on this, there is no sanction against the Brits for their crimes. By your logic, the people of Bloody Sunday and young Majella O'Hare were just example of the Brits doing their job well.

You have quoted that 60% of deaths were from Republican whereas 10% were attributed to the Crown forces. but you neglected to add the 30% of deaths by Loyalists, groups controlled and financed by the Brits a la Frank Kitson. so bringing your total to 40%.

Interesting to see how upset you are with the investigations that have gone on into deaths at the hand of the Brits, that they are merely for propaganda purposes. Do you really believe that the British Military are above the law and that should not be held accountable for their behavior?

Perhaps that arrogance explains the mindset of current Brit Crown forces occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, who think that they can torture and murder prisoners for sport. I think today on the news there was the first soldier sentence for such crimes oversea since WW2!! a shocking lack of accountability.

Perhaps that same arrogance and solid belief in how unaccountable they are explains too, the very shady and frankly worrying, series of deaths at Deepcut. the reaction of the BA management is what we have come to expect, knowing their behavior here.

belfastgirl23

tara747 wrote: »

Yes! It's awful! I'd have nightmares if I lived across from it... :rotfl:

p.s. long time no see, how are you?

Busy lol! No time for surfing these days. You were amongst the disappeared yourself for a while, how's it going??

edited to say oops didn't mean to interrupt the politicking with a bit of neighbourliness

emmett123

GlynD wrote: »

You're absolutely correct. Redmond was a dedicated Home Ruler and he believed that by encouraging the Volunteers to join he would get more support from Westminster, and he did. Home Rule was passed and would have come in around 1919 if it wasn't for the Rising.

Redmond encouraged men to join the British army out of sense of loyalty to the idea of Empire. He had no need to gain more support for HR. The vast majority of the Ireland had voted consistently for HR for years and despite this, the various British governments had refused to pass it. Which just go to show that when nationalist play by the constitutional rules of the British state, they should not expect the British to do the same.
Indeed so adamant were the British Army to deny democracy that they planned a Mutiny in Curragh in 1914.
Thankfully brave men like Connolly and Pearse seen through this "jaw jaw, war war" lies of the British and went ahead and had their rising and were retrospectively endorsed by the people of Ireland in 1918. Of course, the British didnt like it when the vote went against them and unleashed their Black and tans and Auxies in a counter revolutionary action against a democratically elected National parliament.

GlynD

There is too much written since my last post for me to respond to every point in detail but I will say this:

Lazer, your posts display the time of common sense concern I have come to expect from you and I largely agree with you. Going back to figures though: the UDR was and still is the biggest propaganda target for Sinn Fein yet they killed the fewest people during the troubles. Only 6 if my memory serves me right. One however was a deaf youth who was running away from a patrol when called on to halt three times following which the patrol opened fire as per their instructions for doing so. An innocent man was killed because he was deaf. That is the tragedy of conflict.

Emmett, you are sounding like an advert for Sinn Fein and you are spouting rhetoric. You might not feel as if you are becuase of your own deeply held convictions and/or whatever way you have been educated in these matters but I can promise you that, as an avid digester of books from many authors on our history I find what you're saying to be very wide of the mark. For example you say:

Of course, the British didnt like it when the vote went against them and unleashed their Black and tans and Auxies in a counter revolutionary action against a democratically elected National parliament.

This is completely untrue. History tells us that the Black & Tans and Auxilliaries were formed as reserve police forces to assist the RIC in preventing the IRA from attacking isolated police stations and other installations. At that time the IRA was also intimidating people in rural areas to vote for Sinn Fein and carrying out a progrom on Anglo/Irish families and Empire Loyalists, something which went on for many years even after the Civil War finished. These were tactics which we saw repeated over decades by the various IRA's with varying degrees of success or failure.

Connolly and Pearse and others like them had no mandate and their rising wasn't just a failure, it was unpopular. They may have been brave but they were very misguided. Romantics almost to a man, strutting around in hand made volunteer uniforms playing at being soldiers. Pearse in particular was a very strange man and is believed to have been a deviant in mind if not in practice. Hardl;y what you;d call a hero. De Valera had a nervous breakdown in Boland's Mill and never fired a shot in anger. He spent the entire revolution curled up in a corner weeping. He also stole money in the form of Irish War Bonds paid for in America and used it to start the Irish News. It was the discovery of this by Tim Pat Coogan (the editor of the Irish News) which forced Dev to finally retire.

The real facts are slowly becoming known about the aims, bravery, methods etc of the republican movement through the years and it doesn't make for pretty reading.

Loyalists on the other hand were never capable of such subtlety. They seemed to have preferred blunt methods in the last 100 years or so. Just as openly ruthless as republicans as is evident by the horrific crimes they too committed and are still committing right up to the present day.

Which brings me back to murials. These are being painted to intimidate the local populace by reminding them who really controls their area and what will happen to them if they don't toe the line. The main object these days seems to be to allow the drug dealing activities of both sides to carry on uninterrupted.

Not until we accept the failures of all these paramilitary groupings and their real objectives will we rid ourselves of the scourge of drug gangs, especially in the larger population centres like Belfast. The paramilitaries don't want integration. They want us at each others throats and to see them as the real heroes of the people, so they can get on with their nefarious activities.

So by all means Emmett. You keep believing in your heroes of the republican movement. They've sucked you in but they haven't fooled me and more critically, the "heroes" of the loyalist movement haven't fooled me - and never will.

That seems to be the critical difference between us old friend.

emmett123

GlynD wrote: »

There is too much written since my last post for me to respond to every point in detail but I will say this:

Lazer, your posts display the time of common sense concern I have come to expect from you and I largely agree with you. Going back to figures though: the UDR was and still is the biggest propaganda target for Sinn Fein yet they killed the fewest people during the troubles. Only 6 if my memory serves me right. One however was a deaf youth who was running away from a patrol when called on to halt three times following which the patrol opened fire as per their instructions for doing so. An innocent man was killed because he was deaf. That is the tragedy of conflict.

Emmett, you are sounding like an advert for Sinn Fein and you are spouting rhetoric. You might not feel as if you are becuase of your own deeply held convictions and/or whatever way you have been educated in these matters but I can promise you that, as an avid digester of books from many authors on our history I find what you're saying to be very wide of the mark. For example you say:

Of course, the British didnt like it when the vote went against them and unleashed their Black and tans and Auxies in a counter revolutionary action against a democratically elected National parliament.

This is completely untrue. History tells us that the Black & Tans and Auxilliaries were formed as reserve police forces to assist the RIC in preventing the IRA from attacking isolated police stations and other installations. At that time the IRA was also intimidating people in rural areas to vote for Sinn Fein and carrying out a progrom on Anglo/Irish families and Empire Loyalists, something which went on for many years even after the Civil War finished. These were tactics which we saw repeated over decades by the various IRA's with varying degrees of success or failure.

Connolly and Pearse and others like them had no mandate and their rising wasn't just a failure, it was unpopular. They may have been brave but they were very misguided. Romantics almost to a man, strutting around in hand made volunteer uniforms playing at being soldiers. Pearse in particular was a very strange man and is believed to have been a deviant in mind if not in practice. Hardl;y what you;d call a hero. De Valera had a nervous breakdown in Boland's Mill and never fired a shot in anger. He spent the entire revolution curled up in a corner weeping. He also stole money in the form of Irish War Bonds paid for in America and used it to start the Irish News. It was the discovery of this by Tim Pat Coogan (the editor of the Irish News) which forced Dev to finally retire.

The real facts are slowly becoming known about the aims, bravery, methods etc of the republican movement through the years and it doesn't make for pretty reading.

Loyalists on the other hand were never capable of such subtlety. They seemed to have preferred blunt methods in the last 100 years or so. Just as openly ruthless as republicans as is evident by the horrific crimes they too committed and are still committing right up to the present day.

Which brings me back to murials. These are being painted to intimidate the local populace by reminding them who really controls their area and what will happen to them if they don't toe the line. The main object these days seems to be to allow the drug dealing activities of both sides to carry on uninterrupted.

Not until we accept the failures of all these paramilitary groupings and their real objectives will we rid ourselves of the scourge of drug gangs, especially in the larger population centres like Belfast. The paramilitaries don't want integration. They want us at each others throats and to see them as the real heroes of the people, so they can get on with their nefarious activities.

So by all means Emmett. You keep believing in your heroes of the republican movement. They've sucked you in but they haven't fooled me and more critically, the "heroes" of the loyalist movement haven't fooled me - and never will.

That seems to be the critical difference between us old friend.

I am somewhat disappointed to see Glyn, that you should cast doubt on my level of education as the reason why I would see the world and Irish History differently from you. I can well believe that you have read books on Irish History, but it is quite patronizing of you to presume that other people have not done the same. I suppose your sense of superiority is a criteria for the Crown Forces, or perhaps a by-product of time spent in it.

Famously the Easter men were spat on as they were being led away, less famously was that the abuse was hurled on the street leading to the barrack and from those who relied on the Brits for their economic activity. Huge open air masses were also held for the 1916 leaders, evidence again of the support the men command, after the fact. And indeed, Sinn Fein won the 4 by elections of 1917 showing that far from distancing themselves from the Rising, people were quite supportive, take for e.g Count Plunkett, father of the executed Joseph Plunkett winning one these seats.
It is also a sign of your own rhetoric that SF won the 1918 election due to voter intimidation. It hard to believe that they could intimidate the results of 73 seats, a formidable organization indeed.

Further, I don't have to be "sucked in" to agree with the arguments and methods of the 1916 men, and they are not "Heroes" to me either, I don't go in for idea of celebrating one human against the other. But then again, I, unlike you, don't support a system of government based on giving loyalty and fealty to one family who live off the back of the people based on the order on which their Da shagged their Ma. You should be careful about talking about Heroes, when you have spent a career defending a system that gives outs MBEs, and OBEs and has Knight and Ladies and the Order of Suspender Belt etc.

Of course no human being is perfect, and support for a political cause does not depend on the sinless nature of the leaders involved. For you to suggest that PH Pearse was a deviant of some description, is not shocking or new. Ruth Dudley Edwards was talking that up years ago and has remained just a smear attempt. In much the same way that Lester Piggot and Lord Salisbury's Tories tried to blacken CS Parnell's name with forged letters, or indeed the same smear attempts leveled at Sir Rodger Casement with forged entries in his dairy.

However i will agree with you on De Valera and will raise your criticism of him to include his term in office in the 30s & 40s and the relish in which he swapped roles from poacher to game keeper. Much as I disagree with any attacks, attacks on the Land Lord class in the first decades of 20th century, especially considering that their wealth and privileged lifestyle was based on the labor of their Irish tenants, must have recognized it has an occupational hazard. It must go with the territory when you are in a colonial outpost and the natives go all bolshy.

GlynD

emmett123 wrote: »

I am somewhat disappointed to see Glyn, that you should cast doubt on my level of education as the reason why I would see the world and Irish History differently from you. I can well believe that you have read books on Irish History, but it is quite patronizing of you to presume that other people have not done the same. I suppose your sense of superiority is a criteria for the Crown Forces, or perhaps a by-product of time spent in it.

Famously the Easter men were spat on as they were being led away, less famously was that the abuse was hurled on the street leading to the barrack and from those who relied on the Brits for their economic activity. Huge open air masses were also held for the 1916 leaders, evidence again of the support the men command, after the fact. And indeed, Sinn Fein won the 4 by elections of 1917 showing that far from distancing themselves from the Rising, people were quite supportive, take for e.g Count Plunkett, father of the executed Joseph Plunkett winning one these seats.
It is also a sign of your own rhetoric that SF won the 1918 election due to voter intimidation. It hard to believe that they could intimidate the results of 73 seats, a formidable organization indeed.

Further, I don't have to be "sucked in" to agree with the arguments and methods of the 1916 men, and they are not "Heroes" to me either, I don't go in for idea of celebrating one human against the other. But then again, I, unlike you, don't support a system of government based on giving loyalty and fealty to one family who live off the back of the people based on the order on which their Da shagged their Ma. You should be careful about talking about Heroes, when you have spent a career defending a system that gives outs MBEs, and OBEs and has Knight and Ladies and the Order of Suspender Belt etc.

Of course no human being is perfect, and support for a political cause does not depend on the sinless nature of the leaders involved. For you to suggest that PH Pearse was a deviant of some description, is not shocking or new. Ruth Dudley Edwards was talking that up years ago and has remained just a smear attempt. In much the same way that Lester Piggot and Lord Salisbury's Tories tried to blacken CS Parnell's name with forged letters, or indeed the same smear attempts leveled at Sir Rodger Casement with forged entries in his dairy.

However i will agree with you on De Valera and will raise your criticism of him to include his term in office in the 30s & 40s and the relish in which he swapped roles from poacher to game keeper. Much as I disagree with any attacks, attacks on the Land Lord class in the first decades of 20th century, especially considering that their wealth and privileged lifestyle was based on the labor of their Irish tenants, must have recognized it has an occupational hazard. It must go with the territory when you are in a colonial outpost and the natives go all bolshy.

Emmett I'm not surprised that your views differ from mine. I see much in your prose to debate but will, as before, try to confine my remarks to the here and now, not the discussion of history, which quite frankly I think bores the proverbials off others who read these threads.

Where you're coming from though is the rhetorical position of British=bad, Irish republican=good and that isn't correct.

Plus: whether you like it or not the North Eastern counties of Ireland exercised their democratic right to self determination in 1920 and that's the state you and I were born into. If you accept that Ireland had the right to self determination then you have to accept the rights of others who didn't want to secede from the mother state.

You are entitled to aspire to an all Ireland united republic. I respect that aspiration and I will do nothing to prevent you exercising your democratic right to work towards that goal or to just support it in words and votes.

What I want from you is the same respect in return. Don't try to further your cause through the denigration of the British and their armed forces because for every heinous crime you accuse them of the republicans were guilty of the same, at least. So were the loyalists.

Until there is a united Ireland you and I and our fellow travelers have to live together in our wee part of the world. Let's do it peacefully and work towards an eradication of the hatred which currently sees some members of the community fearful of each other to the extent that violence ensues. Try to remember that people such as I who are not republicans were born into the state as it was. It should therefore come as no surprise to you that I, and people like me, view of nationality with trepidation and that we would do all we could (legally) to ensure that doesn't happen. If it does happen then I would hope that I maintain my dignity and transfer my loyalty for domicile to the Republic of Ireland whilst retaining the British identity I was born with.

We don't need paramilitary murials in our society. They are symbols of a time when a section of the community was at war with the rest of us. Let's get rid of these archaic and unnecessary signs of community domination and concentrate on having good lives, without fear.

tara747

belfastgirl23 wrote: »

Busy lol! No time for surfing these days. You were amongst the disappeared yourself for a while, how's it going??

edited to say oops didn't mean to interrupt the politicking with a bit of neighbourliness

I'm fine, thanks! Same here, I've been really busy for a while, but I'm back more regularly now. Good to see you.