In 1996, the British Government effectively excluded Sinn Féin from the negotiations. The result was Canary Wharf. If Sinn Féin didn't go along with the Peace Process, that meant the IRA didn't go along with the Peace Process.

Remember, without bring Sinn Féin with them the following wouldn't have happened.

1) An end to the Troubles
2) Decommissioning
3) And end to "criminality"
4) Republicans taking part in Policing Structures

All four of the above would never have happened if Sinn Féin wasn't brought along. I don't credit the Stoops with a lot, but something I would have to say is that John Hume and Séamus Mallon both would have sacrificed the SDLP for peace. Thank Christ Mark Durkan and Alex "the Ballacks" Attwood weren't in charge of the Stoops then or we may be talking about the Good Friday Agreement in the same breath as Sunningdale and James Prior's Rolling Devolution.

Ah yes, where would we be without the peace loving politics of Sinn Fein!
The decline in SDLP voters only enforces the fact that certain parts of the community (in vast numbers) are quite willing to support terrorism.
Contrast the Sinn Fein vote with that for the PUP. Just a bit of a difference?

"The decline in SDLP voters only enforces the fact that certain parts of the community (in vast numbers) are quite willing to support terrorism."

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Sad, Seamus, sad. And sick.

No, your problem junkmale is that you care far too much about labels. If the IRA murdered an innocent child, it would be far worse in your eyes than if the British Army murdered an innocent child. You care far too much with the label "Terrorism" and "Terrorist", which is thrown around so easily that it doesn't automatically mean it is a bad thing. Nelson Mandela, one of the greatest men of the 20th Century, was a terrorist. Charles de Gaulle was a Terrorist. George Washington was a Terrorist. Adolf Hitler, wasn't a Terrorist. Josef Stalin wasn't a Terrorist. George W. Bush, isn't a Terrorist. It's peoples actions that define them, not what petty label you give them junkmale.

Seamus, do us a favour and go one thread without trying to equivocate between those that aren't equal. It's fairly useless to throw around the words terrorist/terrorism willy nilly, but it's equally useless to discard them altogether as you seem to prefer, just because it helps excuse vicious sectarian murders.

"Josef Stalin wasn't a Terrorist" That's probably debatable.

Since nobody else seems bothered with the topic at hand I'll advance a theory.

If the SDLP had gone ahead and done a deal without Sinn Fein, or excluded them later when they had the chance, the IRA could not have returned to wholesale violence because of the changing international attitudes to terrorist (sorry Seamus) violence.

Nationalists would have been left with a
1)vote for a party in government who could effect change; or
2) vote for a group of thugs now free to revel in the martyrdom of their own exclusion.

How would that have effected voting patterns in the nationalist community and, had they altered in favour of the SDLP, would there have been less of a move to the extremes of Paisley within the unionist electorate?

No one can predict what effect 9/11 would have had on the Troubles if they were still going on. The IRA by that stage would have already returned to war, probably doing so in 1998. People who compare Al-Qaeda to the IRA are doing no more than highlighting their own stupidity and bigotry, and whether Irish-America would have changed their view still remains to be seen.

If the SDLP had done a deal without Sinn Féin, they probably would have been crucified at the ballot box for ignoring a large section of the Nationalist people, just so they could cosy up to David Trimble.

Also, even if international opinion [and by international opinion, a guess you mean America] had turned sour, the IRA could have still operated, just maybe with less effectiveness.

Also, beano, I will draw you to the last line of my previous post. "It's peoples actions that define them, not what petty label you give them". I don't use the term terrorist, not so I can avoid the wrong things that the IRA did. I don't use it because it is misleading. Some of the actions carried out by the British Army where worse than those carried out by the IRA. Most of the actions by the IDF are worse than those carried out by the PLO and Hamas. A lot of the actions carried out by the Colombians is worse than those carried out by FARC. Yet because the British Army, the IDF and the Colombian Army aren't Terrorists, people have a tendency to gloss over their murder campaigns.

Right I'm not indulging your equivocation any more. Your last paragraph is your own petard, I don't think I need to hoist you.

"People who compare Al-Qaeda to the IRA are doing no more than highlighting their own stupidity and bigotry"

No Seamus, those who ignore the blindingly obvious and extensive similarities are highlighting their own stupidity and bigotry (see, we can throw insults back and forth all day). The fact is many people do compare them, and with good reason.

I'm not sure the SDLP would have been crucified if they jumped on the train and left the station without SF. It's entirely possible, and not unlikely, but I'll be charitable to the nationalist electorate and entertain the notion that they would actually choose a party of peace over one of war, as they had done for some decades previously.

That said, if they the crucifixion had happened, I still think it would have been largely self-inflicted. John Hume did good work in attaining a ceasefire, but he and his successors went much too far out of their way to legitimise the Provos. In the end it cost them. On one hand it would have been nice to have done a deal with democrats (albeit a bit late) but on the other its hard to pity them.

"The decline in SDLP voters only enforces the fact that certain parts of the community (in vast numbers) are quite willing to support terrorism.
Contrast the Sinn Fein vote with that for the PUP. Just a bit of a difference?"

Ah yes, the old "unionists are better than nationalists bullshit!" I won't even go there as that wasn't the point of Beano's post (but, believe me, I could).

The SDLP did sideline themselves to an extent as they allowed SF to steal their clothes to an extent (whilst putting on ridiculous "post nationalist" attire themselves - take a bow Alex Attwood).

The age-profile of the SDLP didn't help - Hume, Mallon and Brige Rodgers were coming to the end of their careers and their replacements weren't up to much.

Hmm, I didn't mean to use "to an extent" to that extent in my previous post!

My point is that, in my view, the decline of the SDLP was not down to pandering to SF so much as a number of other factors that occurred after the GFA - some of which were the fault of the SDLP and others which were out of their hands (SF's clever use of PR and their formidable election machine; the age demographic of nationalist voters - a lot more young turks).

I agree with Reg. The SDLP's problem is the same that the Conservatives faced in Britain in the early to mid 90s, and the problem that the Labour Party are facing now. Their main faces are old and grey. If I am not mistaking, Mark Durkan is the youngest SDLP MLA. Mark Durkan seems older than my grandfather and he's been dead for fifteen years. The SDLP faces that were at the centre of the NICRA retired basically just before the 2003 Assembly election, and they just didn't have the people to come in and replace them.

"those who ignore the blindingly obvious and extensive similarities"

What similarities are these, Beano?

'Ah yes, the old "unionists are better than nationalists bullshit!"'

Bullshit....really? I think the statistics speak quite clearly for themselves i.e. significantly more Nationalists support the IRA than Unionists support the UVF. Not Bullshit just a fact. A fact that someone even as blinkered as yourself should see Reg.
As to the SDLP. I think thier support for Sinn Fein was a tactical error. It showed, for one thing, thier true colours to mainstram Unionism.
They had a chance to more forward with the UUP but they blew it and blew it big-time. Left the door open to the nonsense we have now.

"I think the statistics speak quite clearly for themselves i.e. significantly more Nationalists support the IRA than Unionists support the UVF."

Er yes. You've conveniently left out the DUP's terrorist links - Ulster Resistance, Third Force etc (conveniently disgarded when it suited them).

Anyway, your argument is no doubt based on the electoral fortunes of SF v the PUP/UDP - not quite the same thing as support for the IRA v the UVF and the like. The UDA had quite a large membership in the 1970s without getting many votes.

Of course leaving politics aside there were the "legitimate" forces of the B Specials and the UDR - basically paramilitary groups that enjoyed the widespread support of unionists.

Your moral superiority complex is a bit silly; neither community were angels.

Ah yes...the old Ulster Resistance/3rd Force Bullshit! Even attempting to compare the 'activities' of these organisations with those of the IRA is beyond belief.
As for the USC/UDR. LOL. It's not even worth a response.
The sad part of it all is that the Nationionalist community have rejected the Democratic and legitimate politics of the SDLP en masse and have given thier full blessing to those who think violence is the answer.

"The sad part of it all is that the Nationionalist community have rejected the Democratic and legitimate politics of the SDLP en masse and have given thier full blessing to those who think violence is the answer."

And when did the vote for SF increase?? After the ceasefire. So clearly not....

Is Mary Lou McDonald a terrorist??? Catriona Ruane???
The majority of the Unionists community voted for a party who's:

-Current leader was in jail for incitement to hatred
-Incumbent leader was in jail in the republic for terrorising the small town of Clontibret

"Ah yes...the old Ulster Resistance/3rd Force Bullshit! Even attempting to compare the 'activities' of these organisations with those of the IRA is beyond belief."

I wasn't comparing their activities. That's not the point. Of course, UR and TF (given the very support that you claim didn't exist) were much greater terrorist threats than the IRA ever could have been.

Some nationalists voted for a party with links to a paramilitary/terrorist grouping; as did some unionists.

Also, as Dantheman points out, the SF vote only increased significantly following the IRA ceasefire and, again, after the GFA - hardly a vote for violence!


"As for the USC/UDR. LOL. It's not even worth a response."

Stumped for a reply are we?!

"Of course, UR and TF ... were much greater terrorist threats than the IRA ever could have been."

I don't know, comparing Ulster Resistance and to the IRA would be about the same level as comparing the IRA to Al-Qaeda. But then, people have actually done that in this blog, so the Ulster Resistance IRA comparison should probably stand then as well.

So, now that we have established that over half of the Unionists who voted, voted for the DUP/Ulster Resistance terrorists, should Junkmale withdraw his hate filled, anti Nationalist, xenophobic, sectarian remarks? (I was wondering how many adjectives I could fit into that last sentence. It's all down to those brilliant English lessons that Chekov gave me in a previous topic)

"As for the USC/UDR. LOL."

Glad to see that a Unionist is finally seeing that the Orange Order was heavily involved in the Troubles. It must be easier for the Unionists to be all high and mighty with us measly Fenians, if they disregard all the stuff that the UDR and the B-Men did to Catholics in the North.

"Of course, UR and TF ... were much greater terrorist threats than the IRA ever could have been."

"


Beano, if I am not mistaking, Reg is stating that if we are linking support of Terrorists with the amount of votes their "allies" got, then the Ulster Resistance (through the DUP) had more support, and those more capabilities than the IRA. I could be wrong, so we do need Reg to clarify.

But Seamus, either you are mistaken or Reg is being silly, and sorry but I suspect the former. Reg clearly said they (UR) were a greater threat. Even IF we accept that support for DUP = support for UR (baring in mind that Paisley and Robinson left UR when they were found to have imported arms), support does certainly not equate to capability or threat.

Yes, perhaps I should clarify!

Ulster Resistance turned out to be a bit of a joke. Nevertheless, the UWC strike in the 70s showed just how much havoc could be caused when political unionism (in the form of the DUP and its supporters) and paramilitary loyalism combined. Ulster Resistance an actual unified paramilitary embodiment of this combination and so had the potential to be cause much more instability/chaos/violence than the IRA.

You make a good point though, Beano. Support for the DUP did not equal support for UR (and vice-versa). The same is true of the Provos and SF - particularly since the late 90s when the SF vote increased up to and beyond the SDLP vote.

"The same is true of the Provos and SF - particularly since the late 90s when the SF vote increased up to and beyond the SDLP vote."

I'm sure that's how some of their voters look at it too, but it's much harder to draw that distinction (and believe me I would like to) when SF incessantly eulogise their 'volunteers' to the point where they attempt (no matter how facetious that attempt may or may not have been) to hold a memorial for a bomber at Stormont.

I think that's an important difference, at least from a unionist point of view. I think Paisley and Robinson would like to forget UR if they could (though I could be wrong on that), where a vote for SF, who not only maintain but regularly proclaim the 'rightness' of their violent campaign, is seen as retrospectively endorsing the IRA.

"Adolf Hitler, wasn't a Terrorist"

Seamus I suggest you read up on your German History. During the Munich Putsch the brownshirts attempted to subvert a democratically elected state, killed several people (including a policeman) and robbed a bank (sound familiar? ) Although treason was punishable by the death penalty in those days. The leader of the gang (the aforementioned A. Hitler) was only sentenced to five years but was granted early release (This definitely sounds remarkably similar to someplace else If only I could remember where ?!?!? ) after eight months.

Mike, what I meant by that post, is that when Hitler did most of his damage (e.g. World War II, the Holocaust etc, etc), he was the legitimate, democratically elected leader of Germany, not a Terrorist.

Fair enough although the "democratically elected" bit is streaching the term a wee bit.

In March 1933, he and the Nazis received 43.9% of the vote, more than any British Prime Minister since Harold Wilson in March 1966. If Hitler wasn't democratically elected, then neither have any of the Prime Ministers since Harold Wilson, because they all got less than Hitler did.

"Paisley and Robinson left UR when they were found to have imported arms"

I have been accused of many things in the past. The principle one is being cynical. Did Doc and Robbo leave Ulster Resistance when they found out UR imported guns, or when the public found out they were importing guns.

"Paisley and Robinson would like to forget UR if they could"

Don't know why? Paisley stiled his political career on Edward Carson, so creating a Terrorist organisation and importing guns comes with the Territory.

The difference been that most of the British PM's had a working majority in parliament (albeit under an arguably flawed electorral system). The Nazi's never achieved a majority of seats in the Reichstag and only achieved power by doing a deal with the conservative Von Papen.

Incidently the last Irish taoiseach to obtain a dail majority was Jack Lynch.

"The difference been that most of the British PM's had a working majority in parliament (albeit under an arguably flawed electorral system). The Nazi's never achieved a majority of seats in the Reichstag and only achieved power by doing a deal with the conservative Von Papen."

Indeed, Mike. And...the most important point in my view is that, while the Nazis were the biggest party, the majority of the German people did not vote for a Nazi dictatorship. A point often forgotten.

Don't know why? Paisley stiled his political career on Edward Carson, so creating a Terrorist organisation and importing guns comes with the Territory.

SF make no bones and actually boast about the various acts of terrorism the IRA carried out during the Troubles. The DUP try to hide any involvement that they may have had with loyalist terrorism under the carpet. That should tell you something about their two respective electorates.

Unionists have no problem backing the DUP despite the DUP's support for state sanctioned terrorism like the SAS and the UDR.

"The DUP try to hide any involvement that they may have had with loyalist terrorism under the carpet."

Aye, but I'd say that has more to do with hiding any involvement from the forces of law and order than from the electorate!

If it had been known to the Unionist electorate that their political representatives supported those "state-sponsored terrorists" when they had carried out such “operations” as La Mon, Bloody Friday and the numerous attrocities on the mainland such as Warrington then I really doubt you would have got the requisite level of support that the IRA received to continue the fight right up until their surrender in 1990 or whenever it was that Adams threw in the towel. Be under no illusions, if those “state-sponsored terrorists’ or alternatively “bad-apples” had existed in any number and had been properly let off the lease and had fought republican terrorism on its own terms, then the “war” would have been over well before 1980. It didn’t happen because it was known that there would never have been the level of support amongst the Unionist community to support such a no-holds barred campaign. And that’s the reason why in event of a United Ireland ever happening there will be no Unionist armed backlash- there simply wouldn’t be the stomach amongst the Unionist community to sustain the same kind of campaign that the IRA were able to get away with for 30 years- which is good news to hear if you believe in a United Ireland surely?

See I disagree with you there oneill. The Unionist community have a strong ability to look the other way when the Army, Police and UDR committed atrocities, like Bloody Sunday, Miami Show band, Dublin & Monaghan, colluding to the murder of innocent civilians, like Pat Finucane. They also looked the other way when the British Army imposed a ghetto on the Falls Road and then arrested and imprisoned innocent people in concentration camps, just because of their religion. Acts like that hadn’t happened since the Nazis did it in World War II, but the British Army did, at the behest of the Ulster Unionist Party, who had the backing of the Unionist community.

Also, this may interest you oneill, 34.58% of the people killed by Republicans, where civilian. 82.94% of Loyalist kills where civilian. 51.66% of people killed by the British Army, were civilians. So, you will actually find that the British Army where not the perfect little angels you and the rest of your community think they are oneill.

.
OK, taking your three specific examples:

At the time (and for a long time afterwards), it was believed that Miami Show band and Dublin and Monaghan attrocities were solely the work of loyalist paramilitaries.

If it had been known at the time that rogue members of the security forces had been involved, do you think:

a) These criminals would be held in the level of veneration Sinn Fein and the reublican community in general affords to their criminal and gangsters who were involved in similar attrocities?
b) Would either the UUP or the DUP still receive the same level of support that they presently do if they came out openly and said that they believe that people like Johnny Adair, Billy Wright, the Shankill butchers and the rogue members of the security forces fought a just war, although unfortunately sometimes mistakes may have been made?

Regarding Bloody Sunday, same argument really, the paras involved are not regarded as heroes by the vast majority of the Unionist community, there aren’t regular marches and commemorations at Windsor Park in their honour. If they decided to stand for election on the basis of their “war-record” it’s extremely doubtful they’d be elected.
That’s the difference.

They also looked the other way when the British Army imposed a ghetto on the Falls Road and then arrested and imprisoned innocent people in concentration camps, just because of their religion

Are you aware that there were also large numbers of loyalists interned?
Was that also because of their religion do you think?

If you’re even attempting to compare internment (which I personally think was a mistake) with what the nazis did to their Jewish fellow-citizens, then shame on you.

Also, this may interest you oneill, 34.58% of the people killed by Republicans, where civilian. 82.94% of Loyalist kills where civilian. 51.66% of people killed by the British Army, were civilians

It does interest me, have you got a link for those figures?

All,

Apologies for interupting the flow of this thread.

===================================================

O'Neill,

I'm not a Republican troll - I've responded in greater detail to your attack on me over on the "Attacked for Being a Brit"
thread.

ANO

The figures are at CAIN oneill, based from Malcolm Sutton's "An Index of Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland 1969-2001".

Republican Paramilitaries killed 2056 people in that time period, with 711 of them being civilians. That is 34.58%.

Loyalist Paramilitaries killed 1020 people in the same period, with 846 of them being civilians. That is 82.94%

The British Security Forces directly [probably more when collusion is taken into account] killed 362 people in that time period. 187 of them where civilian. This is 51.66% of their kills.

The link oneill is

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/index.html

You mention that a large number of Loyalists where interred oneill. Between 9th August 1971, when internment started, and 5th December 1975, when it ended, 1981 people where interred without trial. Of those 1981 people, 107 of Protestant. That's 5.4% of all people interred. The other 94.6% of people interred where Catholic.

Thanks for the link, I find it a bit distasteful playing round with these figures, since each one of them represents somebody’s parent, child, brother etc. But basically what you’re saying is that the British army killed 190 civilians; that was 190 too much, but in comparison the total number of civilians murdered by terrorist organisations was something over 1,600.

Regarding the religious breakdown of those interned; earlier you claimed the Catholics were interned solely because of their religion, if that was the case, then there would not have also been over 100 protestants also locked up without trial.

I don't know why 100 Protestants were locked up, I'm not from that community and don't know anybody from that community who was interred. I do know sime if the Catholics who were interred. I know that when they were interred most of the Catholics interred were not members of the IRA. Of the 1800 Catholics locked up due to internment, roughly only about 50 of them went in as IRA men.

I ask you oneill, what other criteria did the Police and Army use to intern people?

I notice you go on a lot about rogue members of the security services and a few bad apples, but why have the DUP and UUP never condemned these people, and in fact have attempted to hinder investigations into these people? The Unionists parties are massively against investigating collusion and never in there massive calls for commemerating the security forces, have they ever tried to exclude the few bad apples from that.