Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

karma_

Zombrex wrote: »

Loughgall was an attack on a RUC base (how is that equivalent to Bloody Sunday?)

Simple really, and on two fronts.

Firstly, there was an innocent bystander killed, and secondly, there was much debate about how the ambush happened. If as you were saying, we took the conflict in the context of a War, then Republicans basically should have accepted the loss rather than question the military of having a shoot-to-kill strategy.

Bloody Sunday was completely different.

Chuck Stone

I think of it as more of a conflict than a war. For me a war is between two states. As regards the assassination of IRA operatives, well, live by the sword die by the sword would be my opinion on that.

The IRA can't really complain about the method of their operatives being killed seeing as they employed similar methods themselves.

Sunnyisland

Zombrex wrote: »

Oh right. Odd the IRA didn't have that problem. They seem to boast about it being a war in a way to legitimize what they did.



Er, I think you mean support throughout the country of Libya, right?

Don't understand your posts whatsoever.

Sunnyisland

The treaty is on TG4 at 21.30 tonight. Interesting for those Interested.

K-9

Zombrex wrote: »

Loughgall was an attack on a RUC base (how is that equivalent to Bloody Sunday?)

The point was Bloody Sunday was a poor example.

Personally I'd have a big problem with people who thought something like Loughgall or say Gibraltar was wrong by the British or and commemorate the IRA dead as heroes, and then complain about the British Army occupation and the usual spiel about oppression etc. you get.

In a dirty war like that tragedies were going to happen.

There is another argument that the forces of law and order should always be held accountable to higher standards than guerrilla type factions. Shoot to kill was an example of honourable RUC officers risking their personal safety to out illegal and immoral actions. Basically "they shouldn't go down to the IRA's level".

round tower huntsman

yes. ira's past present and future have been justified in taking armed action against british military and political persence in ireland.

JustinDee

round tower huntsman wrote: »

yes. ira's past present and future have been justified in taking armed action against british military and political persence in ireland.

Whatever your views on the past (were you even around during the 60s, 70s and 80s?), the wishes of the majority of people on this island regarding its future have been clearly indicated so there is absolutely no mandate (their favourite abused word) for any of these murderers to continue.
They, like their little nr of supporters, must suck it up as 'democracy' is what they claimed to represent and be fighting for.

FUNKY LOVER

JustinDee wrote: »

round tower huntsman wrote: »

yes. ira's past present and future have been justified in taking armed action against british military and political persence in ireland.

Whatever your views on the past (were you even around during the 60s, 70s and 80s?), the wishes of the majority of people on this island regarding its future have been clearly indicated so there is absolutely no mandate (their favourite abused word) for any of these murderers to continue.
They, like their little nr of supporters, must suck it up as 'democracy' is what they claimed to represent and be fighting for.

Did the libyan rebels have a mandate for their violence which resulted in 60 thousand civilians killed and thousands maimed?but somehow that was acceptable.

JustinDee

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

Did the libyan rebels have a mandate for their violence which resulted in 60 thousand civilians killed and thousands maimed?but somehow that was acceptable.

The difference is a minority claiming to speak for everyone and claiming to have majority support.
Moral relativism about an entirely different situation in an entirely different region with entirely different consequences won't justify the unjustifiable whatsoever.
The people on this island voted for peaceful compromise hence the improved situation and conditions. The only non-changing elements are made so by a lowly minority.

FUNKY LOVER

JustinDee wrote: »

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

Did the libyan rebels have a mandate for their violence which resulted in 60 thousand civilians killed and thousands maimed?but somehow that was acceptable.

The difference is a minority claiming to speak for everyone and claiming to have majority support.
Moral relativism about an entirely different situation in an entirely different region with entirely different consequences won't justify the unjustifiable whatsoever.
The people on this island voted for peaceful compromise hence the improved situation and conditions. The only non-changing elements are made so by a lowly minority.

when do they claim to have the majority support or speak for the majority.if Irish republican history shows anything its quite the opposite in fact.

JustinDee

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

when do they claim to have the majority support or speak for the majority.if Irish republican history shows anything its quite the opposite in fact.

I take it you're talking about the splinter groups/factions?
Taking up the ridiculous violent 'cause' themselves and waffling hypocritically about democratic rights etc yet actually usurping the democratic wishes of the overwhelming majority of this island's residents.
Thats when.
The other side of the coin is a fascistic putsch against what the island's inhabitants have said they want.

JustinDee

criticalcritic wrote: »

Britain still occupys the North of this island, aslong as they do there will be resistance

People can object to that but tough

People have already objected to it and voiced how they want to progress on this island so Tough, you're not wanted.

criticalcritic wrote: »

'Ireland unfree will never will be at peace' - Padraig Pearse

Patrick Pearse actually (or PH Pearse). He was never christened Padraig nor adopted the name Padraig.

Hannibal

The simple answer to the OP is that yes the republican campaign was justifiable.

The IRA had no alternative but to enter into a military campaign in 1969, nothing else would have got us to where we are today without it. That's not to say that every thing the IRA done during this campaign was right because somethings were completely wrong. You have to remember that they were fighting one of the best equipped, trained and heavily armed armies in the world and still brought them to a stalemate in a military sense.

What happened on the political side had nothing to do with the IRA but their campaign did open up many avenues and give republicans leverage in negotiations with the British government.

trendyvicar

Dotsey wrote: »

The simple answer to the OP is that yes the republican campaign was justifiable.

The IRA had no alternative but to enter into a military campaign in 1969, nothing else would have got us to where we are today without it. That's not to say that every thing the IRA done during this campaign was right because somethings were completely wrong. You have to remember that they were fighting one of the best equipped, trained and heavily armed armies in the world and still brought them to a stalemate in a military sense.

What happened on the political side had nothing to do with the IRA but their campaign did open up many avenues and give republicans leverage in negotiations with the British government.

No they didn't. That's hilarious. The two combatant groups in Northern Ireland were Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries. The role of the security forces was to maintain law and order, minimise the number of dead and injured and 'hold the ring' until a political solution could lead to a normalised and peaceful Northern Ireland.

Do most young people in Ireland believe your ridiculous claim about 'military stalemates'? LOL

Sunnyisland

trendyvicar wrote: »

No they didn't. That's hilarious. The two combatant groups in Northern Ireland were Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries. The role of the security forces was to maintain law and order, minimise the number of dead and injured and 'hold the ring' until a political solution could lead to a normalised and peaceful Northern Ireland.

Do most young people in Ireland believe your ridiculous claim about 'military stalemates'? LOL

An internal British Army document released in 2007 stated that the British Army had failed to defeat the IRA but had made it impossible for them to win through the use of violence. I would call that a stalement.

Ps The part in black is indeed hilarious.

Hannibal

trendyvicar wrote: »

No they didn't. That's hilarious. The two combatant groups in Northern Ireland were Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries. The role of the security forces was to maintain law and order, minimise the number of dead and injured and 'hold the ring' until a political solution could lead to a normalised and peaceful Northern Ireland.

Do most young people in Ireland believe your ridiculous claim about 'military stalemates'? LOL

Would you define Bloody Sunday and the Ballymurphy Massacre as examples of security forces maintaining law and order?

Your post is incredibly naive and shows your lack of understanding of the Troubles.

trendyvicar

realies wrote: »

An internal British Army document released in 2007 stated that the British Army had failed to defeat the IRA but had made it impossible for them to win through the use of violence. I would call that a stalement.

Ps The part in black is indeed hilarious.

Another fantasist. Are The Irish Police in a military stalemate with Irish drug gangs? LOL

The situation in Northern Ireland was a classic inter-communal conflict requiring a political solution, which was eventually found. The security forces could do no more than hold the ring and fill the prisons until that point came.

trendyvicar

Dotsey wrote: »

Would you define Bloody Sunday and the Ballymurphy Massacre as examples of security forces maintaining law and order?

Your post is incredibly naive and shows your lack of understanding of the Troubles.

I'm not quite sure what happened in either of those two instances - nor do I care. However, one bent copper does not mean the police aren't involved in maintaining law and order.

FUNKY LOVER

trendyvicar wrote: »

Dotsey wrote: »

Would you define Bloody Sunday and th Ballymurphy Massacre as examples of security forces maintaining law and order?

Your post is incredibly naive and shows your lack of understanding of the Troubles.

I'm not quite sure what happened in either of those two instances - nor do I care. However, one bent copper does not mean the police aren't involved in maintaining law and order.

Oh sweet lord.

trendyvicar

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

Oh sweet lord.

You know all this crap guys like you talk on line - is it the same material that Sinn Fein feed to the urban underclass and rural illiterates in The Irish Republic to get their votes?

Military Stalemate...

Just Campaign...

Bloody Sunday...

Ballymurhy...

Best Equipped Army in The World...

Just wondering how they explain away the elephant in the room - THE BORDER. LOL

KeithAFC

trendyvicar wrote: »

You know all this crap guys like you talk on line - is it the same material that Sinn Fein feed to the urban underclass and rural illiterates in The Irish Republic to get their votes?

Military Stalemate...

Just Campaign...

Bloody Sunday...

Ballymurhy...

Best Equipped Army in The World...

Just wondering how they explain away the elephant in the room - THE BORDER. LOL

They can't. It is just propaganda from Sinn Fein. Some of them don't know if they are coming or going. One minute Martin Mcguinness talks of Unionist outreach and the next niall o'donnghaile is trying to upset people from the PUL community. A very bizarre party.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

They can't. It is just propaganda from Sinn Fein. Some of them don't know if they are coming or going. One minute Martin Mcguinness talks of Unionist outreach and the next niall o'donnghaile is trying to upset people from the PUL community. A very bizarre party.

Says the man with no answer but no.

FUNKY LOVER

trendyvicar wrote: »

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

Oh sweet lord.

You know all this crap guys like you talk on line - is it the same material that Sinn Fein feed to the urban underclass and rural illiterates in The Irish Republic to get their votes?

Military Stalemate...

Just Campaign...

Bloody Sunday...

Ballymurhy...

Best Equipped Army in The World...

Just wondering how they explain away the elephant in the room - THE BORDER. LOL

If you had any notion of things in the north you would see most republicans now view sinn Fein as having sold them out and loathe their president.

Shows your ignorance to the whole situation really.

irishh_bob

Dotsey wrote: »

Would you define Bloody Sunday and the Ballymurphy Massacre as examples of security forces maintaining law and order?

Your post is incredibly naive and shows your lack of understanding of the Troubles.

it isnt naieve , its willfully ignorant

trendyvicar

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

If you had any notion of things in the north you would see most republicans now view sinn Fein as having sold them out and loathe their president.

Shows your ignorance to the whole situation really.

Must be why so many vote for them.

KeithAFC

realies wrote: »

Says the man with no answer but no.

What do you mean? If you mean my rejection of a United Ireland, then yes, I do say no. What is wrong with that?

trendyvicar

irishh_bob wrote: »

it isnt naieve , its willfully ignorant

Wilfully indifferent.

Sunnyisland

We cant what keith ?
Tell us about your great apartheid type state that was and still is a embarrassment to your queen.A state where they wouldn't even give there catholic neighbours the time of day,who treated us like muck,Your days are well gone and you just live in a bubble which keeps getting smaller and smaller every year.

KeithAFC

realies wrote: »

We cant what keith ?
Tell us about your great apartheid type state that was and still is a embarrassment to your queen.A state where they wouldn't even give there catholic neighbours the time of day,who treated us like muck,Your days are well gone and you just live in a bubble which keeps getting smaller and smaller every year.

What are you on about? We live in 2011, not 1969.

FUNKY LOVER

realies wrote: »

We cant what keith ?
Tell us about your great apartheid type state that was and still is a embarrassment to your queen.A state where they wouldn't even give there catholic neighbours the time of day,who treated us like muck,Your days are well gone and you just live in a bubble which keeps getting smaller and smaller every year.

And what about how his great state was founded,through violence murder,and enforcing beliefs on the majority who rejected it.

But of course that's in the past so its ok to talk of republicans been the blame for all the bother in the north.

FUNKY LOVER

KeithAFC wrote: »

realies wrote: »

We cant what keith ?
Tell us about your great apartheid type state that was and still is a embarrassment to your queen.A state where they wouldn't even give there catholic neighbours the time of day,who treated us like muck,Your days are well gone and you just live in a bubble which keeps getting smaller and smaller every year.

What are you on about? We live in 2011, not 1969.

Something your favourite sectarian bigot group the orange order haven't grasped quite yet!

KeithAFC

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

And what about how his great state was founded,through violence murder,and enforcing beliefs on the majority who rejected it.

But of course that's in the past so its ok to talk of republicans been the blame for all the bother in the north.

Northern Ireland was created because a large minority (in terms of the island) rejected the notion of a United Ireland. It is that simple. Northern Ireland was created and that is all there is to it. Republicans can say it was wrong to the cows come home. Won't change history.

A large amount of people refused to join a 32 county Republic. So Northern Ireland was drawn up for them and they had a country to call their own.

KeithAFC

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

Something your favourite sectarian bigot group the orange order haven't grasped quite yet!

Why bring up the Orange Order?

FUNKY LOVER

KeithAFC wrote: »

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

Something your favourite sectarian bigot group the orange order haven't grasped quite yet!

Why bring up the Orange Order?

Irony.

KeithAFC

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

Irony.

Irony in that you bring up the Orange Order? If you tried to use the Orange Order to have a pop at me, it didn't work. I ain't in the Orange Order.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

Irony in that you bring up the Orange Order? If you tried to use the Orange Order to have a pop at me, it didn't work. I ain't in the Orange Order.

What are you in ?

KeithAFC

realies wrote: »

What are you in ?

What has that got to do with this thread? Can we not get this thread back on topic?

FUNKY LOVER

KeithAFC wrote: »

realies wrote: »

What are you in ?

What has that got to do with this thread? Can we not get this thread back on topic?

We were talking about a campaign which started in 69 but you said its 2011 now not 69.you kind of derailed it yourself.

KeithAFC

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

We were talking about a campaign which started in 69 but you said its 2011 now not 69.you kind of derailed it yourself.

Yes but you put it across as if that was my state as if I lived in 1969. I didn't.

R P McMurphy

trendyvicar wrote: »

Dotsey wrote: »

The simple answer to the OP is that yes the republican campaign was justifiable.

The IRA had no alternative but to enter into a military campaign in 1969, nothing else would have got us to where we are today without it. That's not to say that every thing the IRA done during this campaign was right because somethings were completely wrong. You have to remember that they were fighting one of the best equipped, trained and heavily armed armies in the world and still brought them to a stalemate in a military sense.

What happened on the political side had nothing to do with the IRA but their campaign did open up many avenues and give republicans leverage in negotiations with the British government.

No they didn't. That's hilarious. The two combatant groups in Northern Ireland were Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries. The role of the security forces was to maintain law and order, minimise the number of dead and injured and 'hold the ring' until a political solution could lead to a normalised and peaceful Northern Ireland.

Do most young people in Ireland believe your ridiculous claim about 'military stalemates'? LOL

So the FRU and the DET were not engaged in a conflict and were simply enforcing law and order? I will take a wild guess and say your knowledge of what went on in the north particularly from the 80s on is extremely limited. Doubt you ever set foot in the place to come out with ignorant guff like that. There would be very few BA personnel that served in the north that would agree with your uneducated assessment

Zombrex

Well this thread is turning into the usual car crash these threads tend to turn into.

Question for anyone who supports the IRA. Do you believe that a military power, of any capacity, needs to be answerable to civilian oversight.

A lot of fuss is made (rightly so) about cells in British Intelligence and British Army (such as the SAS) acting as judge jury and executor in Northern Ireland, basically acting as an agency un to themselves.

This is seen as bad precisely because we are used in Western society to the idea that all police and military units of the State should be answerable and governed by civilian democratic bodies.

The notion of a military body acting independently to any oversight by civilian authorities (something common hundreds of years ago but no so any more) is so alien to us that when we see it we are automatically concerned by such a notion.

trendyvicar

R P McMurphy wrote: »

So the FRU and the DET were not engaged in a conflict and were simply enforcing law and order? I will take a wild guess and say your knowledge of what went on in the north particularly from the 80s on is extremely limited. Doubt you ever set foot in the place to come out with ignorant guff like that. There would be very few BA personnel that served in the north that would agree with your uneducated assessment

I suspect that most ex-'BA' personnel talk out of their a*ses - something they share in common with Irish Nationalists.

As for not knowing what went on in 'da north', I know in enough to look at the relative kill rates of Republican murder gangs and the security forces to see that the security forces were NOT fighting a war.

Take a look around the world old bean, there are plenty of examples of state forces using war like methods against small truculent minorities. They just tend to fill mass graves with 'da rebels'. Check out Argentina and Chile in the seventies, or what happened to The Kurds and Marsh Arabs in Iraq. The list is endless.

Irish Nationalists in Northern Ireland were treated with kid gloves and still are. Your squalid bunch of mass murdering thugs just happened to be in conflict with a liberal democracy that saw pacification and normalisation as preferable to expulsion or elimination.

So carry on with your little fantasies about the bold IRA taking on The British Empire whilst the rest of the world sits back and laughs it's collective head off.

K-9

Zombrex wrote: »

Well this thread is turning into the usual car crash these threads tend to turn into.

Question for anyone who supports the IRA. Do you believe that a military power, of any capacity, needs to be answerable to civilian oversight.

A lot of fuss is made (rightly so) about cells in British Intelligence and British Army (such as the SAS) acting as judge jury and executor in Northern Ireland, basically acting as an agency un to themselves.

This is seen as bad precisely because we are used in Western society to the idea that all police and military units of the State should be answerable and governed by civilian democratic bodies.

The notion of a military body acting independently to any oversight by civilian authorities (something common hundreds of years ago but no so any more) is so alien to us that when we see it we are automatically concerned by such a notion.

I don't support the IRA, would have supported Hume always.

I'd agree that any military power should be accountable to civilian oversight, in principle, but how does that work in a guerilla style warfare situation? In NI or say Libya?

I suppose a peace and reconciliation type body might address it, with victims of say Enniskillen meeting the bombers there and trying to reach some type of reconciliation.

It's very idealistic though and Black and White.

As for democratic mandate, the 1916 Rising had no majority support but the War of Independence did through the 1918 election and the first Dail, yet it wasn't recognised internationally. Was the War of Independence acceptable to you?

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

As for not knowing what went on in 'da north', I know in enough to look at the relative kill rates of Republican murder gangs and the security forces to see that the security forces were NOT fighting a war.

You speak of the security forces as if they were analogous to UN peacekeepers or impartial players trying to keep warring factions apart which is utter rubbish and betrays your dogmatic ignorance on the subject.

It's a fact that 'security forces' colluded with their bedfellows the 'Loyalist' murder squads.

Indeed the British Government knew and ignored the fact that NI 'security force' weapons were being used by loyalist paramilitaries for the killing of Catholic civilians.

Subversion in the UDR (Declassified Document)

Sunnyisland

trendy vicar wrote: »

I suspect that most ex-'BA' personnel talk out of their a*ses - something they share in common with Irish Nationalists.

As for not knowing what went on in 'da north', I know in enough to look at the relative kill rates of Republican murder gangs and the security forces to see that the security forces were NOT fighting a war.

Take a look around the world old bean, there are plenty of examples of state forces using war like methods against small truculent minorities. They just tend to fill mass graves with 'da rebels'. Check out Argentina and Chile in the seventies, or what happened to The Kurds and Marsh Arabs in Iraq. The list is endless.

Irish Nationalists in Northern Ireland were treated with kid gloves and still are. Your squalid bunch of mass murdering thugs just happened to be in conflict with a liberal democracy that saw pacification and normalisation as preferable to expulsion or elimination.

So carry on with your little fantasies about the bold IRA taking on The British Empire whilst the rest of the world sits back and laughs it's collective head off.

So you need a certain amount of dead bodies to make it a war ? I supose the cold war had no victims unless they got the flu .

The British army and RUC strategy employed shoot-to-kill operations, plastic bullets, mass raids on homes, torture, curfews and intimidation, and collusion between state forces and unionist death squads to kill many hundreds of citizens. And they tried to intimidate a whole community.
The full resources of the British state – including legal, judicial, and propaganda – were brought to bear. War comes in all sets of disguises.

maccored

well said

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You speak of the security forces as if they were analogous to UN peacekeepers or impartial players trying to keep warring factions apart which is utter rubbish and betrays your dogmatic ignorance on the subject.

It's a fact that 'security forces' colluded with their bedfellows the 'Loyalist' murder squads.

Indeed the British Government knew and ignored the fact that NI 'security force' weapons were being used by loyalist paramilitaries for the killing of Catholic civilians.

Subversion in the UDR (Declassified Document)

Fratton Fred

No one mentioned the Smithwick Tribunal yet?

JustinDee

realies wrote: »

The British army and RUC strategy employed shoot-to-kill operations, plastic bullets, mass raids on homes, torture, curfews and intimidation, and collusion between state forces and unionist death squads to kill many hundreds of citizens. And they tried to intimidate a whole community

That jusitifies the PIRA and INLA as okay does it?
Its not like either of them was ever involved with assassinations, shoot-to-kill operations, raids, torture, curfews, intimidation . . . not forgetting the organised criminal network maintained.
What they transpired to do and become had sweet eff all to do with Civil Rights and liberties. They hijacked a civil rights cause.

Unjustifiable but lauded as heroes by those too hardline or too young to stand back and actually look at the catastrophe they contributed to.

trendyvicar

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You speak of the security forces as if they were analogous to UN peacekeepers or impartial players trying to keep warring factions apart which is utter rubbish and betrays your dogmatic ignorance on the subject.

It's a fact that 'security forces' colluded with their bedfellows the 'Loyalist' murder squads.

Indeed the British Government knew and ignored the fact that NI 'security force' weapons were being used by loyalist paramilitaries for the killing of Catholic civilians.

Subversion in the UDR (Declassified Document)

Some members of the security forces colluded with Loyalist Volunteers.

The linked report, I think I've already read in full and shows absolutely nothing of relevance. Is it the one produced by a British Army Brigadier. LOL

trendyvicar

realies wrote: »

So you need a certain amount of dead bodies to make it a war ? I supose the cold war had no victims unless they got the flu .

As for not knowing what went on in 'da north', I know in enough to look at the relative kill rates of Republican murder gangs and the security forces to see that the security forces were NOT fighting a war

You do know what the words RELATIVE KILL RATES mean, don't you?