I wrote -
Terrorism by a minority is designed to ramp up a reaction to others, and provoke a backlash - anyone with a modicum of understanding , or knowledge of history should know this.
Nice speech but a load of tosh.
125 thousand *******s are known to log unto jihadist webistes in the uk.
Is that what you call a minority?
You don't have a clue micilin.
The backlash that occured in the province was protestants lifting guns and fighting back and spraying places frequented by catholics with bullets.
That made them sit up and call off their dogs of war.
Norcon.
I'm glad you liked my 'speech', thank you for the kind comment.
First of all, we both have our opinions and long may it remain the case.
However, I haven't seen any reply of yours to my correction of your post on Omagh . I don't know , but maybe you are too young to have lived through it or remember it?
So to recap : contrary to your post, the Omagh bombing was carried out by dissidents as a reaction to the Peace Process; the Peace Process did not start after Omagh as you said.
And that is pertinent to this thread as an example of people reacting to an atrocity in as sensible way as they could - they isolated the extremists rather than turning on a whole section of society. Rather than go back down the road or reprisal, they engaged in coming together, however painful that was for many.
The Peace Process timeline is a matter of historical record not 'tosh', not merely my opinion (which may be tosh). You have either missed my reply, in which case I invite you to comment on the correction, or you have ignored it knowing that you were wrong, in which case you are entitled to do that as well.
Your willingness to jump on my last post surely means that you just missed the chance to reply to the Omagh one- as a man of your undoubted principles would have done if he saw it.
This brings me to your interpretation of events in NI. (As you have done , I'll use Catholic/Protestant as shorthand for Nat/Uni, Rep/Loy even though doing so means it's often misunderstood as a 'religious' conflict)
Forgive me for skimming over a whole period but you'll see why I need to make a couple of points to tie it into this thread -
The British Army were initially called in to protect Catholics from Protestant attacks, not vice versa.
At that point the IRA were being called the 'I Ran Away' by Catholics due to their inaction and were almost a non entity. There were no Irish 'dogs of war'.
However, relations between the Army and Catholics deteriorated badly. The PIRA grew (out of a split with the 'Official IRA' - hence 'Provisonal') and things like internment, which were reactions to PIRA atrocities, only served to swell support for them.
All of that is a matter of historical record, not debate.
Protestants or Catholics 'spraying bullets' only escalated the conflict into a tit for tat dirty war. It did not end it, it made it worse. There were areas that the British Army would not/could not venture into. (In the United Kingdom, not some far away outpost like Helmand !)
PIRA called a ceasefire then the Loyalists did. There was no victory for anyone, only a damaged generation.
You Saying
'lifting guns and fighting back and spraying places frequented by catholics with bullets.
That made them sit up and call off their dogs of war'
makes me genuinely sad if that is how you see it.
A lot of good people, and polititicians, worked hard to being an end to conflict by discussion to steer NI to a form of peace, however imperfect it may be. A lot of terrorists and their supporters of every hue got sick of the wasteful violence that you seem to place value on as a solution. Some from both sides wanted to carry on, but were persuaded by the likes of SF/PIRA's McGuinness and the PUP's David Irvine to go along with it, And some of course wanted the killing to continue.
The IRA weren't splattered into submission any more than they bombed the Govt into submission.
What happened was humanity and common sense turned people away from vioence and reprisals against the majorty, in retaliation for the murderous acts of the minortiy
So I would suggest that opinions are one thing, and historical facts are another.
You are entitled to your opinions about the present situation we face.
However, I would suggest that if your grasp of the timeline and sequencing of events
in your own province is at odds with reality , then perhaps it's worth reflecting on your analysis of present day events elsewhere.
If opinions are based on 'facts' that turn out to be wrong - then maybe the opinions need looking at?
And of course , this being an internet forum you have the option of ignoring this post, of engaging in a rational discussion or perhaps responding in another way .
I am sure your principles will be evident in your choice.
