Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Liam Byrne

Fiatach wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What stats are you looking for? Are you trying to claim that Irish Terrorists didn't kill civilians?

The legitimate army of Ireland did kill civilians in some bombing raids which had gone wrong. They let of tens of thousands of bombs usually giving warnings to clear the area of civilians to inflict damage to infrastructure and economic assets. Civilians were not the targets or there would have been no warnings.

Ah yes - that old chestnut......and of course you'll 100% accept that the authorities deliberately ignored the warnings to make the IRA look bad, while ignoring the strong possibility that the warnings were deliberately confusing in order to make the authorities look bad.

BTW, the "legitimate army of Ireland" hasn't ever - to my knowledge - bombed anyone.

FACT : no bombs in civilian areas = no murders of Irish people.

No-one's responsibility other than the low-lifes that planned and planted the bomb.

Fratton Fred

Fear Uladh wrote: »

Your wonderful government know all about colluding with a number of so-called terrorist organisations.

So does the Irish government.

This thread is about the IRA campaign and its legitimacy. Whataboutery isn't really in scope, unless that is the only thing you have to legitimise bombing pubs and shopping centres.

Fratton Fred

Fiatach wrote: »

The legitimate army of Ireland did kill civilians in some bombing raids which had gone wrong. They let of tens of thousands of bombs usually giving warnings to clear the area of civilians to inflict damage to infrastructure and economic assets. Civilians were not the targets or there would have been no warnings.

Yep, as I thought, you will make absolutely any tenuous claim to try and justify a terrorist attack.

Was the IRA at war with Argos? What about Marks and Spencer? What was the economic damage caused by shooting dead Ross McWhirter on his doorstep, or throwing a bomb into a west end restaurant?

Did the UK's economy suddenly nose dive when bombs were planted in Birmingham pubs, or in a Belfast bus station?

These were pure acts of terrorism.

JustinDee

Fiatach wrote: »

The legitimate army of Ireland did kill civilians in some bombing raids which had gone wrong. They let of tens of thousands of bombs usually giving warnings to clear the area of civilians to inflict damage to infrastructure and economic assets. Civilians were not the targets or there would have been no warnings.

"Some"??
How old are you?? Can you even remember what it was like during the 60s to the 90s?? How the f**k was Enniskillen, to name just one shameful and unjustifiable bout of slaughter, a "legitimate target"? Nothing legitimate either about the criminal rackets or the vigilantism via punishment beatings, shootings and killings.

The "legitimate army of Ireland" are part of a UNIFIL deployment and are currently on peacekeeping missions in DR Congo, Lebanon, Kosovo, Bosnia, Israel and Jordan. Not some deluded paramilitary organisation that hijacked the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland in the late 60s and early 70s.

Noreen1

The Republican campaign was justifiable, in the sense that Civil rights were clearly not going to be given willingly by either the British Government, or some members of the Unionist tradition. I rather suspect that, without the example shown by these "leaders", peace would have been achieved in the North decades earlier.
At the end of the day, the vast majority of people of both political persuasions, voted for peace when given the opportunity.

Those "leaders", have a great deal of blood on their hands, imo.

However, much of what occurred was entirely unjustifiable. The Omagh bombing, to cite just one instance, was absolutely appalling.

However, if a balanced, and honest view of the atrocities in Northern Ireland is ever to be achieved - then people of both persuasions need to be prepared to admit the wrongs committed by both sides.
There was collusion by the security forces with Loyalist paramilitaries - and anyone who is genuinely interested in the truth should not only admit it - but openly condemn it.

I can freely admit that some of the things done in the name of Irish freedom were appalling - yet, I don't see that same readiness to admit wrongdoing from certain "Loyalist" contributors to this forum. The atrocities committed by British forces on Irish soil, which were countless, are dismissed as "800 years - yada, yada."

It probably makes it a great deal easier to justify the Loyalist paramilitary organisations atrocities, but it certainly does not indicate any desire to understand how the conflict occurred.
"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it," (George Santayana, Reason in Common Sense.)

maccored

what kind of question is that? Surely if such a setup is biased, then it doesnt matter what findings they come up with. get rid of them, and put together something that isnt part of the force they're investigating. Its not that difficult a concept to grasp.

junder wrote: »

So you wil disregard all findings of the HET team?

maccored

trendyvicar wrote: »

By the way, The RUC wasn't disbanded, it was incorporated into The PSNI, having been awarded The George Cross - The UK's highest civilian award for valour.

oh but werent we all told the bad old ruc were gone?

maccored

why not call their 'bluff' Keith?

Exactly. We both know why, and its because the brits have far too much face to lose. so what if the IRA come out looking like they killed people - many mistakenly think they were the biggest killers anyway.

Its the squeaky clean british government and army that'll be covered in crap if an international independent inquiry went ahead (note the word independent .. much like HET should be). And its the british who dont want it to happen, regardless of the bluff being posted to the contrary.

KeithAFC wrote: »

Sinn Fein talk for effect. They say they want an international independent inquiry and yet we all know they are bluffing because it would look really bad on Sinn Fein and are just saying it because they know the British government doesn't want one.

Sinn Fein though support the PSNI. Unless it supports a Republican view point which they agree with (Bloody Sunday for example), they don't want to know.

junder

maccored wrote: »

what kind of question is that? Surely if such a setup is biased, then it doesnt matter what findings they come up with. get rid of them, and put together something that isnt part of the force they're investigating. Its not that difficult a concept to grasp.

junder wrote: »

So you wil disregard all findings of the HET team?

Quite a simple question really, loyalist paramilitary complaigned of the bias of the HET team seemingly only investigating loyalist crimes, since you also ironically agree with loyalist paramitarys about the HET team and will be disregarding any findings of the HET team be they investigating republicans or indeed loyalists?

Liam Byrne

Noreen1 wrote: »

The Republican campaign was justifiable

Noreen1 wrote: »

However, much of what occurred was entirely unjustifiable. The Omagh bombing, to cite just one instance, was absolutely appalling.

Curious phrasing. The "Republican campaign" involved murdering people, and so while other parts of it may have been justifiable, you cannot say that "it" was justifiable while simultaneously saying that the other parts of it were "entirely unjustifiable".

In addition, those objectionable and entirely unjustifiable parts didn't "occur"; that's far too passive. They were planned and caused.

We need to stop the double-speak and tell it like it is.

trendyvicar

Fiatach wrote: »

Its not just me saying it. 'Brigadier' David Millar 'OBE' stated if he sacked members of the UDR because they were loyalist paramilitaries he would be left without a regiment.

The report concerned was published in 1973 and regarded a single unit in which 15% were in Loyalists organisations. The vast majority concerned were in The UDA, a completely legal organisation at that time. Most UDA men at that time were 'stick men', doing nothing more than manning barricades and taking part in strikes and demonstrations - much like The Catholic Ex-Servicemen's Association that was involved in similar activities on The Nationalist side.

I find it deliciously ironic that you would quote a report prepared by a British Army brigadier. LOL. Was he outside the 'collusionist loop'?

maccored

so let me get this straight ..... you think that because loyalists think the HET are biased, then republicans shouldnt? Republicans think the HET is biased as well so that REALLy begs the question why the HET still exists, considering we all know they're biased.

I personally dont have this tit for tat grudge mentality - the one your post seems to expect. I wouldnt listen to anything the HET came up with regardless who it concerned.

junder wrote: »

Quite a simple question really, loyalist paramilitary complaigned of the bias of the HET team seemingly only investigating loyalist crimes, since you also ironically agree with loyalist paramitarys about the HET team and will be disregarding any findings of the HET team be they investigating republicans or indeed loyalists?

maccored

I find it amazing that you dont think a large chunk of the UDR were loyalist paramilitaries.

"Most UDA men at that time were 'stick men', doing nothing more than manning barricades and taking part in strikes and demonstrations" - hahahaha - yeah, like the f*cker that pulled his UDR gun out in the pub across from my house years back and started threatening all the taigs in the pub ... yeah, they were harmless alright. That eejit got the crap kicked out of him all the same.

trendyvicar wrote: »

The report concerned was published in 1973 and regarded a single unit in which 15% were in Loyalists organisations. The vast majority concerned were in The UDA, a completely legal organisation at that time. Most UDA men at that time were 'stick men', doing nothing more than manning barricades and taking part in strikes and demonstrations - much like The Catholic Ex-Servicemen's Association that was involved in similar activities on The Nationalist side.

I find it deliciously ironic that you would quote a report prepared by a British Army brigadier. LOL. Was he outside the 'collusionist loop'?

trendyvicar

maccored wrote: »

I find it amazing that you dont think a large chunk of the UDR were loyalist paramilitaries.

"Most UDA men at that time were 'stick men', doing nothing more than manning barricades and taking part in strikes and demonstrations" - hahahaha - yeah, like the f*cker that pulled his UDR gun out in the pub across from my house years back and started threatening all the taigs in the pub ... yeah, they were harmless alright. That eejit got the crap kicked out of him all the same.

Got any more useless anecdotes? Amazing that the ruthless Loyalist gun man somehow failed to get a round off...

maccored

no no no - he wasnt a 'ruthless Loyalist gun man', he was one of the ''stick men', doing nothing more than manning barricades and taking part in strikes and demonstrations'.

Just pointing out how rubbish your statement was.

maccored

trendyvicar wrote: »

Amazing that the ruthless Loyalist gun man somehow failed to get a round off...

well, we are talking about the UDA, so its not that mind boggling.

trendyvicar

maccored wrote: »

no no no - he wasnt a 'ruthless Loyalist gun man', he was one of the ''stick men', doing nothing more than manning barricades and taking part in strikes and demonstrations'.

Just pointing out how rubbish your statement was.

Ye, I can see how your meaningless anecdote completely undermined everything I said. :rolleyes:

Irish Nationalist discovers traffic warden is a suspected burglar therefore all traffic wardens are burglars and indeed the state itself must be actively organising burgalries...

trendyvicar

maccored wrote: »

well, we are talking about the UDA, so its not that mind boggling.

I do wish Nationalists like yourself would make up your minds about Loyalist terrorists. Are they ruthless, sadistic killers or harmless buffoons?

Let the rest of the world know when you've managed to scrape a coherent analysis together...

maccored

Great idea - sidetrack.

You claim UDA men were harmless 'stick' men'. You lie sir.

maccored

trendyvicar wrote: »

I do wish Nationalists like yourself would make up your minds about Loyalist terrorists. Are they ruthless, sadistic killers or harmless buffoons?

theres nothing more dangerous than someone who knows just enough to be harmful.

trendyvicar

maccored wrote: »

Great idea - sidetrack.

You claim UDA men were harmless 'stick' men'. You lie sir.

The vast majority were.

"sir" - have we met before? Online I mean...

trendyvicar

maccored wrote: »

theres nothing more dangerous than someone who knows just enough to be harmful.

So that would put them closer to the 'ruthless killers' category, rather than the 'buffoons' you implied they were before.

maccored

no we havent met - I totally disagree with your assertion that the majority of UDR men were harmless fellows more concerned with striking etc etc rather than being sectarian bullyboys. My own experiences (thats 'useless anecdotes' to you) tell me you are so far from the truth its laughable.

junder

maccored wrote: »

so let me get this straight ..... you think that because loyalists think the HET are biased, then republicans shouldnt? Republicans think the HET is biased as well so that REALLy begs the question why the HET still exists, considering we all know they're biased.

I personally dont have this tit for tat grudge mentality - the one your post seems to expect. I wouldnt listen to anything the HET came up with regardless who it concerned.

i have not offered any opinion on the HET team only asked you some question about it. as for the alleged bias of the HET team some people might say that if both loyalists and republicans are against the HET team, then it must be doing something right

maccored

trendyvicar wrote: »

So that would put them closer to the 'ruthless killers' category, rather than the 'buffoons' you implied they were before.

Sectarian bullies is what I would call them.

maccored

'some people' would say eh? Pretty twisted people them 'some people' if thats the case.

junder wrote: »

i have not offered any opinion on the HET team only asked you some question about it. as for the alleged bias of the HET team some people might say that if both loyalists and republicans are against the HET team, then it must be doing something right

maccored

btw - its pretty impolite to pose questions and never offer your own opinions.

junder wrote: »

i have not offered any opinion on the HET team only asked you some question about it. as for the alleged bias of the HET team some people might say that if both loyalists and republicans are against the HET team, then it must be doing something right

junder

maccored wrote: »

btw - its pretty impolite to pose questions and never offer your own opinions.

if you wanted my opinion you should have asked. Personly i have no issue witn the HET as long as they pursue thier enquirys equally. I would hate to think that the HET team would not pursue a case because a suspect may be a TD in Louth or a deputy First minister in Northern Ireland for example

trendyvicar

maccored wrote: »

no we havent met - I totally disagree with your assertion that the majority of UDR men were harmless fellows more concerned with striking etc etc rather than being sectarian bullyboys. My own experiences (thats 'useless anecdotes' to you) tell me you are so far from the truth its laughable.

I assume you mean UDA not UDR?

I never claimed they weren't "sectarian bully boys" (there were plenty of them in both communities), what I claimed was that most of them weren't active terrorists - hence there presence within The UDR was hardly controversial in 1973.

By the way, you are aware that one of the reasons The UDR was set up by The UK State was to provide a safety valve for angry Unionists who otherwise might have joined a militant Loyalist group? So it was inevitable that in those early years there would have been some crossover.

trendyvicar

maccored wrote: »

Sectarian bullies is what I would call them.

What would you have called PIRA?

KeithAFC

Some people are thinking of the UFF when they mention the UDA. The military wing of the UDA.

Hannibal

KeithAFC wrote: »

Some people are thinking of the UFF when they mention the UDA. The military wing of the UDA.

So what are you saying, the UDA was a politcal wing or something?
The UDA were the largest loyalist paramilitary group and they used the pseudonym of UFF to claim attacks

KeithAFC

Dotsey wrote: »

So what are you saying, the UDA was a politcal wing or something?
The UDA were the largest loyalist paramilitary group and they used the pseudonym of UFF to claim attacks

Like people have said, the vast majority of people in the UDA never lifted a gun or fired a shot. The UFF was the branch which did that.

karma_

KeithAFC wrote: »

Like people have said, the vast majority of people in the UDA never lifted a gun or fired a shot. The UFF was the branch which did that.

You don't see the double standard you're exhibiting here, no?

KeithAFC

karma_ wrote: »

You don't see the double standard you're exhibiting here, no?

Which is? Just pointing it out. I didn't say they had no links to the UDA. Just like Sinn Fein and the PIRA do.

Hannibal

KeithAFC wrote: »

Which is? Just pointing it out. I didn't say they had no links to the UDA. Just like Sinn Fein and the IRA do.

Keith Sinn Fein are a fully legitimate political party and have been for over 100 years. The UDA are in no way, shape or form a political party on any level. They are a paramilitary group.

To be a member of the UFF you are a member of the UDA. To be a member of the IRA you don't have to be a member of Sinn Fein that's the difference and a big one.

KeithAFC

Dotsey wrote: »

Keith Sinn Fein are a fully legitimate political party and have been for over 100 years. The UDA are in no way, shape or form a political party on any level. They are a paramilitary group.

To be a member of the UFF you are a member of the UDA. To be a member of the IRA you don't have to be a member of Sinn Fein that's the difference and a big one.

I didn't say the UDA was a political party but like it has been said, they set up road blocks and meetings etc. The vast majority of people in the UDA didn't fire a gun. The UFF (wing of the UDA) did that.

I think that pretty much common knowledge.

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

What would you have called PIRA?

More accurate than those they were fighting.

Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,824 people

621 (34%) of these casualties were civilians.

---

British Army killed 305 people during Operation Banner.

156 (~51%) were civilians.

---

the UVF and RHC was responsible for 481 deaths

412 85% civilian.

Republican paramilitary 4%.

I'd imagine firing blindly into a group of 481 randomly chosen people would return the same results.

Hannibal

KeithAFC wrote: »

I didn't say the UDA was a political party but like it has been said, they set up road blocks and meetings etc. The vast majority of people in the UDA didn't fire a gun. The UFF (wing of the UDA) did that.

I think that pretty much common knowledge.

The UFF was essentially a puppet with it's strings being pulled fully by the UDA, maybe in another way the UDA were a government and the UFF it's army. Now I can accept there's hawks and doves within every organisation and people within the UDA didn't fire a gun but they were complicit in everything they did.

trendyvicar

Chuck Stone wrote: »

More accurate than those they were fighting.

Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,824 people

621 (34%) of these casualties were civilians.

---

British Army killed 305 people during Operation Banner.

156 (~51%) were civilians.

---

the UVF and RHC was responsible for 481 deaths

412 85% civilian.

Republican paramilitary 4%.

I'd imagine firing blindly into a group of 481 randomly chosen people would return the same results.

What makes you say that as regards Loyalist paramilitaries?

LordSutch

Dotsey wrote: »

The UFF was essentially a puppet with it's strings being pulled fully by the UDA, maybe in another way the UDA were a government and the UFF it's army. Now I can accept there's hawks and doves within every organisation and people within the UDA didn't fire a gun but they were complicit in everything they did.

Still waiting for an answer to 431 :rolleyes:

trendyvicar

Dotsey wrote: »

The UFF was essentially a puppet with it's strings being pulled fully by the UDA, maybe in another way the UDA were a government and the UFF it's army. Now I can accept there's hawks and doves within every organisation and people within the UDA didn't fire a gun but they were complicit in everything they did.

That's not quite how it worked in the early seventies (the period in question). The UDA had a hard core who used The UFF as a flag of convenience, but their association with the 'stick men' was limited as regards killing Nationalists. In effect, The UFF was a separate grouping. Obviously The UFF (virtual organisation) was nominally answerable to the specific UDA brigades, but only nominally. Control over The UFF varied from brigade to brigade and from time to time.

Many 'stick men' were actually frightened of the hard core at that time.

It was the 'stick men' who made up most of those UDA men in The UDR - but that's not to say some of the hard core (UFF) didn't avail themselves of the facilities. Who knows.

Hannibal

LordSutch wrote: »

Still waiting for an answer to 431 :rolleyes:

look at the original post I made there's a slight typing error, change the word "demographs" to "demographics" and there's your answer!!

KeithAFC

Dotsey wrote: »

The UFF was essentially a puppet with it's strings being pulled fully by the UDA, maybe in another way the UDA were a government and the UFF it's army. Now I can accept there's hawks and doves within every organisation and people within the UDA didn't fire a gun but they were complicit in everything they did.

Same could be said for Sinn Fein. And Sinn Fein are actually a political party.

K-9

Read post wrong!

laoch na mona

how about we agree everyone was wrong

Liam Byrne

Chuck Stone wrote: »

trendyvicar wrote: »

What would you have called PIRA?

More accurate than those they were fighting.

Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,824 people

621 (34%) of these casualties were civilians.

---

British Army killed 305 people during Operation Banner.

156 (~51%) were civilians.

---

the UVF and RHC was responsible for 481 deaths

412 85% civilian.

Republican paramilitary 4%.

I'd imagine firing blindly into a group of 481 randomly chosen people would return the same results.

621 vs 156 vs 412 in real figures. So the IRA murdered more than the others put together.

And since most apologists will pretend that IRA were the only ones that didn't target civilians, those statistics are even more damning - 621 civilians murdered by those supposedly going out of their way not to murder civilians, if you were to believe the apologists.

Hannibal

KeithAFC wrote: »

Same could be said for Sinn Fein. And Sinn Fein are actually a political party.

It could be said of Sinn Fein but it wouldn't be entirely true. There was a crossover of members between SF and the IRA but SF had no direct control over the IRA, they could exert political influence but not control.
This is where the likes of Adams came in, while having never being in the IRA he knew a lot of members from his area and they respected his political nouse and this opened up avenues to him to get the SF point of view across on how to play the political game. In many ways SF's input into the IRA caused the splits that created the CIRA and RIRA as some military hardliners couldn't accept or understand the political alternative and went off in another direction

KeithAFC

Dotsey wrote: »

It could be said of Sinn Fein but it wouldn't be entirely true. There was a crossover of members between SF and the IRA but SF had no direct control over the IRA, they could exert political influence but not control.
This is where the likes of Adams came in, while having never being in the IRA he knew a lot of members from his area and they respected his political nouse and this opened up avenues to him to get the SF point of view across on how to play the political game. In many ways SF's input into the IRA caused the splits that created the CIRA and RIRA as some military hardliners couldn't accept or understand the political alternative and went off in another direction

Ignoring the utter nonsense in bold, Sinn Fein had a huge say in the PIRA. A lot of Sinn Fein members are ex PIRA. Ever heard of the armalite and ballot box strategy? Sinn Fein would run in elections, while behind the scenes organise the PIRA around Ulster planting bombs and killing people.

snafuk35

Noreen1 wrote: »

The Republican campaign was justifiable, in the sense that Civil rights were clearly not going to be given willingly by either the British Government, or some members of the Unionist tradition.

The IRA campaign had nothing to do with Civil Rights. They didn't want civil rights for Catholics under British rule. They wanted Irish independence and a 32 county republic. Some impressionable idiots were fed that crap about civil rights. The ambitions of Adams and McGuinness were to become top dog once they knew the armed campaign was going nowhere so they instead switch tack and focused on a gradualist process of phasing out terror and phasing in normal politics. They have only recently completed the transformation and having left shed layers of dead skin they leave the killing and murdering up to the idiots in the RIRA.

I rather suspect that, without the example shown by these "leaders", peace would have been achieved in the North decades earlier.

The aim was power. Peace only came when the provos saw the door open for political power.

At the end of the day, the vast majority of people of both political persuasions, voted for peace when given the opportunity.

The people were voting for peace since 1922.

Those "leaders", have a great deal of blood on their hands, imo.

So what? They don't care and there's no chance of them going to prison now. They let Bobby Sands starve while they were planning their political trajectories.

However, much of what occurred was entirely unjustifiable. The Omagh bombing, to cite just one instance, was absolutely appalling.

If the Provos had done it they would telling us all contextualize it as part of the war. It's only an atrocity because they didn't do it!

However, if a balanced, and honest view of the atrocities in Northern Ireland is ever to be achieved

Good luck with that friendo!

- then people of both persuasions need to be prepared to admit the wrongs committed by both sides.

You know they never will.

There was collusion by the security forces with Loyalist paramilitaries - and anyone who is genuinely interested in the truth should not only admit it - but openly condemn it.

Never going to happen.