Do you fund the IRA?

Liam Byrne

The carnage was a result of a botched warning or a botched attempt to clear the area

No, the carnage was a result of the bomb and the people who ditched the car and sat at home watching the news as it exploded.

the IRA bombing campaign was not comparable to the likes of Al Qaeda's bombing campaign

Ironically, I'd have more respect for the the guys who flew the planes into the Twin Towers because they believed enough in their "cause" to die for it - not "oh ****, we'll get caught, so let's just leave it here and let someone else sort it out".

If someone sets fire to your house, and the fire services don't get there "quick enough", and your house burns down and your kids die a horrible death - who would you blame, FTA ?

And before I'm accused of not being Irish or of being biased, I'd have the same opinion of someone who brings a knife or whatever into town and then claims in court afterwards that the stabbing or whatever wasn't their fault, or that it was an accident in a row. Bringing it with you indicates the intent.

The same with the murder of Jerry McCabe.....an unloaded gun would have achieved the supposed result - intimidation and robbery - so there was no need for it to be loaded and no reason for it to be a high-powered assault weapon.

precautions taken beforehand

How about the "precaution" of not going near city centre streets with live bombs ? If the argument is with the "occupying forces", then I could kinda - just barely - mentally justify a campaign against them, but as soon as an innocent bystander is viewed dismissively as "collateral damage" then that's my limit and respect out the window.

LordSutch

FTA69 wrote: »

I never said that IRA bombs posed no risk to civilians, I said they sought to minimise those risks. Every action posed risk to civilians, shooting at soldiers posed risks to civilians. Every bomb had the potential to cause untold damage to someone or other, but the majority of them didn't because of precautions taken beforehand. As I said, whether one agrees with those bombs is another argument, my only point was that the IRA bombing campaign was not comparable to the likes of Al Qaeda's bombing campaign.

You sound like you actually admire the IRA & their evil actions which is absolutely sickening to me & all civilised people on this island (Irish & British alike) and I really cant comprehend how you can say things like "They (IRA Terrorists) sought to minimise those risks" or "Shooting soldiers was a risk to civilians" or "Bombs had the potential to do untold damage, but some didnt because of precautions taken beforehand" (by the IRA Terrorists no doubt)..............

This kind of Pro~Terrorist crapp makes my blood boil, but its a free Country, so I suppose if you (FTA69) admire the IRA and their 35 year Bombing & Murder campaign .......... then so be it, but I am certainly on the other side of the fence and I would never play down the murder & destruction brought on the people of this island by the IRA.

The whole IRA campaign was a murderous, evil, sickening, & very sad farce (& for what) :mad:

Qs

Were the allied forces in WWII scum and terrible murderers because they killed innocent Germans?

A war is a war. Innocents always die and thats always regrettable but thats what happens in war. The real question is was what the PIRA considered a war justified. Thats completely up for debate. The arguments over details etc are pointless. If equality for the catholic people of Ulster and/or a United Ireland were worth waging a war is the only question. Decide that for yourselves.

Liam Byrne

Qs wrote: »

A war is a war. Innocents always die and thats always regrettable but thats what happens in war.

Unfortunately true. And whatever the reasons/excuses/merits for choosing a war as your method (just ask Mr Bush and the Iraqis whether it's the way to go) my own personal opinion is that if you kill an innocent person along the way then you've lost my support.

e.g. Go in and take out Saddam or Osama or whoever, fair enough; Bomb Baghdad indescriminately and kill innocents and you're a scumbag. The same applies to the home-grown variety - and even moreso, because those involved hijacked our flag and claim that you're not Irish if you don't support their "cause" (or more specifically, their way of dealing with/"advancing" their "cause")

Equality and respect for all (Irish/English) - AGREED (until they prove they don't deserve it)
A United Ireland - nice notional one, if all else works out and those directly involved/affected agree to it - COOL BY ME, ON SOME LEVEL
Killing (or even attempting to kill, or callously risking death/injury to) innocent people - WRONG

Look at it this way.....if you had your house "invaded" by a burglar, you could be justified in beating the crap out of that burglar, but you can't use it as justification to go out on the street and lamp some random passer-by. Trivial example, I know, but there are parallels.....

stovelid

Qs wrote: »

A war is a war.

I've always had difficulties with the word war in this context.

I think it stemmed from the IRA's need to legitimize elements of their insurgency, and also to politicize rank criminal acts, such as civilian murder and racketeering.

If it was actually a war in the accepted sense of the word, the IRA would have been extremely hypocritical in constantly trying to make the Brits civilly accountable for typical war acts such as counter-intelligence and the shoot-to-kill actions of the SAS.

If you want to justify LA Mon, Enniskillen, Birmingham or Omagh as acts of war, then in my eyes: the 'freedom fighters' were on the same page as Thatcher and Blair.

AckwelFoley

ive kept out of the thread for a while and just continued to read it.

Im just happy to see im not alone with my distain for the provos

FTA69

ArthurF wrote: »

You sound like you actually admire the IRA & their evil actions which is absolutely sickening to me & all civilised people on this island (Irish & British alike)

Blah blah blah, get over yourself for f*ck's sake. Many people on this island supported the IRA, mostly in working class areas of the north, they did so for a variety of complex reasons; not because they were "uncivilised" as you so imply.

and I really cant comprehend how you can say things like "They (IRA Terrorists) sought to minimise those risks" or "Shooting soldiers was a risk to civilians" or "Bombs had the potential to do untold damage, but some didnt because of precautions taken beforehand" (by the IRA Terrorists no doubt)..............

Probably because those statements are true. You can harbour all the silly notions of "mad bombers" and "psychotic Provos" all you want, the fact remains those stereotypes are simply fallacious. You can attempt to portray the conflict in this country as one of IRA agression all you want, the reality is somewhat different.

FTA69

stovelid wrote: »

I've always had difficulties with the word war in this context.

Why? Dictionary.com describes "war" as:

"–noun 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812. 4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6. a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business."

Where is the contradiction? Contrary to popular belief, the concept of a war is not limited to sovereign states.

I think it stemmed from the IRA's need to legitimize elements of their insurgency, and also to politicize rank criminal acts, such as civilian murder and racketeering.

Or more likely it was because of the fact the IRA was engaged in a guerrilla war against Britain and held a clear political objective.

If it was actually a war in the accepted sense of the word, the IRA would have been extremely hypocritical in constantly trying to make the Brits civilly accountable for typical war acts such as counter-intelligence and the shoot-to-kill actions of the SAS.

Nonsense, the only people being hypocritical were the Brits. Every IRA member is told upon induction that their participation could well lead to imprisonment or death; people are told that if you shoot at the Brits they will shoot back. That is made very clear and nobody was under any illusions about what conflict entails.

The Republican grievance with "shoot to kill" was the hypocrisy of the tacitic. For years the Brits tried to portray Republicans as common criminals, simply a conspiracy of hoods and gangsters which were equal to handbag snatchers and thieves. The fact was, if it was a constitutional situation (as the Brits always maintained) then you wouldn't be using the SAS to shoot people outside their houses. And you certainly wouldn't be arming Loyalists and giving them intelligence which they used to kill.

LordSutch

In your narrow opinion FAT69, all in your very own Terrorist loving opinion .............

But I happen to despise the murderious actions of the IRA ~ crystal clear.

FTA69

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Unfortunately true. And whatever the reasons/excuses/merits for choosing a war as your method (just ask Mr Bush and the Iraqis whether it's the way to go) my own personal opinion is that if you kill an innocent person along the way then you've lost my support.

Well considering that all wars involve innocent loss it would stand to logic that you thus believe that no war can be justified?

FTA69

ArthurF wrote: »

In your narrow opinion FAT69, all in your very own Terrorist loving opinion .............

"FAT69"? Whatever lad, grow up.

murphaph

snyper wrote: »

Im just happy to see im not alone with my distain for the provos

Far from it! The silent majority of the republic of Ireland never agreed with the IRA terror campaign regardless of their sympathies or otherwise towards catholics in Northern Ireland. Their political wing got nowhere while their armed wing was murdering and robbing people. That speaks volumes and I'm proud of most of my fellow countrymen and women for not agreeing with the provo campaign and not supporting them.

AckwelFoley

...and now we decent into petty name calling! FFS! :mad:

AckwelFoley

murphaph wrote: »

Far from it! The silent majority of the republic of Ireland never agreed with the IRA terror campaign regardless of their sympathies or otherwise towards catholics in Northern Ireland. Their political wing got nowhere while their armed wing was murdering and robbing people. That speaks volumes and I'm proud of most of my fellow countrymen and women for not agreeing with the provo campaign and not supporting them.

Agree fully

LordSutch

FTA69 wrote: »

"FAT69"? Whatever lad, grow up.

You want me to "Grow Up" and support the actions of the Provisional IRA.

My God you really are a sad person.

FTA69

You want me to "Grow Up" and support the actions of the Provisional IRA.

To be honest I can't abide whingers. You can have whatever opinion you want, I couldn't give a f*ck. The only reason I told you grow up was because of your changing my name to "FAT69", if you are going to take the p*ss at least attempt to be witty about it.

My God you really are a sad person.

Whatever son, it doesn't take a big man to fire insults from behind a computer screen, so I don't see the need to be talking to you anymore.

Boston

cavedave wrote: »

Proud of what? Can you really be proud of something you had no free will in choosing? Is pride in being Irish not the same as pride in being a man, being a certain height, having two eyes..? To take the dictionary definition

Proud: feeling pleasure or satisfaction over something regarded as highly honorable or creditable to oneself (often fol. by of, an infinitive, or a clause).

How can something you had no choice about be honorable or creditable? Surely only actions you make an effort to carry out can bring kudos?

Pride is like Faith, you either have it or you don't.

LordSutch

FTA69 wrote: »

To be honest I can't abide whingers. You can have whatever opinion you want, I couldn't give a f*ck. The only reason I told you grow up was because of your changing my name to "FAT69", if you are going to take the p*ss at least attempt to be witty about it.

Whatever son, it doesn't take a big man to fire insults from behind a computer screen, so I don't see the need to be talking to you anymore.

Sorry for the unintentional misspelling FTA69, but judging by your reply if I had crossed you or 'your ilk' twenty years ago you would have taken me outside & shot me in the head also.

Nuff said.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

Well considering that all wars involve innocent loss it would stand to logic that you thus believe that no war can be justified?

Presume you're saying "all" in the context of all modern wars that involve indescriminate bombing and missiles......old wars used to have armies (those who agreed to sign up and be prepared to fight).

I'll stand over my statement; if you murder innocent people, then don't expect my support.

Added to the fact that aside from any self-convinced grey area that the IRA(s) tried to justify other acts (e.g. the murder of Gerry McCabe in Adare) and you've REALLY got to question what their definition of "war" and what their definition of "justifiable action" might be.

Of course, they only question those terms in relation to their own acts; when it came to "the Brits", there was no possible justification for any of THEIR actions, was there ?

kreuzberger

murphaph wrote: »

That's not too far from the truth. People would certainly assume you had republican leaninings if you flew a tricolour from your house all year. There's no harm in it during the world cup or whatever of course!

The flag was hijacked by a bunch of crooks and murderers up north so will forever be identified with terrorism unfortunately.

this is untrue . Therehas always been a protocol regarding the flying of the flag , its only supposed to be reserved for specific marked days in the calendar or events were its deemed appropriate . Its a mark of respect and not shame . It was illegal to fly the flag for a very long time in the north and as far as Im aware it still technicaly is . It certainly was until very recently without a doubt . As a youngster there was a huge stir here in the early 80s when the first one went up in my locality , and a lot of pride in it .

Personally though i dislike the practice adopted by sinn fein of plastering it all over the lamp posts in the north and then leaving it to rot in the elements . I also particularly dislike the plastering of slogans accross it , whether political or sporting . Thats nothing more than defacingthe national flag and young people should be more thoroughly educated as to its inappropriateness .

murphaph

kreuzberger wrote: »

this is untrue

What is untrue? that the flag has been hijacked by crooks in the SFIRA movement or that if you flew it outside your house people would think you were a republican?

I can't see how either of those are untrue tbh.

walrusgumble

murphaph wrote: »

What is untrue? that the flag has been hijacked by crooks in the SFIRA movement or that if you flew it outside your house people would think you were a republican?

I can't see how either of those are untrue tbh.

ye but the same could be said about the union jack, be it unionists or even in england people like the bnp, or in the old days the skin heads.

didn't the unionists not hijack the red hand of o'neill- the gaelic chieftain who fought the brits in order to reclaim his land?

is it now time to reclaim that flag from these people then, back to its true meaning ?

what is wrong with being a democratic republican? didn't the sdlp not take pride in the flag? ah symbols all they do it led to trouble. bring back the green flag with the harp.

i completely agree with previous poster's opinion on the defacement of the national flage with slogans etc regardless of nature. bar of course the name of the local league of ireland team of course-no harm in that

ghostdancer

glad to see this thread has unsurprisingly turned into the usual sh1tstorm of stupidity from the pro and anti-IRA morons that happens time and time again on here.

to answer the question: no, I haven't.

stovelid

ghostdancer wrote: »

glad to see this thread has unsurprisingly turned into the usual sh1tstorm of stupidity from the pro and anti-IRA morons that happens time and time again on here.

to answer the question: no, I haven't.

Who exactly are the 'morons'?

kreuzberger

walrusgumble wrote: »

i completely agree with previous poster's opinion on the defacement of the national flage with slogans etc regardless of nature. bar of course the name of the local league of ireland team of course-no harm in that

this would be the only point id really disagree with . Its defacing your national flag . Soccer fans , and indeed some GAA fans ,are only imitating their english counterparts in a monkey see monkey do fashion . Theyve seen english fans use union jack in this fashion and copied them . Its inappropriate . They should just use their local clubs flag instead .

as for reclaiming the ulster flag some of us never abandoned it

FTA69

Personally though i dislike the practice adopted by sinn fein of plastering it all over the lamp posts in the north and then leaving it to rot in the elements .

In fairness a few years ago they had a rethink about that and instead replaced those with a flagpole in certain villages. It was an ÓSF project if I recall correctly.

Liam,

Presume you're saying "all" in the context of all modern wars that involve indescriminate bombing and missiles......old wars used to have armies (those who agreed to sign up and be prepared to fight).

Yeah, and there was plenty of rape and torture going on there as well. Wars in the past had the same carry on as wars in the present, there was just a bit less of it.

ghostdancer,

to answer the question: no, I haven't.

We probably all have at one stage to be honest.

murphaph

walrusgumble wrote: »

ye but the same could be said about the union jack, be it unionists or even in england people like the bnp, or in the old days the skin heads.
Unionists are entitled to the Union Flag! It has indeed been hijacked by the BNP however to my knowledge (much as I dislike the BNP) they are not nor ever have been the political wing of a terrorist organisation that is proscribed in Ireland.

walrusgumble wrote: »

didn't the unionists not hijack the red hand of o'neill- the gaelic chieftain who fought the brits in order to reclaim his land?

They have their own story about the red hand. I couldn't be @rsed here but google "red hand thrown ashore" and you'll find the story behind the blood soaked red hand of Ulster.

walrusgumble wrote: »

is it now time to reclaim that flag from these people then, back to its true meaning ?

I'd have thought a republican would be glad that unionists are happy to use the red hand flag. The red hand is one of the few common symbols in NI.

walrusgumble wrote: »

what is wrong with being a democratic republican?

Nothing. I am one myself in its strictest sense-I believe in the republic model of government and I am a democrat. A Republican in our irish context generally believes in a 32 county socialist republic-which I do not. Irish republicans also tend to agree with the use of violence, so the term nationalist was coined to describe the likes of the SDLP-in favour of irish unity (totally their right) but against the use of violence. In the 26 counties anyone who flew a tricolour during the troubles probably favoured the use of violence IMO.

walrusgumble

murphaph wrote: »

walrusgumble wrote: »

ye but the same could be said about the union jack, be it unionists or even in england people like the bnp, or in the old days the skin heads.
Unionists are entitled to the Union Flag! It has indeed been hijacked by the BNP however to my knowledge (much as I dislike the BNP) they are not nor ever have been the political wing of a terrorist organisation that is proscribed in Ireland.


They have their own story about the red hand. I couldn't be @rsed here but google "red hand thrown ashore" and you'll find the story behind the blood soaked red hand of Ulster.


I'd have thought a republican would be glad that unionists are happy to use the red hand flag. The red hand is one of the few common symbols in NI.


Nothing. I am one myself in its strictest sense-I believe in the republic model of government and I am a democrat. A Republican in our irish context generally believes in a 32 county socialist republic-which I do not. Irish republicans also tend to agree with the use of violence, so the term nationalist was coined to describe the likes of the SDLP-in favour of irish unity (totally their right) but against the use of violence. In the 26 counties anyone who flew a tricolour during the troubles probably favoured the use of violence IMO.

bnp? - during the lansdown road 1995 there were rioters from combat 18, one of them of them were local candiates in bnp. i really wished i could think of there names, but some supporters look to them. maybe not a terrorist in the sense of well known ones but they have caused serious trouble over the years in the uk - your point taken though.

what i meant by unionists, which as you say make a good point, but they have also arbitary killed innocent victims in the named of the union

what i meant be reclaiming the tricolour, i mean disassociating it from the preception of the unionists and some law haw lords (house of lords) that its the flag of terrorists. this of course i happening now.

making the distinction of nationalist and republican - good point and valid. but as for the flying of the tricolour during the troubles (1969-2005ish, bar short periods of ceasefire?) in the 26= "probably" favoured the use of violence - that not been too general? i doubt people like garreth fitzgerald td, (who like you believed in the same model of govrnment), favoured violence. it is the offical flag of this state. - any way point taken but a bit off topic. anyway with the peace now, hopefully the distinction can now go away

could socialism work today? i would not be too sure, we had nationalisation of companies etc - look were that got us.