Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

AckwelFoley

rigormortis wrote: »

Has anyone got a definition of "the real IRA"?

The Real Irish Republican Army, otherwise known as the Real IRA (RIRA) or True IRA and styling itself as Óglaigh na hÉireann (Volunteers of Ireland), is a paramilitary organisation which aims to bring about a United Ireland. The RIRA was formed in 1997 following a split in the Provisional Irish Republican Army, and is an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland and a designated terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom and the United States

The RIRA's ultimate objective is a United Ireland by forcing British withdrawal from Northern Ireland with the use of physical force. The organisation rejects the Mitchell Principles and the Belfast Agreement, comparing the latter to the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty which resulted in the partition of Ireland. The organisation aims to uphold an uncompromising form of Irish republicanism and opposes any political settlement that falls short of Irish unity and independence. Sands-McKevitt, sister of hunger striker Bobby Sands and a founder of the RIRA's political wing, the 32 County Sovereignty Movement, said in an interview that "Bobby did not die for cross-border bodies with executive powers. He did not die for nationalists to be equal British citizens within the Northern Ireland state"

Or in more simple english "a load of bollox"

Riddle101

Some people think the IRA are terrorists, other think they're not. But who are we to judge these people by their actions. British people can't really judge because look at all the crap Britain has pulled for hundreds of years. Enslaving other nations in the name of the Empire, forcing their ways apon others and also killing. How can you judge the IRA for their actions when none of us can give a valid reason as to why we're against it. It's like Hezbollah and Hamas. How many people on here belive they are terrorists when they are fighting a war of Oppression as well. Getting back on topic, now i'm not a follower of the IRA, i think nowadays the IRA are no more then thugs but during the Troubles i can understand their cause.

But what the Real IRA are doing now is complete and utter rubbish. I do not respect them for what they are going to do, they'll bring Northen Ireland back to the 70's and all we can do is watch. I only hope that the Republic of Ireland will help Britain if it means that our relations with Britain and the North won't be ruined

meathstevie

To the chap who misquoted Bismarck. "War is a continiation of politics by different means..." was by a man named Von Klausewitz. Bismarck was way more of a sabre rattler than an actual fighter. Look at the way he united Germany : diplomacy, intimidation and if absolutly needed to achieve his goal : minimal swift decisive military action. The man didn't even believe in acquiring colonial dominions for Germany as this would have embroiled them in conflict with France and England when there was no need for it.

AckwelFoley

Riddle101 wrote: »

But who are we to judge these people by their actions. . How can you judge the IRA for their actions when none of us can give a valid reason as to why we're against it.

Comedy forum is that way >>>>

MegaMeanies

I really hope this RIRA talk is just that...talk. Theres no place for trouble now.

In relation to some of the posts on previous pages...i think its a little too easy to just look back and see the IRA around 1916 as army heroes, and the IRA that came around in the 70's and onwards as terrorist scumbags, basically just because the former won their war.
Im personally against the IRA as the vast majority are, but i cant honestly say that if it were back around the times of the early troubles with bloody sunday etc that i wouldn't have joined up.

But now.... there is absolutely no place for the RIRA. No one wants them, and as i said hopefully this is all talk

It wasn't me!

The IRA had a place, albeit one they abused, when they had a mandate from the people. That mandate has long since expired.

djpbarry

Riddle101 wrote: »

Some people think the IRA are terrorists, other think they're not. But who are we to judge these people by their actions.

It's like Hezbollah and Hamas. How many people on here belive they are terrorists when they are fighting a war of Oppression as well.

It's quite simple really. Hezbollah engage in terrorist activities. Hamas engage in terrorist activities. The IRA has engaged in terrorist activities. Therefore, based on their actions, they are all terrorists. But hey, who am I to judge – I’m not a terrorist!

MegaMeanies

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The IRA had a place, albeit one they abused, when they had a mandate from the people. That mandate has long since expired.

I agree. And tbh, i think thats the general view on it.

Liam Byrne

How can you judge the IRA for their actions when none of us can give a valid reason as to why we're against it

Are you SERIOUS ??? I'll give you my reason within 2 seconds....because they targetted innocent people.

Whatever the possible merits of targetting "the enemy", if you target innocent people you're scum in my book.

Of course, the above is the short answer, because added to that you have the false claim that they're "Oglaigh na hEireann" (the official name of the REAL Irish Army) and their abuse of the Irish Flag (Peace - white - between Green and Orange) and their claim that they represent real Irish people (thereby excluding me from that definition, coz I've no time for terrorists and would not support them) and their involvement in criminal activities over and above murder....

Do you want me to go on, or are those enough "valid reasons why I'm against it" ????

Fratton Fred

Riddle101 wrote: »

British people can't really judge because look at all the crap Britain has pulled for hundreds of years. Enslaving other nations in the name of the Empire, forcing their ways apon others and also killing.

Of course they can judge the actions of the IRA. Someone who puts a bomb in a busy shopping centre or train station with the sole intention of killing civilians is a terrorist. How can there be any debate about that?

The British people can also judge the actions of their forefathers, but you are basically saying that because over the past 300 years Britain (which did not act any differently to any other imperical nation) carried attrocities of it's own, the British people deserve what they get.

People come out with crap like this, then wonder why there is little support for the republican movement in England.

Zombrex

duggie-89 wrote: »

but the problem was british troops used alot of local unionist troops and the sorts ie the RUC and the UDR to go on the dangerous patorls and man the hardest checkpoints so that it could be seen as a civil conflict.

Well no that wasn't "the problem", the problem was that the IRA decided to wage war in a quite immoral fashion, such as pick targets that had very high chance of civilian fatalities. They therefore lost any moral high ground to claim that they fought a just war. But at the time I don't think they cared too much.

It is only now when the lens of history is looking back at the time that pro-IRA supporters have become concerned with how the morality of the war looked.

duggie-89 wrote: »

so althought i feel ashamed at the level of "easy targerts" i also accept that once they were put in harms way the british had condem the IRA to alot f sectarian killings.

Who put these civilians in harms way? The British Army? I'm not following your logic?

How did the British Army put civilians in central Birmingham in harms way? The IRA picked those pubs because they were known to be used by British Army personnel. They didn't care that a bomb blast in a crowded pub would more than likely end up killing a lot more people than the British Army officers (who were off duty at the time and of no great strategic significance which would make them non-legitimate targets, but that is another matter)

The argument that these types of killings were inevitable due to the pressure put on Republicans simply doesn't hold (I'm not sure that is your argument, so correct me if I am mistaken)

duggie-89 wrote: »

but i feel people are getting the wrong point of me, i dont support the real ira but i do accept their right to resist british rule

How do you define "resist"?

Do you mean they have the right to refuse to pay taxes, refuse to recognize the police and legal system, refuse to recognize elected officials (and probably end up in prison).

Or do you mean they have the right to resist with force, or even attack British forces? If so under what legitimacy do they have that right?

Zombrex

Riddle101 wrote: »

Some people think the IRA are terrorists, other think they're not. But who are we to judge these people by their actions.

Er, we are Irish people and therefore perfectly entitled to judge those who claim to act in our name.

Riddle101 wrote: »

How can you judge the IRA for their actions when none of us can give a valid reason as to why we're against it.

I can give you a 100 valid reasons why I'm against it

Riddle101 wrote: »

It's like Hezbollah and Hamas. How many people on here belive they are terrorists when they are fighting a war of Oppression as well.

I do. Fighting a war or oppression or not has nothing to do with being a terrorist. You don't stop being a terrorist because you are fighting a war of oppression. You are a terrorist if you use terrorist tactics. Why you use these tactics has little to do with it.

nacho libre

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, we are Irish people and therefore perfectly entitled to judge those who claim to act in our name.


I can give you a 100 valid reasons why I'm against it


I do. Fighting a war or oppression or not has nothing to do with being a terrorist. You don't stop being a terrorist because you are fighting a war of oppression. You are a terrorist if you use terrorist tactics. Why you use these tactics has little to do with it.

I agree. states who invent noble reasons for conflicts and proceed to engage in acts of terrorism in the process during these conflicts should not be excused because of who they are.

FTA69

Armed struggle as a viable tactic has finished for the foreseeable future, the success of Republicanism can only come about by building politically at a grassroots level, by making the ideas of Republicanism relevant to the lives of working people in Ireland today. Conspiratorial armed actions will achieve little in my opinion, a much better equipped and effective armed struggle was launched before with little success, I can't see the RIRA campaign achieving a different result.

duggie-89

meathstevie wrote: »

To the chap who misquoted Bismarck. "War is a continiation of politics by different means..." was by a man named Von Klausewitz. Bismarck was way more of a sabre rattler than an actual fighter. Look at the way he united Germany : diplomacy, intimidation and if absolutly needed to achieve his goal : minimal swift decisive military action. The man didn't even believe in acquiring colonial dominions for Germany as this would have embroiled them in conflict with France and England when there was no need for it.

are you sure about that quote??? i had in in my books and was taught it at school.

indeed but he understood the value of war that it could be used for politics non the less. and your right in reference to the colonial dominions i think he once said something simular to this

"Your map of Africa is really quite nice. But my map of Africa lies in Europe. Here is Russia, and here... is France, and we're in the middle — that's my map of Africa." Conversation with a colonial enthusiast revealing his disapproval of Colonialism. (1888)

duggie-89

djpbarry wrote: »

It's quite simple really. Hezbollah engage in terrorist activities. Hamas engage in terrorist activities. The IRA has engaged in terrorist activities. Therefore, based on their actions, they are all terrorists. But hey, who am I to judge – I’m not a terrorist!

define terrorist???? is the british and american armies terrorist???? for the wars they have conducted seem to cause more terror in the populace then i can image???

were the free french during ww2 because they carried out terriost actions on the germans.

also hamas has been democratically elected does that still make them a terrorist becuase if they still are surly every political party that supports "war" is a terrorist organisation/

Abraham

Well there is no aptitude test for admission to either RIRAS or CIRA, that we can be sure of. These low grade louts are on a mission based on their ideal of what we need as a nation.
Now it is wise to remember that every society has it's lunatic fringe who either have ideas of their own or are available for manipulation by sinister characters to whom the Unibomber would be a hero. A guy with a gun and a crazy dream doesn't need popular support. In fact he wouldn't get that in a million years so he has to function without it.
But remember this: it takes an awful lot of intelligence, skill, knowledge and energy to build a boat but you only need to be an oafish thick like the renegade subversives to knock a hole in it.

djpbarry

duggie-89 wrote: »

define terrorist????

Terrorist: An agent of a sub-national group who uses premeditated, politically motivated violence against non-combatant targets.

duggie-89 wrote: »

is the british and american armies terrorist????

No, but I do not support a lot of their actions if that is what you mean. Besides, this has nothing to do with the IRA.

duggie-89 wrote: »

were the free french during ww2 because they carried out terriost actions on the germans.

If they attacked civilians (which I don't think they did, but I'm open to correction), then yes, they would have been.

duggie-89 wrote: »

also hamas has been democratically elected does that still make them a terrorist becuase if they still are surly every political party that supports "war" is a terrorist organisation

Hamas were democratically elected, yes, but Palestine is not recognised as a state by most nations in the world, so it is technically incorrect to call them an army. Besides, this is just splitting hairs - there actions are completely immoral, as were the actions of the IRA.

oscarBravo

Let's stay on-topic, folks - discussion of whether anyone other than the "Real" IRA are terrorists doesn't count.

It wasn't me!

points:

1. The IRA have neither the support nor mandate of a state to do what they do. They are not an army by virtue of this fact.

2. The IRA engage in the targeting of non-military targets for the purposes of provoking fear and anger among civilians, thinking this helps their cause, and are therefore terrorists.

3. The IRA ignore the democratic process which has, for the time being, ensured that the north remains under ultimate British control, and ignore the domestic control conferred by the assembly.

The IRA are therefore a terrorist group, not an army, without popular support, fighting a minority cause by terrorist methods. How is this justified in a democracy? You say they have the right to resort to violence; how? Their cause does not have the support of the populace. Their methods are reviled by the very people they claim to represent and they certainly do not have the mandate of a state to confer legitimacy upon them, so how do you pretend to defend them?

Mr.Micro

The way forward is co-operation and dialogue, not the RIRA rhetoric, from an outfit that finds itself redundant and cannot get to grips with reality, like a monster out of work as horror is no longer going to be tolerated. The RIRA should join a work programme and get re-educated, deactivated and reality orientated. Move on or ship out.

duggie-89

I didn't mean for this to get off topic but i was making a point about other groups. how can i explain my point if i cant give examples.

djpbarry wrote: »

Terrorist: An agent of a sub-national group who uses premeditated, politically motivated violence against non-combatant targets.
No, but I do not support a lot of their actions if that is what you mean. Besides, this has nothing to do with the IRA.
If they attacked civilians (which I don't think they did, but I'm open to correction), then yes, they would have been.
Hamas were democratically elected, yes, but Palestine is not recognised as a state by most nations in the world, so it is technically incorrect to call them an army. Besides, this is just splitting hairs - there actions are completely immoral, as were the actions of the IRA.

nice defination by the way quite defined but by sub national group does that mean you dont recoginse state terrorism??

and personallyi would view the british and american armies as terrorists due to the terror they instill in native populations which they bombard.

and you refer to the point that the state of palenstine isn't recoginsed by alot of other countries so they dont have an army but does the same count for ireland when before we gained our independance and were recoginised that the ira wasn't an army????

and good post Mr.micro!!

djpbarry

duggie-89 wrote: »

nice defination by the way quite defined but by sub national group does that mean you dont recoginse state terrorism??

I didn't say that, but it is not relevant to this discussion.

duggie-89 wrote: »

and you refer to the point that the state of palenstine isn't recoginsed by alot of other countries so they dont have an army but does the same count for ireland when before we gained our independance and were recoginised that the ira wasn't an army????

No, it wasn't.

You can try and twist my words all you want, but the IRA is a terrorist organisation, plain and simple.

It wasn't me!

To be fair, the IRA's legitimacy during the war of independence was conferred upon them by the people of the country, via a democratically elected government. They therefore represented the interests of a state, albeit one that was not recognised at the time. I am keen to reiterate though, that nowadays they have no such legitimacy.

LordSutch

The IRA in all its guises are Terrorists, were Terrorists (& always will be Terrorists) there is no grey area whereby they might not be Terrorists!

A Terrorist Organisation is just that ~ A group that set out to 'Terrorise' the population of a Country or State because they (the Terrorists) dont agree with the Majority or Governing body, hence they resort to 'Terrorism' by planting Bombs in Shopping Centres, planting Car Bombs in crowded streets, planting Pub Bombs, shooting Police Men & shooting Police Women, Robbing Banks & Post offices, Perverting the Course of Justice, Killing Judges, Murdering Politicians, Bombing Hotels, and even knee-capping their own scum bags (should they step out of line) ~ whilst at the same time pleading innocence or claiming that they harbour some grevence, or have been badly done by which has pushed them into comitting all of the above.

The Provisional IRA are/were terrorists, & sadly the so called 'Real IRA' now carry that filthy & obscene banner into the 21st Century :mad:

Erin Go Brath

ArthurF wrote: »

The IRA in all its guises are Terrorists, were Terrorists (& always will be Terrorists) there is no grey area whereby they might not be Terrorists!

A Terrorist Organisation is just that ~ A group that set out to 'Terrorise' the population of a Country or State because they (the Terrorists) dont agree with the Majority or Governing body, hence they resort to 'Terrorism' by planting Bombs in Shopping Centres, planting Car Bombs in crowded streets, planting Pub Bombs, shooting Police Men & shooting Police Women, Robbing Banks & Post offices, Perverting the Course of Justice, Killing Judges, Murdering Politicians, Bombing Hotels, and even knee-capping their own scum bags (should they step out of line) ~ whilst at the same time pleading innocence or claiming that they harbour some grevence, or have been badly done by which has pushed them into comitting all of the above.

The Provisional IRA are/were terrorists, & sadly the so called 'Real IRA' now carry that filthy & obscene banner into the 21st Century :mad:

Jaysus wept! :rolleyes:

Its all well and good coming out with stuff like those IRA are all murderous b'tards etc etc etc. It's just way too simplistic. Did you ever stop to think that perhaps they had a legitimate reason for their actions? The IRA were the official army of the Irish state, given a mandate by the people in the 1918 elections (the election that the Brits refused to recognise of course). Britain occupied our country, against the will of the people, and still occupies 1/6th of our land today. Britains actions in Ireland then, and in the artifical Northern statelet in the last few decades with biased policing, collusion, and generally making sure one grouping within the statelet recevied preferential treatment was bound to end in conflict and unrest. No analysis is relevant unless you look at the reason for the conflict, and all concerned parties involvement in it.

LordSutch

So you defend the actions of the IRA, and you wish to see them carry their New campaign into the 21st century?

Zombrex

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Its all well and good coming out with stuff like those IRA are all murderous b'tards etc etc etc. It's just way too simplistic. Did you ever stop to think that perhaps they had a legitimate reason for their actions?

I think all of us did. And the answer is a big fat no

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The IRA were the official army of the Irish state, given a mandate by the people in the 1918 elections (the election that the Brits refused to recognise of course).

The IRA were not the official army of the Irish State, and I take great offense at such an assertion.

The Irish Army, formed in 1922 by Michael Collins and given legitimacy by the Irish Free State government, itself given legitimacy by the people of Ireland through the 1918 elections, was the official army of the Irish state.

The members of the group known as the IRA mostly refused to join the Irish Army as they refused to accept the Treaty, thus turning their back on the wishes of the people of Ireland and losing any claim to legitimacy to represent them. The IRA groups as we know them today claim lineage to those anti-Treaty IRA members who fought against the Irish Army.

To associate the thugs and murders of the 60s-70s IRA with the Irish Defense Forces is a ridiculous insult to those who served this country, and to the concept of legitimate armed forces.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Britain occupied our country, against the will of the people, and still occupies 1/6th of our land today. Britains actions in Ireland then, and in the artifical Northern statelet in the last few decades with biased policing, collusion, and generally making sure one grouping within the statelet recevied preferential treatment was bound to end in conflict and unrest.

That does not, and never has, justified the willful death of civilians and innocents.

It was not that resistance to British rule was immoral. Heck its not even that armed resistance to British rule was immoral.

It is that the specific actions that the IRA actually undertook in pursuit of that armed resistance that were immoral.

Erin Go Brath

Wicknight wrote: »

I think all of us did. And the answer is a big fat no

You speak for the entire Irish Nation then. It must be a great honour for you.

Wicknight wrote: »

The IRA were not the official army of the Irish State, and I take great offense at such an assertion.

The vast majority voted for Sinn Fein in that election in 1918. That meant that the Irish people gave them a mandate to deliver Irish indpendence. Seeing this was denied by the British, armed conflict was the only way this could be achieved.

Wicknight wrote: »

To associate the thugs and murders of the 60s-70s IRA with the Irish Defense Forces is a ridiculous insult to those who served this country, and to the concept of legitimate armed forces.

One mans thug and murderer is another mans freedom fighter. I believe the PIRA were wholly justified in organising a campaign against the tyranny of the sectarian staletet. The Irish Defence forces should have crossed the border to aid the people of Derry during the battle of the bogside.

ArthurF I don't agree with the RIRA's current proposed campaign. There is a way forward through democratic means now.

It wasn't me!

So the Irish Defence Forces should have *invaded* another country, being Britain? I imagine that would have been a fantastic move. Reminds me of Hitler being handed a great big chunk of Czechoslovakia because there were German speakers there.