Once Upon a Time in Northern Ireland

[shoulditbethishard1]

Thought provoking, upsetting and realised that there’s still so much more I don’t know about the troubles

Did anyone else watch it?

On the point of Catholic Unionists, I know loads from different friendship groups so unconnected to each other too.

I am from a Unionist background but would be more liberal in my type of politics. I've had some fascinating conversations with Catholics who would be very concerned if they were ever "outed" as a Unionist and will often vote for Nationalist parties BUT if push came to shove in a referendum intend to vote to remain in the Union, usually for stability or fear of the unknown. It is a really grey area that I think the current power structure in NI politics doesn't allow us to fully scrutinise. Do think there are hints of it in the increase in Alliance voters.

Agree with previous poster. I remember meeting a girl from West Belfast in 1995 at a party who was horrified that I was Catholic but politically neutral. She said she had never met a neutral NI Catholic before and got quite cross at me. After that I rarely revealed to people that I felt both British and Irish. But now people are a bit more open and many Catholics are openly unionist leaning and many Protestants want Irish unity and many others don’t really care so long as there is peace and stability.

As I expected, you took an responsibility for deaths by organisation summary to attempt to support your argument that only 8% of PSF/PIRA murders was of a sectarian nature.

The Cross Tabulations available on CAIN tell a different story entirely. See attachment one and two which are both from CAIN itself.

As we can see, just short of 800 Protestants were murdered by PSF/PIRA.

Now for the statements of several PSF/PIRA terrorists themselves.

Since the Republican terrorist organisations never once sought to unify the Catholic and Protestant working class in a socialist campaign, it stands to reason that sectarianism WAS their driving ideology.

Especially since their main aim, unarguably, was a united Ireland. And who did they see as the main obstacle to that?

Protestants, of course, along with Catholics who were pro-union or Unionist.

The extent to which sectarianism permeated the IRA is not something in serious dispute as the following demonstrates:

"We f--ed the whole thing by creating such a military, security situation on the streets that no f---ing government could deal with it. The only thing they could do was put soldiers on the streets. And plus, the big issue that is never, ever discussed in the republican movement in my view is the sectarian nature of this conflict."

Shane Paul O'Doherty went on to destroy the idea that we can argue the extent to which sectarianism permeated the IRA:

"But why didn't we ever try to create a political movement in the late 1960s or early '70s that was kind of socialist or civil rights oriented that involved moderate and politically progressive Protestant working class people in the movement? Why didn't we ever try to get cross-community relations going and politics going through working class people who were suffering on the Protestant side?

In fact, we engaged in a nakedly sectarian apartheid movement where we only worked on the Catholic population and we never studied what it would take to unite Protestant and Catholic. We never used any prediction models to try and gauge what would happen if we started an IRA campaign, how it would fracture the communities in the North, how it would divide them for thirty, forty, fifty, sixty years. We clearly should have looked at probability models and so on to see what would happen here. We never did anything of that."

Sectarianism was a part of their ideology which is part of othering Protestants in order to make it 'easier' to incite their terrorists to murder Protestants.

PIRAs Jim Gibney stated:

"Also the bombing campaign of the IRA, it was largely against towns where there was Protestant business people. So, of course, it goes without saying that a campaign of that nature leaves a legacy behind, a legacy wherein there is deep pain and hurt on the Unionist side. We'd be fools not to recognise it."

Another one by name of Liam McAnoy further elaborated:

"...when you say, "Brits out", what do you really mean? Do you mean "Prods out" as well? And very largely the Protestant community interpreted "Brits out" as "Prods out" and they responded to that, that's why I'm saying that the outcome of the politics of the Provisionals was sectarian, however well intentioned they might have thought they were, the actual outcome of their activities was to create and enhance sectarianism.

You can't ignore the fact that busloads of Protestant workers were blown up by the Provisionals deliberately, you can't ignore the fact that you were going into houses on the Shankill estate and killing people, going into the Shankill, shooting people dead....".

Yet another one, Sean Hayes from the Markets, emphasised:

"The Continuity IRA blew up a hotel in a nationalist area packed full of nationalists at a wedding during Drumcree. Now the IRA on the other hand went and put a bomb in the middle of Portadown and blew Portadown up. They just never claimed it, but everybody knew it was the IRA that done it."

Republican and Loyalist terrorists alike not only engaged in sectarian murder, but were also themselves sectarian.

As PIRAs Brendan Holland acknowledged:

"Oh, yeah, they were sectarian, especially in Belfast. I've a cousin who was shot dead, a Protestant, but she was a blood relative, a young girl, 18, was executed by the IRA because a few days before, a young 18 year old Catholic was shot dead by Loyalists, so they immediately retaliated. And that's when the war became madness, became crazy and it went totally in the face of their Republican ideology."

Indeed, OIRAs Seamus Lynch spoke of how PIRAs Gerry Adams talked about how the Provos could easily destroy Lynch's attempts to unite Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter with a few "well placed car bombs" in Protestant working class areas:

"I says, "Gerry, tell me, what does this united Ireland mean to you, how much does it mean to you? Like, that disgusts me, even the thought of that." He says, "I'm prepared to wade up to my knees in Protestant blood to get a united Ireland." I just said, "F— off! End of debate."

Lynch recalled how PIRA prisoners cheered while watching TV news of an IRA bomb in the Shankill 11th December 1971 which killed two adults and two children. More than demonstrates the sectarianism within PIRA.

"The IRA professed to target the “British war machine,” not ordinary Protestants. But loyalist paramilitaries were especially active in 3rd Batt’s area, prompting some companies to gun down random Protestants in reprisal and claim they were paramilitaries."

- Irish journalist, Rory Carroll in his book, "Killing Thatcher".

Indeed, the Provos absolutely knew that the RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment were mostly comprised of Protestants which does actually make their targeting of them very much sectarian.

Especially when you consider how many of them were murdered once they left the RUC and Ulster Defence Regiment. At the point they were murdered, they were civilians and living civilian lives. So, this increases the numbers of civilians murdered by the Provos.

One thing I cannot credibly be accused of is in being biased to one particular side since I'm actually using the statements made by members of Provisional Sinn Féin and Provisional IRA at various times throughout my posts. My arguments are well sourced in facts as well as statements by leading Nationalist political leaders who had the opposite political aspiration to myself. But we ARE actually united by our condemnation of Republican and Loyalist terrorists alike.

It's only natural that Provisional Sinn Féin and Provisional IRA get the lion's share of the focus precisely because:

1. these episodes more heavily focused on PSF/PIRA with Loyalist terrorists relegated to a bit part.

2. more importantly, the Provos took the most lives, set the most bombs, carried out the most acts of civil and human rights abuses as so eloquently stated by John Hume (a Nationalist!) himself:

"There is not a single injustice in Northern Ireland today that justifies the taking of a single human life.

What is more, the vast majority of the major injustices suffered not only by the Nationalist community but by the whole community are direct consequences of the IRA campaign.

If I were to lead a civil rights campaign in Northern Ireland today, the main target would be the IRA.

It is they who carry out the greatest infringements of human and civil rights, with their murders and bombings, their executions without trial, their kneecappings and punishment shootingsThe most fundamental human right is the right to life. Who in Northern Ireland takes the most human lives?

Let the record speak."

See attached stats from CAIN once again.

Now, this appears to make you feel uncomfortable, but that is the consequence. The same arguments I use against PSF/PIRA are EXACTLY the same ones I use against Loyalist terrorist apologists or sneaking regarders.

Just in case you're in any doubt, here's a statement from the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association:

Final word to Rogelio Alonso, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Master's Degree in Analysis of Terrorism Prevention at the Rey Juan Carlos University...see attachment.

Two more attachments from CAIN.

Oh, and forgot to insert NICRAS 1978 statement:

"[PIRA's] sporadic sectarian war against Protestants & campaign of murder against civilians has been one of the greatest denials of civil & human rights in recent Irish history."

And none of that alters the fact that you are biased and have a Unionist point of view @DownNative.
And that people on MN shouldn't mistake your posts for a neutral voice as I think some of them have been doing.
Which is all I've been saying. I applauded your posts and your research at one point upthread, just advised people to listen to others too to get a balanced overview. Because they won't get that from you.

I don't think I can condemn the provisional IRA in any stronger terms than I have upthread.

I'm halfway through the series and finding it very thought provoking, in ways that I didn't expect it to. I admire the way that the human element takes priority by having people talk about their own lived experiences. The loyalist man in the yellow shirt in particular, and the way that he was able to articulate the brutality of what he did without ever thinking about the consequences at the time. And what that must be like to live with today, when he has clearly done a lot of work on himself.

How did I know you were going to try to reduce my argument to the "You're Biased!" Logical Fallacy?!

First, understand the "You're Biased!" is a logical fallacy. Then understand it does not axiomatically mean an individual is incorrect.

https://byrdnick.com/archives/11072/the-bias-fallacy

So, "....the bias fallacy involves a particular inference: inferring falsehood from bias." And this is the entire thrust of your own posts which means error of reasoning!

I note you consistently refuse to acknowledge AND admit that my posts contain information from a range of non-Unionist sources including the following:

1. Leading Irish Nationalist politicians such as John Hume.

2. Members of Provisional Sinn Féin and Provisional IRA such as Jim Gibney, Brendan Holland and Liam McAnoy, to name three.

3. CAIN which certainly cannot be described as being pro Republican, Nationalist, Unionist or Loyalist.

4. Spanish terrorism expert Rogelio Alonso.

5. Irish Journalist Rory Carroll.

The fact is that NONE of these sources can be described* *Unionist by any means.

Furthermore, you will note I absolutely do NOT refer to Unionist politicians in order to make my point for the very reason people such as yourself will automatically dismiss it via the "You're Biased!" Logical Fallacy.

The reality is my posts are carefully worded and my sources are not Unionist ones. And that's clearly a problem for those who wish to resort to the ridiculous "You're Biased!" Logical Fallacy.

Resorting to things like "You're Biased!" is absolutely NOT an argument in any way.

So, in reality, my posts actually are balanced and backed up by a range of evidence.

And, of course, @Swiftorhawk, your earlier argument that 8% of PSF/PIRA murders were sectarian is NOT supported by the statistics from CAIN/Sutton itself.

This is seen in their cross tabulation I provided up thread.

In summary:

Approximately 47% of PSF/PIRA Murders was of NI Protestants. This includes civilians as well as members of the RUC/RUC R and the Ulster Defence Regiment.

Approximately 33% of PSF/PIRA Murders was of those Not from NI (NfNI). There were members of the Regular British Army - obviously does not include the Ulster Defence Regiment.

Approximately 20% of PSF/PIRA Murders was of NI Catholics.

Clearly demonstrates that considerably more than 8% of all PSF/PIRA murders were sectarian by nature.

The Ulsterisation policy of the British Government in relation to the RUC and Ulster Defence Regiment was a serious threat to PSF/PIRA who knew that increasing numbers of Catholic personnel in these security agencies would undermine Republican claims.

The Ulsterisation policy was a non-sectarian one.

Hence, the Provos threatened any Catholic who joined with the murders of their own families. As a result, the numbers of Catholics in these dropped very dramatically due to security concerns.

A brave minority of Catholics stayed in the RUC and Ulster Defence Regiment, but they could no longer return to the areas they once lived in or could no longer visit their families in certain areas.

The outcome of the Provo threat in this regard WAS definitely sectarianism as it was intended to undermine the non-sectarian Ulsterisation policy. This is non-debatable.

Sigh.

@DownNative will never admit she's biased, let alone wrong, that's a warning in itself.

I'm not disputing your sources or your facts @DownNative, but your interpretation. I actually think you're very arrogant to believe you're above the conditioning and bias that all humans are prone to.

Anyway. Say what you like. Warning to readers - @DownNative is NOT giving a neutral viewpoint. Read widely.

@Swiftorhawk, I think @DownNative is a man.

Man or woman, they are certainly determined to get their point across. Reams and reams of information. Anyone who waded their way through that lot deserves a medal.

Oh, sorry I got that wrong if so @DownNative.

See, that's where you're fundamentally incorrect.

If I didn't acknowledge the potential for bias, why exactly do I use non-Unionist sources to make my points with?

The reason I use Nationalists and Republicans' own words is precisely due to this.

Bias doesn't axiomatically mean someone is incorrect as you must know by now.

I, as a consequence, use a wide range of sources to make ALL my points.

So, it's interesting to note that when you're confronted with the reality of my using Nationalist, Republican, Irish, Spanish and even American sources such as Richard Rose you really have no argument left.

Hence we see you're no longer able to support your original argument that only 8% of PSF/PIRA murders were sectarian. What you clearly now attempt to do is to personalise the conversation.

Constantly trying to rely on the "You're Biased!" Logical Fallacy doesn't get you very far and doesn't work. Anyone reading can see the limits of your own posts.

You say you're merely disputing my interpretation yet never specify what that is? Yet argument is solidly based NOT on personal interpretation, but on correct conclusions drawn from the data itself. The Organisation and Religion cross tabulation easily supports MY argument that the Provisionals were every bit as sectarian as the Loyalists with murders of Protestants accounting for 47% of their total.

On the contrary, it is your interpretation of 8% sectarian killings by PIRA that's incorrect since you're relying on Organisation and Organisation only cross tabulation.

Hence why you now attempt to turn this whole debate back onto me on a personal level. That's the Ad Hominem Fallacy.

If you look at any of my posts, you'll see that I don't personalise the debate because I'm not interested in Ad Hominem attacks. All I'm interested in is debating and discussing the topic at hand.

I suggest you and others do the same.....

This doesn't sound too good:
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/uda-cuts-cash-for-bonfire-pallets-as-it-counts-cost-of-500k-cop-drug-raids/a1381480371.html

You're right, it's not good news. They'll probably increase the "taxes" they collect from Unionist areas.

On the other hand, it ultimately shows how successful the PSNI's Paramilitary Crime Task Force is in targeting the UDA.

That IS good news in the long run for the residents of Rathcoole.

The same success is being seen in regards to Saoradh and the so-called "New" IRA.

Of course there's a long way to go, especially as the culture of glorification of violence by Republican and Loyalist terrorist groups is still too deeply embedded in society. And on that point John Hume was 100% correct that the whole ethos of society must be re-examined.

For there to be a true, lasting peace, Northern Ireland cannot afford for ANY of its citizens to glorify violence by terrorist groups. There has to be zero tolerance on this by all.

From the PIRA to the UDA and beyond, every single terrorist group is undemocratic, illegal and oppressed the people.

The PSNI Paramilitary Crime Taskforce is a part of the solution to that problem, but it cannot finish the job unless society as a whole in Northern Ireland turns its back on glorification of the terrorist groups themselves.

That's the reality.

I have already provided a link to figures of civilians targeted and murdered in NI solely because of their religion (or what it represented)@DownNative . You might take another look at it.

Because that was my sole objection - it seemed you ignored the data that didn't suit your narrative. I know that meant I criticised your objectivity and judgement, but how else to say it?For example, I provided those figures and you immediately disputed them...you might ask yourself why your first instinct was to do that. The figures I provided are real.

See Admadov and Hughes for further reading on the subject of civilian victimisation in NI if you want.

(And I didn't say all this to take sides or make excuses as you seem to think, but simply to let people know that they were not getting the full picture. I saw evidence of bias and I let people know. As did others.)

For there to be a true, lasting peace, Northern Ireland cannot afford for ANY of its citizens to glorify violence by terrorist groups. There has to be zero tolerance on this by all.

From the PIRA to the UDA and beyond, every single terrorist group is undemocratic, illegal and oppressed the people.

Absolutely. We are on the same page here.

Your original argument was:

"By contrast 8% of IRA attacks were sectarian, most targets were British forces or alleged informers and of course so many others were caught up in the crossfire and bombings too."

Of course, after this you pivoted to trying to focus only on civilian deaths. But this is to take a rather narrow view of what happened.

As I already showed using the figures from CAIN/Sutton, 47% of all murders carried out by the Provisionals were of Protestants. The intention was sectarian as various non-Unionist sources highlight.

CAIN's cross tabulation of the data highlights the Provisionals overwhelming targeting of Protestants.

Sectarian killings are not exclusively defined as the deliberate killing of civilians because of their religion.

Hence, CAIN'S cross tabulation exists. I must ask....why are you disputing that?

The figures I've provided are real. You conveniently left those stats out of the picture which gives further context to the murders.

Those stats are attached once again in bar graph AND numbers form.

Sectarianism goes beyond civilians to the Ulster Security Forces themselves. Targeting the RUC and Ulster Defence Regiment very clearly had a strong sectarian element as the following shows.

In an article entitled, "Catholic Member of Ulster Force Is Slain" By Bernard Weinraub Special to The New York Times and dated Oct. 11, 1972:

"The militia, set up in April, 1970, has 9,187 members, 380 of them Catholics. At least one other Catholic has been among the 23 militia men murdered.

“It was set up as a nonsectarian security force, and it's quite obvious that the I.R.A. wants to make it as sectarian as possible,” said a senior British Army officer. “Intimidation, telephone threats and murder is the way to do it.”

At one point, nearly 1,500 Catholics belonged to the defense regiment."

So, in less than two years the Catholic personnel in the Ulster Defence Regiment went from some 1,500 officers to 380.

The aim of the Provisionals was clearly to sectarianise the Ulster Defence Regiment itself by attempting to eradicate from it their Catholic personnel.

So, the sectarianism of the Provisionals is not seen solely in the statistics of murders. It is reflected in their strong desire to keep Catholics and Protestants separated from each other. The fact is the Provisionals viewed Protestants as a major block to their united Ireland aspiration.

Something that was highlighted in various accounts I've provided from PSF/PIRA members. This is one:

"But why didn't we ever try to create a political movement in the late 1960s or early '70s that was kind of socialist or civil rights oriented that involved moderate and politically progressive Protestant working class people in the movement? Why didn't we ever try to get cross-community relations going and politics going through working class people who were suffering on the Protestant side?

In fact, we engaged in a nakedly sectarian apartheid movement where we only worked on the Catholic population and we never studied what it would take to unite Protestant and Catholic. We never used any prediction models to try and gauge what would happen if we started an IRA campaign, how it would fracture the communities in the North, how it would divide them for thirty, forty, fifty, sixty years. We clearly should have looked at probability models and so on to see what would happen here. We never did anything of that." - Shane Paul O'Doherty

Indeed, it is logical and right to consider the motivation behind the other actions carried out by the Provisionals. Here's an example:

"Also the bombing campaign of the IRA, it was largely against towns where there was Protestant business people. So, of course, it goes without saying that a campaign of that nature leaves a legacy behind, a legacy wherein there is deep pain and hurt on the Unionist side. We'd be fools not to recognise it." - PSF/PIRAs Jim Gibney

He's actually spot on!

Interesting fact is that there was more Catholics who joined the RUC and Ulster Defence Regiment than actually joined the PIRA. IIRC, two to three times more.

Meaning not only did the vast majority of the Catholic population utterly reject Provisional Sinn Féin and Provisional IRA at the ballot box throughout the Troubles, but more of them joined the security forces in order to deal with Republican and Loyalist terrorism.

And this was met with further sectarian motivated behaviours from the Provisional Movement which ranged from murders, kneecappings, intimidation, propaganda and so on.

A murder of an RUC officer or an Ulster Defence Regiment soldier was not merely part of "targeting the British War machine". It was targeting people the Provisionals knew to be Protestants or so-called "Catholic Collaborators". They were far more likely to be Protestants than Catholic as we know from the numbers.

Indeed, this is borne out by the reality the Provisionals deliberately murdered people who were no longer in the RUC or Ulster Defence Regiment. These people were civilians in every definition of the term and not security force members.

Likewise, the sectarianism from Loyalist terrorists is not seen solely in the statistics of murders. It is reflected in their strong desire to keep Protestants and Catholics separated from each other. The fact is the Loyalists viewed Catholics as a major block to their United Kingdom aspiration.

See what happens when you look at the wider picture of the Troubles as opposed to the narrow view focusing solely on civilian murders only?

As you said previously to others.....read more widely.

But, @Swiftorhawk, I am glad to hear we have common ground in having a zero tolerance view towards terrorists.

Even if we disagree on the extent to which sectarianism permeated the Provos.

If anyone thinks the screenshots I've provided are dubious in some way, here's the link to CAIN'S cross tabulation which clearly states the figures:

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

The CAIN archive helpfully states the following note:

"The information on religion was based on Sutton's data but a number of changes were made. The main change was to allocate a religion code to members of the security forces who were originally from Northern Ireland (mainly the RUC and the UDR). It was decided not to include the religion of those people were originally from outside Northern Ireland because of the lack of information. This field (nfNI) mainly applies to British soldiers who were not from Northern Ireland but were killed while on duty in the region. However it also includes a few members of the IRA who were originally from the Republic of Ireland, together with a few civilians from various countires, who were killed in Northern Ireland."

I'm another with zero tolerance for the terrorists. They've ruined our beautiful country and the vast vast majority of people there just want to live together in peace.

Your original argument was:

"By contrast 8% of IRA attacks were sectarian, most targets were British forces or alleged informers and of course so many others were caught up in the crossfire and bombings too."

Of course, after this you pivoted to trying to focus only on civilian deaths

@DownNative
Again you are reading what you want to read. My original post to you said -

You haven't said too much about loyalist paramilitaries @DownNative . As a Catholic I found/find them terrifying. They killed fewer than the IRA (about half?), but their attacks were mostly sectarian. So they targeted random Catholic civilians and that's who they mainly murdered (78% of cases). By contrast 8% of IRA attacks were sectarian, most targets were British forces or alleged informers and of course so many others were caught up in the crossfire and bombings too. I hate and condemn the IRA, but the targeting of random Catholic civilians by loyalists was also truly terrifying and you haven't mentioned them or condemned them as much for some reason - unconscious bias as a Unionist maybe? I think it's an oversight on MN in particular, because lots of people outside Ireland aren't really aware of more than the IRA.

So it was clear from the very start that when I spoke of sectarian murders I was talking specifically about terrorist attacks on random civilians who were targeted solely because of their religion. It was clear I wasn't including the murders of police or army personnel, or alleged informers or those killed in bombings etc.

The link I attached upthread also defined sectarian murders as those where the victim was a civilian who was targeted randomly because of their religion (or what that implied). In addition, it showed an overall picture of the deaths, not just civilian deaths. It too was from the Sutton index.

It is not cool to quote only a portion of what I said in an attempt to make it seem I said other than what I did. Also I never spoke about sectarianism in general, or how sectarian 'attitudes' permeated terrorist organisations, but only about sectarian attacks/murders specifically.

I know I'm not going to get through to you so I think I'll disengage now. Trying to argue with you is a complete waste of time. You hear what you want to hear, and have already made up your mind on what you believe. Again I urge you to read Admadov and Hughes' paper but somehow I doubt it'll have much impact.

Actually, your post spoke of Loyalist murders of civilians. But when it came to Republicans, it was rather ambiguous.

You continue to ignore the cross tabulation of Sutton's data CAIN provides which demonstrates my argument that 47% of PIRA murders were of Protestants.

And this is clearly sectarian in nature whether that is of civilians, RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment. I've clearly shown in both the data as well as views from Nationalists and PIRA members that the Provisionals were themselves sectarian.

And, crucially, how Provisional sectarianism did not begin or end at civilian murders.

It is highly selective to look at just civilian murders to ascertain this as Provo violence was multifaceted and NOT singular. A fact acknowledged by academic scholars such as Martin McCleery who states:

"....sectarianism can be defined as ‘any action or environment that harms a civilian or group of civilians based on their membership of a social, political, ethnic or religious group'."

And concludes:

".....what cannot be denied is that, even allowing for their own justifications for murder, attacks on civilians because they represented a particular group were part of the Provisional’s campaign, and therefore, the PIRA was sectarian."

https://writingthetroublesweb.wordpress.com/2019/04/29/iras-campaign-sectarian/

Martin J. McCleery is a Visiting Fellow at the Moore Institute, NUI Galway. IIRC, he identifies as Irish, hails from Lurgan and is a fan of GAA.

At this point, anyone can see the wide range of sources I'm using!

Any reasonable person would find it odd to argue about degrees and extent of racism. And any reasonable person would view the same in regards to sectarianism.

While Sutton believed he could only objectively conclude sectarianism on the basis of murders of civilians only, CAIN'S archive with its cross tabulation of Organisation and Religion tells us otherwise.

After all, CAIN records that approximately 47% of PSF/PIRA murders were of Protestants. That number totalled 705 altogether.

It clearly is not an accident that PSF/PIRA murdered so many Protestants in the same way its no accident Loyalists as a whole murdered so many Catholics.

Sectarianism is sectarianism and not one terrorist group in Northern Ireland is free of sectarianism.

100%!

Richard Rose's book definitely points in that direction. It's actually really interesting to see how people thought in his 1967 pilot survey. It shows how violence polarised people and turned many Protestants away from identifying as Irish and Catholics turned away from identifying as British.

Rose is an American political scientist.

I think a lot of people will also find the following attachments highly interesting on the constitutional question from 1967.

Hume was spot on about the Provisionals here:

"For people who proclaim their Irishness and their pride in Ireland so loudly they are remarkably lacking in both the self-confidence and the guts to sit round and talk with their fellow Irishmen as a way of persuading them that this vision of Ireland is the best one.

In particular, their decision to use guns and bombs to ‘persuade’ their Protestant fellow Irishmen is not only an extreme instance of lack of faith in their own beliefs or in the credibility of these beliefs: it is an indication of appalling moral cowardice and a deeply partitionist attitude.

For its real effect is to deepen the essential divisions among the Irish people."

The same argument applies to the Loyalist terrorist groups too.

The use of violence by Republicans and Loyalists definitely shows they had no real faith in their respective ideologies and deep down knew they had no credibility.

Another work by an academic scholar, Rogelio Alonso, proves this to be true also - "IRA And Armed Struggle". Excellent work by an outsider of Northern Irish, British and Irish political history. See attachment.

Sorry, I incorrectly stated that CAIN records that PIRA murdered 705 Protestants.

It's 795 Protestants.