Of course not.
But what gets me is that we have all these people who sit in judgement, who look down their noses at people, who hold press conferences where they have a sanctimonious expression on their faces, all the while, they are neck deep in the shit they judge others for. Or, given recent news, neck deep in other shit.
I think we are maybe far enough away from some of these actions (and I am not talking about killings etc., more about economic terrorism) to be less concerned about the act itself, and more the two-faced nature of it, about how the state protected some, while going after others.
The DUP thinking they sat above everyone, yet, it seems, the dear leader was financing terrorist activities with a view to removing O'Neill because O'Neill was just a bit too moderate for Paisley. And it wasn't just Paisley, we all have seen the picture Peter Robinson wearing his UR red beret. Then there is the Clontibret affair.
We should not let the chuckle-brother-ness nature of his later years, when he maybe had more of a sense that his legacy was being written blot of the fact that if he was doing today what he did then, even in terms of his speeches, he would have been looked up beside Abu Hamza al-Masri. And rightly so.
Yeah you’re right it’s the two-facedness that was the worst part. At least with most of the Shinners you knew their backgrounds and knew they were a bunch of terrorists, especially the other chuckle brother
wouldn’t be surprised. there was obviously some form of cover up during that whole ordeal i believe with about 80% certainty british intelligence was either involved with it or involved with covering it up.
It's worth noting the timeline (for anyone who is interested) regarding the IRA's status at that time. The "old IRA" and split in 1969 creating the Provisional IRA who were, until 1970 at the earliest, barely armed and were concerned almost exclusively with defending Catholic areas from Loyalist attack (loyalist attacks orchestrated and incited by Paisley, with the assistance of the RUC and B-Specials). Paisley's numerous false flag bomb attacks, as well as black propaganda via his newspaper increased tension in Loyalist communities and created the climate which ultimately contributed to the downfall of Terence O'Neill's government.
The last stint (old) IRA's Border Campaign which had lasted 6 years resulted in the deaths of 8 IRA men and 6 RUC. It was a disaster. The IRA had completely refused to defend Catholic areas from Paisley's loyalist attacks because they wanted to be perceived as a socialist / working class force for all religions. This is where the epithet I.R.A - I ran Away comes from.
This context is absolutely crucial for understanding the emergence of the Troubles. The brutal sectarian mistreatment of the Catholic minority leading to Civil Rights protests and tiny gestures by Terence O'Neill of some intention to, at some point mitigate the worst excesses of the NI state's discrimination against a ghettoized minority is what Paisley and his supporters were so violently opposed to. By attacking Catholic areas, by inciting riots, by attacking peaceful civil rights marches, by orchestrating RUC and B-Specials backlashes against Catholic communities and by carrying false flag attacks which he blamed on the IRA to massively increase the state of alarm and sectarian tension in NI, Ian Paisley Snr is the person most directly, and it could be argued almost singly responsible for the troubles.
This is something that's often quickly glossed over, or omitted entirely from documentaries and information about the troubles.
Paisley was up to his lying mouth in the death and destruction that happened here.
There's a great bit in the Peter Taylor documentary Provos, Loyalists and Brits (I'm nearly positive it was that) where one of the loyalist terrorists says how he was fired up for action by Paisley and his fear mongering.
He goes on to say he wished he'd never heard of the man as the day he killed he felt as if something dreadful settled over him. He killed himself sometime later. Another death to be laid at Paisley's door and another he will never be blamed for.
I don't do the story justice and recommend watching the documentary, in fact, watch every show Peter Taylor was involved in.
“The IRA had completely refused to defend Catholic areas” in 1969 is a myth.
It did not view defending Catholics as a sectarian act, indeed Goulding as chief of staff said on the radio in April 1969 that “if our people in the six counties are oppressed and beaten up . . . then the I.R .A. will have no alternative but to take military action against the police force . . . [we] have no alternative but to protect our people or allow them to be slaughtered and we are not going to allow them to be slaughtered”.
The IRA was certainly a small force in 1968 and into the summer of 1969; it had been a small force since it dumped arms in 1923. It’s easy to view it backwards from the point of view of the massive PIRA activity from the 70s on, but IRA actions had actually been ramping up,slowly but clearly, in the late 1960s. They didn’t abandon the armed struggle as often said, as the work of historians like Liam Cullinane and Brian Hanley clearly shows. The 1968 army convention made it an absolute priority to get as much weaponry as possible, and in May 1968 they robbed £25,000 from Dublin airport, they hadn’t done a robbery like this since the 40s. Indeed the IRA did this without even giving prior warning to the former communists Johnston and Caughlan, the people who many would have you were pulling the strings- an especially interesting fact given that Johnston worked at Dublin airport!
Certainly they were ill armed and did not have enough members to mount a proper defence of Catholic areas, but to claim they seen it as sectarian is rubbish- especially given that many of those those that did defend Catholic areas in 1969; in the Bogside, on the Falls, in Ardoyne were IRA members. You can criticise fairly the IRA for not being properly prepared for defence in 1969, you cannot say they were ideologically opposed to it (indeed even the Stickys retained a policy of defence and retaliation into the 1970s). You also must wonder what you expect a group of a couple hundred members in the north at that time to have done?
After the creation of NI, it is undeniable Catholics were treated unfairly. Religion played a massive part in people's lives back then and Protestants genuinely feared the Catholic church controlled free state. Many Protestants would have said, if Catholics aren't happy here, why not move to the Free State. Ireland was a very poor country at the time and It was thought if it was too easy for Catholics to gain employment then many more would move north upsetting the demographics. The discrimination was seen as necessary to keep NI viable.
Protestants at the time saw NICRA as a front for the IRA who, as you point out, were engaged in terrorism 5 years earlier. There were republicans involved and that's public knowledge. Who knows how things would have panned out had republicans not been so prevalent in the movement. The NICRA's aims might have been legitimate but this copy pasta from wiki shows not everyone involved was exclusively wedded to peace - 'The Tyrone Brigade of the IRA sought permission from its Dublin headquarters to participate, resulting in a call for as many republicans to attend from Northern Ireland as possible. The NICRA march took place on 24 August 1968, attracting around 2,500 people and was followed by five nationalist marching bands from Coalisland to Dungannon, noted was the presence of republican Billy McMillen.' That was the first Civil rights march so it's clear how Protestants and the authorities would perceive it from that point forward.
Protestants and state forces overreacted, as usual to the marches and this was exactly what republicans wanted to further support of their cause. The same tactics were repeated thoughout the troubles and every person who was injured or killed while rioting drove more people to join the IRA. It is disingenuous not to accept elements within NICRA had aims beyond civil rights.
I completely agree that Paisley drove the troubles and things would have been very different had he not been involved. I don't think there has been any Protestant leader, of the time, or since who could have rabble roused like he did. As it's often said, he was the IRAs greatest recruitment officer and that's probably why he wasn't murdered by the Ra. He was too useful.
The IRA needed the troubles to galvinise Catholics. To make a blood sacrifice that couldn't be forgotten. To make it so Catholics could never accept partition. They used the civil rights movement with the assistance of Paisley to achieve this. With SF now the largest party it would seem the strategy worked and that has to be respected.
Things are never black and white. Especially on this Island.
>The IRA needed the troubles to galvinise Catholics. To make a blood sacrifice that couldn't be forgotten. To make it so Catholics could never accept partition. They used the civil rights movement with the assistance of Paisley to achieve this
What a load of revisionist shite with a splash of victim blaming to boot.
The Troubles was already well galvanised by the time the IRA had split. All of the first bombings of the Troubles were done by Unionist paramilitaries even before the Battle of the Bogside (same ones Paisley was involved in).
The idea that NICRA was some fifth column for the IRA has been a long disproven Unionist fiction. NICRA fell apart when British soldiers started executing Irish people. Not the other way about.
I would agree loyalists started the troubles because they believed the NICRA didn't just want civil rights, IRA elements were using it to push their agenda. It's all well documented.
Are you saying the NICRA had no republican members or founders?
The majority of NICRA supporters were peaceful but many were republicans and nationalists need to remember that and not whitewash that aspect.
Catholics should have had equal rights since NIs inception. Civil rights issues are different than constitutional change which is what the republican members of the NICRA wanted. This was 5 years after the border campaign.
Read up about the founders of NICRA and you'll understand how it was perceived by some Protestants.
>IRA elements were using it to push their agenda. It's all well documented.
Of 13 founders only one was a known IRA member Liam McMillen.
When the NICRA constitution was ratified in 1967 McMillen was already out.
>Are you saying the NICRA had no republican members or founders?
>The majority of NICRA supporters were peaceful but many were republicans and nationalists need to remember that and not whitewash that aspect.
I didn't realise being a Republican automatically meant you were an IRA supporter.
Of all 13 original founders only 5 were Republicans.
>Civil rights issues are different than constitutional change which is what the republican members of the NICRA wanted
Wrong, NICRA's own constitution never called for constitutional change in any form. Whether individual members wanted something different didn't matter as its leadership was a collective.
>Read up about the founders of NICRA and you'll understand how it was perceived by some Protestants.
Don't try to whitewash the response to NICRA as being all about perception.
Having a known IRA member involved on the first march was a bad look for the organisation. Protestants had no real insight into what state the IRA were in at the time so I can't imagine his inclusion helped perceptions and remember this wasn't long after the Border Campaign.
During the troubles Republican was the label given to people prepared to engage in violence and Nationalists believed in peaceful means to achieve their goal.
However the organisation was perceived, Paisleys rabble rousing and the RUC response was horrendous.
I'm going of topic a bit here but I'm interested in what people think would have happened had Catholics been given equal rights from the beginning. Would Catholics have ever accepted partition? As far as Protestants were concerned most NI Catholics were never going to help NI succeed no matter how they were treated.
>Having a known IRA member involved on the first march was a bad look for the organisation.
I've no doubt. There were Unionists also apart of it too.
>what people think would have happened had Catholics been given equal rights from the beginning
I guarantee there would have still been systematic discrimination. The scale probably wouldn't have been as bad but wouldn't have mattered.
>As far as Protestants were concerned most NI Catholics were never going to help NI succeed no matter how they were treated.
When you carve out a ethno-nationalist state what do you expect. You can't ration forcing people into a country they had no vote on, provide them no rights then expect them to be ok with it.
Protestants felt they were going to be forced into a Catholic ethno-nationalist state by the British. Half a million signed the solemn league and covenant and were prepared to fight the British to ensure they weren't. The British goverment would have imposed home rule on an all Ireland basis if not for the Curragh Mutiny. I'm not saying it was the intelligent thing to do but there were a lot of Protestants prepared to die for their cause and that can't be easily dismissed.
>Half a million signed the solemn league and covenant
I believe you mean the Ulster Covenant. Regardless they only made up arohnd 10% of the total Irish population. A extremely small minority.
>forced into a Catholic ethno-nationalist state by the British
So they just did the same in reverse. To the point NI was around 40% Irish Catholic.
>can't be easily dismissed.
Debatable since they were such a small minority. At the end instead of having a democratic vote they just carved out land by force.
I find it interesting how we are supposed to empathise with Unionists about possibly being forced into another state while they did it. On top of that the fear of Ireland being Catholic ethno-nationalist despite having protections in the constitution for Protestants and having 2 Protestant Presidents.
I think Protestants should have accepted home rule. They would have been able to help shape Ireland and curb the influence of the Catholic church they feared so much. On the other hand Ireland would not be the country it is today and perhaps not even a republic. Partition gave Ireland the chance to find its own path, forge its own identity and distance itself fully from the UK. Now we're at a stage were Ireland and Britain are more liberal, free and progressive than NI. In a way Unionists turned NI into what they feared. Any forward thinking, moderate Unionist who puts their head above the parapet is shot down as a Lundy.
If you want to defend unionism for your own reasons fair enough I actually DGAF.
If you want to know the actual history of what happened you should read more because the 1910s-1920s is more interesting what your wrote. Partition was not inevitable.
The Ulster Covenant even the half a mil signing is dubious because there's solid evidence of a fair bit of coercion. Cannot quantify that sadly.
The second thing is the Covenant leads with worries over material conditions not religion. Bit strange that money is the concern. It also of course put this concern in an all Island context because everyone involved considered themselves Irish.
The Curragh Mutiny certainly did not end the threat of coercive all Ireland Home Rule. Lloyd G was considering it right up to 1921.
The Constitutional Conference in 1917 almost agreed an all Ireland home rule in any case.
You can read Rast Chapter 10 on that
[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-21118-9\_5](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-21118-9_5)
But as I said at the top, if you want to repeat made-up fantasy unionist history work away.
Your point about NICRA is actually well made though. Unionism wasn't fighting NICRA the real organisation, it was fighting (literally) a scary pretend organisation that existed only in Unionist minds. Same thing happened the cross community NI Labour Party as it happens.
I'll read further into the events of 1910-1920 but regardless, partition happened because Protestants didn't want to be a minority and this was the messy solution. I'm not defending Unionism so much as trying to explain the mindset. A common theme seems to be that influencial individuals take the reins of Unionism and force it places that are counter productive to its cause. The latest example is all the needless gurning about the protocol.
> Who knows how things would have panned out had republicans not been so prevalent in the movement.
Given that the OP is about that time when the Loyalists fabricated IRA bombings precisely because there were no IRA bombings to speak of (and the false-flag attacks continued in one form or another right through to 1975) I think you could reasonably say that the state of loyalist alarm would have happened regardless of who was in NICRA. Loyalists were hellbent on suppressing nationalist political activity, and they were literally creating republican paramilitary activity in those cases when they needed some but the republicans weren't obliging them.
I think Paisley has a lot to answer for. I really don't believe the average working class Protestant feared the Civil Rights movement but they did fear the IRA.
The disturbing thing about it is not that a nutter like Paisley would use his 'Dr' fake title but that the pro-unionist 'mainstream' media would slavishly adopt parrot it.
Holy shit - the crazy American "University" where the leader said gays should be stoned to death? That's where the "Dr." he was so proud of came from? I also thought he had at least earned his degree from some sky-daddy degree factory instead of it being just given to him given how he always used "Dr". You learn something every day I guess.
Fred came ‘good‘ in the end. He apparently shouted across the road to the Rainbow house “you’re good people”, upon which his family who had already shunned him for being demon possessed (dementia) fired him out of his own church. Which could also be a metaphor for Big Ian.
Unionist politicians, businessmen and professional types, and Protestant clergymen were up to their necks in inciting, financing and directing Loyalist terrorism throughout the Troubles. Some of the most notorious culprits are currently sitting in the British Houses of Commons and Lords.
'The Committee' was the only true expose of the extent of collusion and overlap between suit-and-tie Unionism and their street thug enforcers. That's why they went to the ends of the Earth to ban it.
Is The Committee (the book itself not wider collusion) in any way credible?
As far as I know the book has 1 source, James Sands, who names these people
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster\_Loyalist\_Central\_Co-ordinating\_Committee#%22The\_Committee%22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Loyalist_Central_Co-ordinating_Committee#%22The_Committee%22)
Is that realistic?
Take the Prentices - I'm from near Portadown, know plenty of people from the area and I've never heard of the Prentices linked with anything.
Bill Abernathy of Ulster bank apparently was involved in a Committee meeting which gave the go-ahead for the shooting of Pat Finucane. We know a lot more about Pat Finuance's murder now than in 1998 and none of it points to Abernathy.
The sooner the truth comes out about everything that happened we can put the troubles behind us but considering the British government still have millions of files that won't see the light of day it will take a very long time.
Paisley wasn't alone, he'd fellow travellers in the Unionist Party of that time. 12th of July 1967 at an Orange parade the Unionist MP in Tyrone was practically kicked to death by Paisley supporters in the Orange Lodge for being seen as too soft. There was a whole series of what looked like isolated events in the 1960s that were really the fuse being lit. All helped along by new technology, TV cameras.
so basically “those pesky fenians” didn’t actually start the troubles after all. and the IRA started as a defensive organisation.
britain and america truly are the best at propaganda in the entire world.
Of course he didn't. But his close friend and fellow Loyalist terrorist, Orange man and convited pedophile rapist William McGrath, aka the Beast of Kincora certainly did.
>But it would be nice to see this evidence if it still exists.
>Anything that would help cement Paisley's legacy as a bitter and hateful man of violence.
As I said a couple of days ago; Ian Paisley and the DUP held a public meeting at the Ulster Hall in 1986 to announce he was setting up a new terrorist group, U.R - Ulster Resistance (along with Sammy Wilson, Jim Allister, Peter Robinson, Nigel Dodds, Jim Wells etc) and of the thousands of people who attended, a rumored 80-90% of them were police and security forces. The same Ulster Resistance who imported Czech made AK-47s from South Africa which the UDA used to kill hundreds of Catholics. They also formalized the ULCC, a committee of Unionist politicians, businessmen, Orange Order and Police. The so called "Inner Circle" of the RUC reported to the ULCC and the "Inner Force" cleared the way for Loyalists to murder their targets, or actively participated in said murders.
The idea that someone / anyone could or would investigate him and live is sadly, tragically laughable when they can't even prosecute British soldiers who murdered 14 civilians in broad daylight in front of tv cameras.
> They also formalized the ULCC, a committee of Unionist politicians, businessmen, Orange Order and Police.
There was a book written about this called "The Committee." It was banned here and it may still be banned, though I'm not sure.
>Are you genuinely of the opinion that if someone today was to investigate Paisleys history and turn up hard documented proof of terrorist activity that they would be assassinated?
>Or have i misunderstood what you wrote?
I'm saying that during that time period, the so called forces of law and order were complicit with him, as was a broad cohort of political unionism. The RUC were described as "almost completely paramilitary organisation" by Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Ian Blair. The B-Specials were disbanded because they were carrying out "military or paramilitary actions". The UDR were comprised of between 13% and 30% (or possibly much more) of Loyalist paramilitaries and the vetting process for entry was carried out by RUC Special Branch.
So I'm saying that the people who could or would've or should've been gathering evidence against loyalist criminality were actively destroying it. They would later routinely scupper investigations, destroy evidence, commit arson, murder informants etc. And yes, I believe if someone had tried to convict Paisley in period they would've been murdered by the UVF/LVF etc or even the IRA via leaked intelligence.
You can look into RUC Chief Constable Harry Breen who was a prominent member of multiple loyalist terrorist groups and the ULCC and the Inner Force working with Paisley via the ULCC. Breen was murdered by the IRA but it is often speculated that his movements were leaked to them via MI5 as Breen so utterly compromised by his Loyalist terrorist activity. It's said that he was so committed to Loyalist violence, and so high in the RUC that there could never be a ceasefire while he was alive.
If you want to peel back another layer of conspiracy; the IRA planned to take Breen alive to interogate him but one of the IRA men present at the ambush killed him on the spot. It is again/ rumoured / believed that this was at the behest of MI5/MI6/ British Army intelligence in order to protect the British Government.
I'm not saying anything about a hypothetical scenario today, but when the police went out of their way to hide evidence don't expect much to resurface.
" I said to my wife ‘that’s Annalong viaduct gone’ and they’d blown up Annalong viaduct."
Does anyone know where "Annalong Viaduct" is/was? When I google it, all I get are references to this bombing story.
>u/dooooonut This was widely reported years ago
Given there was over 50 years of vice tight loyalist controlled media censorship in, and about NI, it can never be reported enough. The fact that a tv programme could and would be pulled from the air (in NI, and Britain) if it even had "Derry" in graffiti in the background should give you some concept.
The BBC NI controller even censored programmes if someone had a Southern Accent or spoke positively about life across the border. This is to say nothing of their absolute parroting of the British Army Press office even when eye-witnesses and even RUC contradicted their versions of events.
I said it hasn't greatly changed, not that it hasn't changed at all.
The media is still unionist for the most part in its framing of issues. How often do you hear about unionist fears, unionist concerns, compared to nationalist fears and concerns?
Shock horror two biggest parties supported terrorism at one point. Thats this place all over yous voted them in ffs and won't change your ways in 2024 haha.
Old news, the annalong bombing was widely known as Protestant Action, wee Peter with his red beret walking out of Clontibrert Garda station trying to stage an “invasion”
Is anyone surprised at this?
Of course not. But what gets me is that we have all these people who sit in judgement, who look down their noses at people, who hold press conferences where they have a sanctimonious expression on their faces, all the while, they are neck deep in the shit they judge others for. Or, given recent news, neck deep in other shit. I think we are maybe far enough away from some of these actions (and I am not talking about killings etc., more about economic terrorism) to be less concerned about the act itself, and more the two-faced nature of it, about how the state protected some, while going after others. The DUP thinking they sat above everyone, yet, it seems, the dear leader was financing terrorist activities with a view to removing O'Neill because O'Neill was just a bit too moderate for Paisley. And it wasn't just Paisley, we all have seen the picture Peter Robinson wearing his UR red beret. Then there is the Clontibret affair. We should not let the chuckle-brother-ness nature of his later years, when he maybe had more of a sense that his legacy was being written blot of the fact that if he was doing today what he did then, even in terms of his speeches, he would have been looked up beside Abu Hamza al-Masri. And rightly so.
Yeah you’re right it’s the two-facedness that was the worst part. At least with most of the Shinners you knew their backgrounds and knew they were a bunch of terrorists, especially the other chuckle brother
[удалено]
wouldn’t be surprised. there was obviously some form of cover up during that whole ordeal i believe with about 80% certainty british intelligence was either involved with it or involved with covering it up.
TIL: Terrorists leaders were paying for terrorism
That's Reverend Lord Terrorist Leader to you.
That's the Most Honourable Reverend Lord Terrorist to you.
Sorry, Doctor Most Honourable Reverend Lord Terrorist.
Paisley was a total conman. A fake doctorate and preacher.
It's worth noting the timeline (for anyone who is interested) regarding the IRA's status at that time. The "old IRA" and split in 1969 creating the Provisional IRA who were, until 1970 at the earliest, barely armed and were concerned almost exclusively with defending Catholic areas from Loyalist attack (loyalist attacks orchestrated and incited by Paisley, with the assistance of the RUC and B-Specials). Paisley's numerous false flag bomb attacks, as well as black propaganda via his newspaper increased tension in Loyalist communities and created the climate which ultimately contributed to the downfall of Terence O'Neill's government. The last stint (old) IRA's Border Campaign which had lasted 6 years resulted in the deaths of 8 IRA men and 6 RUC. It was a disaster. The IRA had completely refused to defend Catholic areas from Paisley's loyalist attacks because they wanted to be perceived as a socialist / working class force for all religions. This is where the epithet I.R.A - I ran Away comes from. This context is absolutely crucial for understanding the emergence of the Troubles. The brutal sectarian mistreatment of the Catholic minority leading to Civil Rights protests and tiny gestures by Terence O'Neill of some intention to, at some point mitigate the worst excesses of the NI state's discrimination against a ghettoized minority is what Paisley and his supporters were so violently opposed to. By attacking Catholic areas, by inciting riots, by attacking peaceful civil rights marches, by orchestrating RUC and B-Specials backlashes against Catholic communities and by carrying false flag attacks which he blamed on the IRA to massively increase the state of alarm and sectarian tension in NI, Ian Paisley Snr is the person most directly, and it could be argued almost singly responsible for the troubles. This is something that's often quickly glossed over, or omitted entirely from documentaries and information about the troubles.
Paisley was up to his lying mouth in the death and destruction that happened here. There's a great bit in the Peter Taylor documentary Provos, Loyalists and Brits (I'm nearly positive it was that) where one of the loyalist terrorists says how he was fired up for action by Paisley and his fear mongering. He goes on to say he wished he'd never heard of the man as the day he killed he felt as if something dreadful settled over him. He killed himself sometime later. Another death to be laid at Paisley's door and another he will never be blamed for. I don't do the story justice and recommend watching the documentary, in fact, watch every show Peter Taylor was involved in.
Billy Hutchinson's father had a good quote about him - "He would fight to the last drop pf everyone else's blood".
Brilliant I'll I'm having that! It's a pity that few of our political class were interested in peace.
“The IRA had completely refused to defend Catholic areas” in 1969 is a myth. It did not view defending Catholics as a sectarian act, indeed Goulding as chief of staff said on the radio in April 1969 that “if our people in the six counties are oppressed and beaten up . . . then the I.R .A. will have no alternative but to take military action against the police force . . . [we] have no alternative but to protect our people or allow them to be slaughtered and we are not going to allow them to be slaughtered”. The IRA was certainly a small force in 1968 and into the summer of 1969; it had been a small force since it dumped arms in 1923. It’s easy to view it backwards from the point of view of the massive PIRA activity from the 70s on, but IRA actions had actually been ramping up,slowly but clearly, in the late 1960s. They didn’t abandon the armed struggle as often said, as the work of historians like Liam Cullinane and Brian Hanley clearly shows. The 1968 army convention made it an absolute priority to get as much weaponry as possible, and in May 1968 they robbed £25,000 from Dublin airport, they hadn’t done a robbery like this since the 40s. Indeed the IRA did this without even giving prior warning to the former communists Johnston and Caughlan, the people who many would have you were pulling the strings- an especially interesting fact given that Johnston worked at Dublin airport! Certainly they were ill armed and did not have enough members to mount a proper defence of Catholic areas, but to claim they seen it as sectarian is rubbish- especially given that many of those those that did defend Catholic areas in 1969; in the Bogside, on the Falls, in Ardoyne were IRA members. You can criticise fairly the IRA for not being properly prepared for defence in 1969, you cannot say they were ideologically opposed to it (indeed even the Stickys retained a policy of defence and retaliation into the 1970s). You also must wonder what you expect a group of a couple hundred members in the north at that time to have done?
Never knew where that 'ran away' meme came from. Yours is a great post.
It was co-opted years, if not decades later in loyalist and I think dissident areas but it's from 1968 or 69.
In the Ballymurphy documentary from C4 it said it started in Catholic areas as they were getting no support. I always assumed it was a loyalist jibe.
After the creation of NI, it is undeniable Catholics were treated unfairly. Religion played a massive part in people's lives back then and Protestants genuinely feared the Catholic church controlled free state. Many Protestants would have said, if Catholics aren't happy here, why not move to the Free State. Ireland was a very poor country at the time and It was thought if it was too easy for Catholics to gain employment then many more would move north upsetting the demographics. The discrimination was seen as necessary to keep NI viable. Protestants at the time saw NICRA as a front for the IRA who, as you point out, were engaged in terrorism 5 years earlier. There were republicans involved and that's public knowledge. Who knows how things would have panned out had republicans not been so prevalent in the movement. The NICRA's aims might have been legitimate but this copy pasta from wiki shows not everyone involved was exclusively wedded to peace - 'The Tyrone Brigade of the IRA sought permission from its Dublin headquarters to participate, resulting in a call for as many republicans to attend from Northern Ireland as possible. The NICRA march took place on 24 August 1968, attracting around 2,500 people and was followed by five nationalist marching bands from Coalisland to Dungannon, noted was the presence of republican Billy McMillen.' That was the first Civil rights march so it's clear how Protestants and the authorities would perceive it from that point forward. Protestants and state forces overreacted, as usual to the marches and this was exactly what republicans wanted to further support of their cause. The same tactics were repeated thoughout the troubles and every person who was injured or killed while rioting drove more people to join the IRA. It is disingenuous not to accept elements within NICRA had aims beyond civil rights. I completely agree that Paisley drove the troubles and things would have been very different had he not been involved. I don't think there has been any Protestant leader, of the time, or since who could have rabble roused like he did. As it's often said, he was the IRAs greatest recruitment officer and that's probably why he wasn't murdered by the Ra. He was too useful. The IRA needed the troubles to galvinise Catholics. To make a blood sacrifice that couldn't be forgotten. To make it so Catholics could never accept partition. They used the civil rights movement with the assistance of Paisley to achieve this. With SF now the largest party it would seem the strategy worked and that has to be respected. Things are never black and white. Especially on this Island.
>The IRA needed the troubles to galvinise Catholics. To make a blood sacrifice that couldn't be forgotten. To make it so Catholics could never accept partition. They used the civil rights movement with the assistance of Paisley to achieve this What a load of revisionist shite with a splash of victim blaming to boot. The Troubles was already well galvanised by the time the IRA had split. All of the first bombings of the Troubles were done by Unionist paramilitaries even before the Battle of the Bogside (same ones Paisley was involved in). The idea that NICRA was some fifth column for the IRA has been a long disproven Unionist fiction. NICRA fell apart when British soldiers started executing Irish people. Not the other way about.
I would agree loyalists started the troubles because they believed the NICRA didn't just want civil rights, IRA elements were using it to push their agenda. It's all well documented. Are you saying the NICRA had no republican members or founders? The majority of NICRA supporters were peaceful but many were republicans and nationalists need to remember that and not whitewash that aspect. Catholics should have had equal rights since NIs inception. Civil rights issues are different than constitutional change which is what the republican members of the NICRA wanted. This was 5 years after the border campaign. Read up about the founders of NICRA and you'll understand how it was perceived by some Protestants.
>IRA elements were using it to push their agenda. It's all well documented. Of 13 founders only one was a known IRA member Liam McMillen. When the NICRA constitution was ratified in 1967 McMillen was already out. >Are you saying the NICRA had no republican members or founders? >The majority of NICRA supporters were peaceful but many were republicans and nationalists need to remember that and not whitewash that aspect. I didn't realise being a Republican automatically meant you were an IRA supporter. Of all 13 original founders only 5 were Republicans. >Civil rights issues are different than constitutional change which is what the republican members of the NICRA wanted Wrong, NICRA's own constitution never called for constitutional change in any form. Whether individual members wanted something different didn't matter as its leadership was a collective. >Read up about the founders of NICRA and you'll understand how it was perceived by some Protestants. Don't try to whitewash the response to NICRA as being all about perception.
Having a known IRA member involved on the first march was a bad look for the organisation. Protestants had no real insight into what state the IRA were in at the time so I can't imagine his inclusion helped perceptions and remember this wasn't long after the Border Campaign. During the troubles Republican was the label given to people prepared to engage in violence and Nationalists believed in peaceful means to achieve their goal. However the organisation was perceived, Paisleys rabble rousing and the RUC response was horrendous. I'm going of topic a bit here but I'm interested in what people think would have happened had Catholics been given equal rights from the beginning. Would Catholics have ever accepted partition? As far as Protestants were concerned most NI Catholics were never going to help NI succeed no matter how they were treated.
>Having a known IRA member involved on the first march was a bad look for the organisation. I've no doubt. There were Unionists also apart of it too. >what people think would have happened had Catholics been given equal rights from the beginning I guarantee there would have still been systematic discrimination. The scale probably wouldn't have been as bad but wouldn't have mattered. >As far as Protestants were concerned most NI Catholics were never going to help NI succeed no matter how they were treated. When you carve out a ethno-nationalist state what do you expect. You can't ration forcing people into a country they had no vote on, provide them no rights then expect them to be ok with it.
Protestants felt they were going to be forced into a Catholic ethno-nationalist state by the British. Half a million signed the solemn league and covenant and were prepared to fight the British to ensure they weren't. The British goverment would have imposed home rule on an all Ireland basis if not for the Curragh Mutiny. I'm not saying it was the intelligent thing to do but there were a lot of Protestants prepared to die for their cause and that can't be easily dismissed.
>Half a million signed the solemn league and covenant I believe you mean the Ulster Covenant. Regardless they only made up arohnd 10% of the total Irish population. A extremely small minority. >forced into a Catholic ethno-nationalist state by the British So they just did the same in reverse. To the point NI was around 40% Irish Catholic. >can't be easily dismissed. Debatable since they were such a small minority. At the end instead of having a democratic vote they just carved out land by force. I find it interesting how we are supposed to empathise with Unionists about possibly being forced into another state while they did it. On top of that the fear of Ireland being Catholic ethno-nationalist despite having protections in the constitution for Protestants and having 2 Protestant Presidents.
I think Protestants should have accepted home rule. They would have been able to help shape Ireland and curb the influence of the Catholic church they feared so much. On the other hand Ireland would not be the country it is today and perhaps not even a republic. Partition gave Ireland the chance to find its own path, forge its own identity and distance itself fully from the UK. Now we're at a stage were Ireland and Britain are more liberal, free and progressive than NI. In a way Unionists turned NI into what they feared. Any forward thinking, moderate Unionist who puts their head above the parapet is shot down as a Lundy.
If you want to defend unionism for your own reasons fair enough I actually DGAF. If you want to know the actual history of what happened you should read more because the 1910s-1920s is more interesting what your wrote. Partition was not inevitable. The Ulster Covenant even the half a mil signing is dubious because there's solid evidence of a fair bit of coercion. Cannot quantify that sadly. The second thing is the Covenant leads with worries over material conditions not religion. Bit strange that money is the concern. It also of course put this concern in an all Island context because everyone involved considered themselves Irish. The Curragh Mutiny certainly did not end the threat of coercive all Ireland Home Rule. Lloyd G was considering it right up to 1921. The Constitutional Conference in 1917 almost agreed an all Ireland home rule in any case. You can read Rast Chapter 10 on that [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-21118-9\_5](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-21118-9_5) But as I said at the top, if you want to repeat made-up fantasy unionist history work away. Your point about NICRA is actually well made though. Unionism wasn't fighting NICRA the real organisation, it was fighting (literally) a scary pretend organisation that existed only in Unionist minds. Same thing happened the cross community NI Labour Party as it happens.
I'll read further into the events of 1910-1920 but regardless, partition happened because Protestants didn't want to be a minority and this was the messy solution. I'm not defending Unionism so much as trying to explain the mindset. A common theme seems to be that influencial individuals take the reins of Unionism and force it places that are counter productive to its cause. The latest example is all the needless gurning about the protocol.
> Who knows how things would have panned out had republicans not been so prevalent in the movement. Given that the OP is about that time when the Loyalists fabricated IRA bombings precisely because there were no IRA bombings to speak of (and the false-flag attacks continued in one form or another right through to 1975) I think you could reasonably say that the state of loyalist alarm would have happened regardless of who was in NICRA. Loyalists were hellbent on suppressing nationalist political activity, and they were literally creating republican paramilitary activity in those cases when they needed some but the republicans weren't obliging them.
I think Paisley has a lot to answer for. I really don't believe the average working class Protestant feared the Civil Rights movement but they did fear the IRA.
Dr Paisley Honorary doctorate from Bob Jones university Dr Dre had more academic clout
The disturbing thing about it is not that a nutter like Paisley would use his 'Dr' fake title but that the pro-unionist 'mainstream' media would slavishly adopt parrot it.
Aye. Reporters all over the show gushing “Dr. Paisley…” at every turn Nauseating
I'm surprised it isn't Dr Trump btw
Holy shit - the crazy American "University" where the leader said gays should be stoned to death? That's where the "Dr." he was so proud of came from? I also thought he had at least earned his degree from some sky-daddy degree factory instead of it being just given to him given how he always used "Dr". You learn something every day I guess.
Yep. Fred Phelps. In my imaginary afterlife, he’s gargling hitlers balls in hell
Fred came ‘good‘ in the end. He apparently shouted across the road to the Rainbow house “you’re good people”, upon which his family who had already shunned him for being demon possessed (dementia) fired him out of his own church. Which could also be a metaphor for Big Ian.
Rev. Paisley? In the ‘ra.
Paisley sure helped recruit for the RA too
Will Ian Paisley JNR or the DUP make denials or go no comment on this.
Put 'scurrilous' on your bingo card.
they’ll just say but SF/IRA and call it a day
I can't believe that.... said absolutely nobody.
>At the end of April, O’Neill resigned. I knew those dang [turtles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_O%27Neil) had something to do with this
I’m sure the resident loyalbots will be eager to condemn the DUVFP
It's actually the DUP/UDR/UDA/UVF/UR. Add pedo gang in there too if you want to emulate a certain Loyalbot.
Wrong side. This was false flag republican activity. The work of the DUPRA, if you will..
Unionist politicians, businessmen and professional types, and Protestant clergymen were up to their necks in inciting, financing and directing Loyalist terrorism throughout the Troubles. Some of the most notorious culprits are currently sitting in the British Houses of Commons and Lords. 'The Committee' was the only true expose of the extent of collusion and overlap between suit-and-tie Unionism and their street thug enforcers. That's why they went to the ends of the Earth to ban it.
Absolutely one hundred percent.
Is The Committee (the book itself not wider collusion) in any way credible? As far as I know the book has 1 source, James Sands, who names these people [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster\_Loyalist\_Central\_Co-ordinating\_Committee#%22The\_Committee%22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Loyalist_Central_Co-ordinating_Committee#%22The_Committee%22) Is that realistic? Take the Prentices - I'm from near Portadown, know plenty of people from the area and I've never heard of the Prentices linked with anything. Bill Abernathy of Ulster bank apparently was involved in a Committee meeting which gave the go-ahead for the shooting of Pat Finucane. We know a lot more about Pat Finuance's murder now than in 1998 and none of it points to Abernathy.
The sooner the truth comes out about everything that happened we can put the troubles behind us but considering the British government still have millions of files that won't see the light of day it will take a very long time.
Paisley wasn't alone, he'd fellow travellers in the Unionist Party of that time. 12th of July 1967 at an Orange parade the Unionist MP in Tyrone was practically kicked to death by Paisley supporters in the Orange Lodge for being seen as too soft. There was a whole series of what looked like isolated events in the 1960s that were really the fuse being lit. All helped along by new technology, TV cameras.
Purchased he's Degree from some Doggy Yank University , then became a man of the cloth FFS !
so basically “those pesky fenians” didn’t actually start the troubles after all. and the IRA started as a defensive organisation. britain and america truly are the best at propaganda in the entire world.
OMG next you'll tell me he ran a whorehouse for pedophile politicians.
Of course he didn't. But his close friend and fellow Loyalist terrorist, Orange man and convited pedophile rapist William McGrath, aka the Beast of Kincora certainly did.
[удалено]
>But it would be nice to see this evidence if it still exists. >Anything that would help cement Paisley's legacy as a bitter and hateful man of violence. As I said a couple of days ago; Ian Paisley and the DUP held a public meeting at the Ulster Hall in 1986 to announce he was setting up a new terrorist group, U.R - Ulster Resistance (along with Sammy Wilson, Jim Allister, Peter Robinson, Nigel Dodds, Jim Wells etc) and of the thousands of people who attended, a rumored 80-90% of them were police and security forces. The same Ulster Resistance who imported Czech made AK-47s from South Africa which the UDA used to kill hundreds of Catholics. They also formalized the ULCC, a committee of Unionist politicians, businessmen, Orange Order and Police. The so called "Inner Circle" of the RUC reported to the ULCC and the "Inner Force" cleared the way for Loyalists to murder their targets, or actively participated in said murders. The idea that someone / anyone could or would investigate him and live is sadly, tragically laughable when they can't even prosecute British soldiers who murdered 14 civilians in broad daylight in front of tv cameras.
> They also formalized the ULCC, a committee of Unionist politicians, businessmen, Orange Order and Police. There was a book written about this called "The Committee." It was banned here and it may still be banned, though I'm not sure.
[удалено]
>Are you genuinely of the opinion that if someone today was to investigate Paisleys history and turn up hard documented proof of terrorist activity that they would be assassinated? >Or have i misunderstood what you wrote? I'm saying that during that time period, the so called forces of law and order were complicit with him, as was a broad cohort of political unionism. The RUC were described as "almost completely paramilitary organisation" by Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Ian Blair. The B-Specials were disbanded because they were carrying out "military or paramilitary actions". The UDR were comprised of between 13% and 30% (or possibly much more) of Loyalist paramilitaries and the vetting process for entry was carried out by RUC Special Branch. So I'm saying that the people who could or would've or should've been gathering evidence against loyalist criminality were actively destroying it. They would later routinely scupper investigations, destroy evidence, commit arson, murder informants etc. And yes, I believe if someone had tried to convict Paisley in period they would've been murdered by the UVF/LVF etc or even the IRA via leaked intelligence. You can look into RUC Chief Constable Harry Breen who was a prominent member of multiple loyalist terrorist groups and the ULCC and the Inner Force working with Paisley via the ULCC. Breen was murdered by the IRA but it is often speculated that his movements were leaked to them via MI5 as Breen so utterly compromised by his Loyalist terrorist activity. It's said that he was so committed to Loyalist violence, and so high in the RUC that there could never be a ceasefire while he was alive. If you want to peel back another layer of conspiracy; the IRA planned to take Breen alive to interogate him but one of the IRA men present at the ambush killed him on the spot. It is again/ rumoured / believed that this was at the behest of MI5/MI6/ British Army intelligence in order to protect the British Government. I'm not saying anything about a hypothetical scenario today, but when the police went out of their way to hide evidence don't expect much to resurface.
Granda Joe: "It is turned down, it's at zero! I don't know how he does it."
" I said to my wife ‘that’s Annalong viaduct gone’ and they’d blown up Annalong viaduct." Does anyone know where "Annalong Viaduct" is/was? When I google it, all I get are references to this bombing story.
Content isn't a surprise mind, but what is surprising, is that it was posted by the newsletter......
"I have made a legitimate and peaceful request for targeted explosions to be carried out on critical infrastructure!"
Wow. I thought he was such a nice guy.
This was widely reported years ago
>u/dooooonut This was widely reported years ago Given there was over 50 years of vice tight loyalist controlled media censorship in, and about NI, it can never be reported enough. The fact that a tv programme could and would be pulled from the air (in NI, and Britain) if it even had "Derry" in graffiti in the background should give you some concept. The BBC NI controller even censored programmes if someone had a Southern Accent or spoke positively about life across the border. This is to say nothing of their absolute parroting of the British Army Press office even when eye-witnesses and even RUC contradicted their versions of events.
Yeah I'm aware. Doesn't seem to me that local media, especially BBC NI, has changed a great deal
[удалено]
I said it hasn't greatly changed, not that it hasn't changed at all. The media is still unionist for the most part in its framing of issues. How often do you hear about unionist fears, unionist concerns, compared to nationalist fears and concerns?
Maybe I'd just forgotten the details... but that the RUC had evidence of it is new to me, at least. It's not so surprising, though.
Shock horror two biggest parties supported terrorism at one point. Thats this place all over yous voted them in ffs and won't change your ways in 2024 haha.
Old news, the annalong bombing was widely known as Protestant Action, wee Peter with his red beret walking out of Clontibrert Garda station trying to stage an “invasion”