loyalism, despite the best efforts of the god botherers and the orange order, was always the force for modernism.
if the republicans had won, there would be no means by which modern ideas would be implemented the NI. the mainstream, god bothering unionists are trapped into accepting the union and modernism, despite the efforts to stop it. if the rep[ublic had taken all 32, there would be no prospect of abortion, or divorce, of the things we take for granted in the UK. except, maybe, licking the arse of the financial sector and a raft of corruption scandals and financial irregularities.
the UK are dragging NI into the modern era, not the occupied 26. middle class catholics recognize this, and that's why they will vote for parties like the SDLP who are happy enough to keep the union in place, because that ensure their survival. they are literally having their cake and eating it - indulging in nationalist rhetoric without any chance the nationalists will win anything.
>>499906 >The IRA did literally nothing wrong. >Setting off bombs, and setting setting secondary bombs as booby traps for paramedics, then claiming that paramedics didn't care when they were being cautious >Nothing wrong
>>499906 >Bloody Friday >Omagh bombings >Birmingham and Guildford pub bombings >La Mon bombing >Harrods bombing >Remembrance Day bombing >Teebane bombing >Warrington bombing All of these targeted civilians on purpose If you really think the IRA (or the INLA, UVF, UDA etc) did nothing wrong you're no better than an ISIS supporter
>>499686 >here would be no prospect of abortion, Unless the life of the mother is in danger, or the child is sure to die in the womb, that's a good thing >or divorce Which is legal in the Republic
And I notice you completely side step the rather huge fact the Republic is the first country in the world to bring in gay marriage by popular vote. And that's not something to be taken for granted; the Czech Republic also put it to a vote and the the no side won 2/3 to 1/3.
And don't think for a moment any of the loyalists would be ever be gagging for gay marriage; numerous heads of the DUP party have said publicly they're against it on religious grounds.
>>500791 >Ulster loyalism is one of the few right-wing ideologies with mass support in the world remaining Except that even protestants hate loyalists and have become embarassed of their own culture due to the antics of these clowns.
>>500924 >Except that even protestants hate loyalists and have become embarassed of their own culture due to the antics of these clowns. This, speaking to and watching these people and you'd understand this. They're all pants-on-head retarded with some of the stuff they come out with.
I'll tell you my opinion as a person from Northern Ireland who grew up during the troubles in the 80's. IRA were bad obviously. But the UDA are pure filth. They're religious fanatics and anything non British, protestant and white was and is an affront to them. The IRA on the other hand as bad as they were, were a lot more tolerant. I'm a protestant btw.
As a historian, even as a devout Protestant I can't support any sort of Loyalism or Unionism. I've never met a historically literate Loyalist and I think there's a reason for that. It's an ideology in constant opposition to historical truth.
>>500924 Mainstream "cuckservatives" proving their respectability by denying association with extremists wings of right-wing political movements is a typical modern phenomenom. In the end, it always result in the complete destruction of the conservatism base because without the vigour of the "extremists" the cuckservatives cannot resist the left-wing assault.
If Protestants are abandoning loyalism as "embarassing", then they already lost. Ireland will be reunified within a couple decades.
>>503568 Leftism is in practice rule by intellectuals, therefore left-wing ideologies will always have the support of "smarter" people. That's why right-wing ideologies with mass support are always formed by "historically illiterate" people, from the Nazis believing that white people came from Ultima Thule to the Hindu nationalists who believe the "Out of India" theory of Indo-European migration.
That doesn't mean they are wrong, though, that just means they don't have the support of the intelligentsia. If you consider the kind of ideology that had the support of intellectuals across the last century, such as Maoism and dependency theory, they are much worse. I would rather be ruled by a "historical illiterate" loyalist plumber than by a very educated Irish nationalist academician.
>>503616 Loyalists in Northern Ireland have a very impressive track record of academic censorship. As a historian who wants to practice my profession freely and without interference, it isn't in my best interests to support them.
>>503639 They're both squabbling shit that should be ancient history. Fucking Orangemen extol a victory from 1693 which involved Dutch Catholic troops and being allied to Pope Alexander VIII. But of course these inbred retards don't read history.
And Nationalists still think that bombing and other shit is acceptable practice despite the Good Friday Agreement and actual reforms taking place.
Shit like this is why I wish there's a massive plague that kills off 99% of humanity so that the level-headed ones that survive can make a better world.
>>503602 >Mainstream "cuckservatives" proving their respectability by denying association with extremists wings of right-wing political movements is a typical modern phenomenom. In the end, it always result in the complete destruction of the conservatism base because without the vigour of the "extremists" the cuckservatives cannot resist the left-wing assault. The victim complex and interracial fetishism of the American right wing don't really apply to Ireland.
>If Protestants are abandoning loyalism as "embarassing", then they already lost. Ireland will be reunified within a couple decades. Unionism =/= loyalism. Loyalism is a millstone around Unionism's neck, and now that they are throwing off that weight unionism is stronger than ever. You can't force people to be loyal by acting retarded, it was never going to work.
>>503681 >The Real IRA group a mafia and not representative of literally any community, even the shittyest parts of West Belfast and South Armagh.
>>503630 ethnic tensions in Ireland are probably better than most Western countries. Go to Brussels, Paris or Missouri and tell me it's more peaceful than Belfast. That's without even mentioning the Republic where no-one gives a fuck about your background.
Do you actually think something like this completely invalidates the fact that the British government has absolutely no leg to stand on with its continued occupation of Northern Ireland? Dailymail comments section might be more your speed.
Until the 1960s, religion determined whether or not you were a second class citizen, and until the GFA in 1998 many businesses and schools refused entry to applicants based on their religion.
In fact in the runup to the referendum, many Unionist parties stated they would refuse to share power with Catholics. Not that they wouldn't share power with nationalist parties, that they wouldn't share power with Catholics.
>>504180 >Do you actually think something like this completely invalidates the fact that the British government has absolutely no leg to stand on with its continued occupation of Northern Ireland?
Apart from the fact that about three quarters want to stay in the UK? That it is legally completely sound? That it made complete sense at the time and still does? And that it avoided a second irish civil war?
>>505229 The province of Ulster had a catholic majority at the time of partition and the borders of NI were chosen to keep a protestant majority while also including the most economically productive Catholic areas. This left catholic majority areas on the "wrong side" of the border.
There is a shitload of politics behind the drawing of the border but that's the basics of it.
The point is that Northen Ireland did not exist at this stage and it shows that the vast majority on the whole island, which was a complete entity at this time as is its natural state (being an island and all) were in favour of complete independence, the majorities wishes were ignored in favour of a tiny foreign minority and now we have faggots crying about terrorism.
>>505888 >How is that apologising for terrorism? I dunno, maybe by literally making excuses for terrorist acts?
I am not defending the acts of British government, this is not a black and white conflict where there are goodies and baddies, excusing terrorism carried out against civilian targets because "lol they r bad 2" is retarded.
I think you are using total hypebole to obscure the actual course of events, since at least 75% of the people the IRA killed were members of the security forces. Also find it interesting you would invent this example when Loyalist terrorists like in the OP pic exclusively killed unarmed civilians because of their religion, not to mention the fact the British government had officially sanctioned death squads in operation who sometimes killed barristers who represented IRA suspects, among others.
>>505962 Hyperbole for effect, not malicious other than to take the piss out of your one-eyed apologism. 63% were servicemen going by the oft quoted "about" 650 figure going around at the time of the IRA apology. Again, you are using the sins of the other side to excuse indiscriminate attacks harming civilians.
>>506035 If you really thought it was a buzzword why didn't you say so initially rather than waiting until you had no ammo left. Call it terrorism, call it "legitimate asymmetrical war tactics" or whatever weasel words you like, you are still making excuses for attacks perpetrated with little or no regard for civilians caught in an inevitable crossfire, just because the other mob was bad too.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that if Hitler had won WW2 and invaded England and carried out his plans there, you are saying it would be completely wrong for British people to resist in any way, "just because the other mob was bad too"?
>>508654 Someone decided to create themselves a waifu free of all the things that left them feeling embittered about women, who reflected their ideals without question and accommodates their sexual insecurities.
>the least evil >killed marginally less than the loyalists >35% of 723 dead is 253 whereas 51.5% of 187 is 96 - there is no definition of what constitutes "civilian" (our wee jimmy dindu nuffin so he didn't) >least evil
Approximately 60% of the dead were killed by republicans, 30% by loyalists and 10% by British security forces. Responsibility for killing Responsible party No. Republican paramilitary groups 2058 Loyalist paramilitary groups 1026 British security forces 363 Persons unknown 79 Irish security forces 5 Total 3531
According to Malcolm Sutton's Index of Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland:
from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
but plenty of sources if you want to verify the numbers. the most interest statistic is this:
>Approximately 60% of the dead were killed by republicans, 30% by loyalists and 10% by British security forces.
>>509096 >a distinct pause in the sentence structure
Not him, but commas don't exist to reflect 'pauses in the sentence structure', which aren't actually a thing, grammatically.
Prescriptivist critique: >No, my ancestry is English. So I guess I'm the eternal Anglo.
Vocative comma required after "So". You got it right in the first sentence, shocking lapse in the second.
>But you know, nice way to reinforce your appearance of being defensive, by automatically resorting to /pol/tard insults.
Again a vocative comma is required after "But". Commas don't merely exist to separate clauses, and not all clauses are created equal, so either a dash or a colon should follow "... you know", rather than a comma. I'd recommend the dash, particularly since the next clause break is of a similar nature - I'd recommend a colon after "... being defensive" (I mean, if you actually want to do the whole prescriptivist punctuation thing, then I'd recommend rephrasing so that it's not all packed into one sentence. But it's up to yourself).
Is there a reason I should care? A reason I shouldn't just point to the numerous distinct but overlapping definitions of 'terrorism' widely accepted, which clearly indicate that the PIRA were indeed terrorists?
>>509286 >>509249 >In its broadest sense, terrorism is any act designed to cause terror. In a narrower sense, terrorism can be understood to feature a political objective. The word terrorism is politically loaded and emotionally charged.
>U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
>On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, 'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization terrorist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism
>>509388 >U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
They didn't deliberately target civilians, the civilians (and terror) was a by-product of their campaign.
Otherwise every military on the planet should be considered terrorists.
>>509388 >Why would you think I'd be inclined to dispute that I don't know if you're the same person I've been talking to.
Basically my point was that people use the excuse "but they're terrorists" to oppose the IRA, overlooking the fact that everyone in the Troubles was a "terrorist", usually out of ignorance. I know you didn't say that, and nobody in the thread did but my original post wasn't directed at anyone, I was just posting the percentage of civilians killed by different factions.
Calling in a warning is a) not dispositive of "targeting civilians" and b) part of the process of "creating terror".
>>509406 >Otherwise every military on the planet should be considered terrorists.
The definition you're using specifies non-State actors or clandestine subsets of State actors. So, no, basically.
>>509413 >Basically my point was that people use the excuse "but they're terrorists" to oppose the IRA, overlooking the fact that everyone in the Troubles was a "terrorist", usually out of ignorance
The only reason this stands out is that the PIRA are the party attempting to effect change, and the other parties are attempting to maintain the status quo. And even then, it only becomes in some way hypocritical if you consider it impossible to want a united Ireland while also opposing the PIRA. That's not impossible, so this just isn't an issue.
>>509429 >The only reason this stands out is that the PIRA are the party attempting to effect change, and the other parties are attempting to maintain the status quo. That's not really a good description. Change was already being affected by the civil rights movement, and the troubles were began by Loyalists in reaction to this. While the Republicans' stated goals were radical their actions were initially restrained. This changed later in the conflict as it escalated.
>And even then, it only becomes in some way hypocritical if you consider it impossible to want a united Ireland while also opposing the PIRA. That's not impossible, so this just isn't an issue. I know it's not impossible, I'm one of those people. I don't really see how this is relevant to the point I made though.
the brits weren't in the habit of shooting suspected informers or people it deemed worthy of death. i don't recall the brits taking part in any kneecappings. these were the bread and butter of organised gangs seeking to control the territories in which they operated. the IRA and INLA were just as involved as the UDF and UDA.
even the worst death caused by the british army, bloody sunday, was - at best - spur of the moment, caused by paranoid squaddies shooting a bunch of civilians. the raging homosexuals of the parachute regiment never went to derry to shoot people deliberately - unlike the various loyalist and republican outfits who deliberately set out to cause civilian deaths, either singly or en masse.
there is no equivalency between a terrorist organisation which is completely unaccountable to anyone but some shadowy "command structure" (i.e. thomas murphy or mad dog adair) and a military force which is accountable to the elected representatives of the state and which has to abide by the rules of that state.
>>509543 >The civil rights movement in and of itself should be regarded as 'status quo' since the relevant change is ending or not ending Partition. That was my point regarding civil rights, the first shots were fired by Loyalists attempting to stop civil rights, "affecting change" in that sense. People forget that the troubles weren't originally about a United Ireland.
This is kind of the root of my problem. The Loyalist aspect of the troubles is frequently overlooked (not by you) and the most common arguments used to demonise the nationalist side of the troubles are made in ignorance of and made redundant by the Loyalist's actions.
>>509598 >That was my point regarding civil rights, the first shots were fired by Loyalists attempting to stop civil rights, "affecting change" in that sense.
I said "effecting change", not "affecting change". Being a bit pedantic, but 'effecting' something is bringing it about, causing it to happen. 'Affecting' something is influencing it. By attempting to stymie the Civil Rights movement, the Loyalists were attempting to maintain the status quo - ie, to ensure that Catholics remained marginalised and underrepresented. Don't you think?
>>509565 >the brits weren't in the habit of shooting suspected informers or people it deemed worthy of death. i don't recall the brits taking part in any kneecappings. Not kneecappings but they did do drive by shootings on catholic civilians, as well as colluding with Loyalist terror attacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Reaction_Force. That's without even mentioning the more commonly known events like bloody sunday, or the non-fatal shit like internment without trial.
>these were the bread and butter of organised gangs seeking to control the territories in which they operated. Territories had to be controlled as if they weren't an angry mob would come and burn down a row of houses. It wasn't just a turf war. The reason the IRA gained support is defending neighbourhoods, not bombings etc.
>which is accountable to the elected representatives of the state and which has to abide by the rules of that state. The point is that the British state did not abide by it's own rules, and did not have any more scruples than the IRA did despite having vastly more money and the state monopoly on violence.
>>509627 Well, the point of a military is to defend people.
PIRA saw themselves as defending the Catholics from a Protestant apartheid state, and from a British government that hid their sectarianism behind a thin veneer of law and order.
It's pointless what we think about it, because the point of an insurgent group is to be beholden to no one except for the civilian population that they draw support from. And the Irish Catholics saw them as a better path to political recognition than the British government, not unrightfully so.
Of course all war crimes are to be detested, but they're a part of war. If the British government, with the world's best system of jurisprudence, couldn't keep their soldiers from committing war crimes, how was a ragtag outfit of guerillas supposed to do it?
>>509613 >I said "effecting change", not "affecting change". Being a bit pedantic, but 'effecting' something is bringing it about, causing it to happen. 'Affecting' something is influencing it. my bad.
>By attempting to stymie the Civil Rights movement, the Loyalists were attempting to maintain the status quo - ie, to ensure that Catholics remained marginalised and underrepresented. Don't you think? I agree with what you're saying in general but in the context of this argument that's not what either of us said. You said yourself that the civil rights movement can be regarded as status quo.
The only reason I think the status quo is important in terms of justifying violence is in a kind of "they started it" way, and Loyalists threw the first stone in the troubles. In that sense they were the ones acting against the peaceful status quo
>>509733 >There seems to be an awful lot less nationalists here than in similar threads I've seen on /int/ and /b/ (don't go on /pol/ often enough to comment but I imagine it'd be majority unionist) Don't go on /b/ but /pol/ is full Loyalist tier.
/int/ is a normie board so it's understandable there's less /pol/ shit there than here, also I think non-/pol/ /his/ people are quite sceptical so nationalists are probably here but less likely to defend the 'ra. That's how I am anyway, I'm nationalist but I don't go shilling for the IRA when they're brought up on /his/
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.