The RA

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

That's so bleedin predictable, the Brits were the bad guys and the RA were the protectors/heroes of the Nationalist community :cool:

Of course the nationalists didn't appreciate the loving care of the Brits, but so many don't....Of course we were lucky-if we'd been farther from the Western European eye they would have given us all a right cuddling...

Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.
The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.
Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.
Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/08/torture-killing-kenya-britain-mau-mau

Buying a poppy this year?

lugha

Nodin wrote: »

Of course the nationalists didn't appreciate the loving care of the Brits, but so many don't....Of course we were lucky-if we'd been farther from the Western European eye they would have given us all a right cuddling

That’s a fine swipe you’re taking there at past bad behavior by the Brits. Pity the effect is diminished somewhat by Border-Rat, in the previous post, doing the same thing with past bad behavior by republicans! (Even if he is paying a small bit too much attention to Eoghan Harris and somewhat over-egging the pudding!)

Nodin

Border-Rat wrote: »

Lining up Protestant farmers in Cork and shooting them dead, making sure to burn out their relatives (Gotta be thorough) - noble acts, lets celebrate it in 2006 and again in 2016.

The 2006 and 2016 celebrations are of the 1916 rising. The incident you are referring to relates to farmers targeted because they were infact informers, not because they were protestant.

getzls

Nodin wrote: »

The 2006 and 2016 celebrations are of the 1916 rising. The incident you are referring to relates to farmers targeted because they were infact informers, not because they were protestant.

Same old slur to throw at the murdered by the IRA and it's followers. Jean McConville? They said that about her and other innocents.

Fenian Army

getzls wrote: »

Same old slur to throw at the murdered by the IRA and it's followers. Jean McConville? They said that about her and other innocents.

Probably because she was an informer (not that it warranted what happened to her)

Sure wouldn't they be your heroes if they were touts, hardly a slur from your pov

Nodin

getzls wrote: »

Same old slur to throw at the murdered by the IRA and it's followers. ...............

It's a fact, as cursory research would show.

All the surnames of those shot in this period were listed as "helpful citizens" in Auxiliaries' documents found in Dunmanway; in two cases, only last names were given

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmanway_killings#cite_note-10

Border-Rat

getzls wrote: »

Same old slur to throw at the murdered by the IRA and it's followers. Jean McConville? They said that about her and other innocents.

Jean McConville and Gerry McCabe are clearly worth 10 times the lorry-loads of bodies the Old IRA dished up.

He was a standup guy, that Collins.

getzls

Nodin wrote: »

It's a fact, as cursory research would show.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmanway_killings#cite_note-10

I don't need a look at Wiki to know there was a slaughter campaign on Protestants in Cork. Part of this was to drive Protestants out of the county and it worked. People like you would make excuses for the Devil.:cool:

Nodin

getzls wrote: »

I don't need a look at Wiki to know there was a slaughter campaign on Protestants in Cork.

You mean you don't want to look at something that contradicts your world view.

getzls wrote: »

People like you would make excuses for the Devil.

Those people were killed because they were informers. That's a fact, not an "excuse".

SocSocPol

Nodin wrote: »

You mean you don't want to look at something that contradicts your world view.



Those people were killed because they were informers. That's a fact, not an "excuse".

Are you seriously suggesting that by co-operating with the lawful authorities one deserves a death sentence?
Did Tom Oliver deserve to be murdered for co-operating with the guards?

lugha

Nodin wrote: »

Those people were killed because they were informers. That's a fact, not an "excuse".

Well it’s an opinion. Another is that is was purely a sectarian attack.

But even if it they were informers, given the timing of the killings would they not be more accurately described as reprisals? And the fact that all sides condemned it rather undermines your attempts to pass it off as just some bad stuff that inevitably happens in war. Or do you think it is legitimate to settle scores after a war?

In any case, this condemnation from all sides also discredits Border-Rat’s assertion that these atrocities were somehow officially sanctioned by the founding fathers of the state, which is why this got wheeled in to the thread in the first place.

Nodin

SocSocPol wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that by co-operating with the lawful authorities one deserves a death sentence?

In the war of independence? absolutely. What do you think it was? A pie throwing fight? FFS.

lugha wrote:

But even if it they were informers, given the timing of the killings would they not be more accurately described as reprisals?

One might argue that. My sole point on the matter is that it was not, as asserted, a sectarian event.

SocSocPol

Nodin wrote: »

In the war of independence? absolutely. What do you think it was? A pie throwing fight? FFS.




One might argue that. My sole point on the matter is that it was not, as asserted, a sectarian event.

I meant generally not just the war of Independence.
I note you chose not to answer my question regarding Tom Oliver tortured and murdered by the RA in County Louth for co-operating with the Guards.

fasttalkerchat

Nodin wrote: »

In the war of independence? absolutely. What do you think it was? A pie throwing fight? FFS.



One might argue that. My sole point on the matter is that it was not, as asserted, a sectarian event.

Agree with you on the first part. On the wider issue of killings by the IRA during the recent campaign and during the 20's, it is impossible to say 100% that there were no sectarian killings and there is evidence to suggest that some killings were sectarian. This does not make either campaign a sectarian war but shows that neither were clean and rosy like some want to believe.

Nodin

SocSocPol wrote: »

I meant generally not just the war of Independence..

In certain conflicts its entirely justified.

SocSocPol wrote: »

I note you chose not to answer my question regarding Tom Oliver tortured and murdered by the RA in County Louth for co-operating with the Guards.

Tom Oliver was killed by Freddie Scappaticci to keep secure his own cover as an informant.

kfallon

getzls wrote: »

Same old slur to throw at the murdered by the IRA and it's followers. Jean McConville? They said that about her and other innocents.

She was an informer and also she was warned to stop before she was murdered. They confiscated the radio she had but she went back to passing on intelligence to The Brits. She didn't heed the initial warning and was 'disappeared'.

I don't think you could call her an innocent tbh

Nodin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Agree with you on the first part. On the wider issue of killings by the IRA during the recent campaign and during the 20's, it is impossible to say 100% that there were no sectarian killings and there is evidence to suggest that some killings were sectarian. This does not make either campaign a sectarian war but shows that neither were clean and rosy like some want to believe.

O doubtless there were sectarian incidents. That one, however, doesn't seem to be one of them.

SocSocPol

kfallon wrote: »

She was an informer and also she was warned to stop before she was murdered. They confiscated the radio she had but she went back to passing on intelligence to The Brits. She didn't heed the initial warning and was 'disappeared'.

I don't think you could call her an innocent tbh

Evidence for those scurrilus claims? other than "they" say!

Chuck Stone

getzls wrote: »

I don't need a look at Wiki to know there was a slaughter campaign on Protestants in Cork.

There are still plenty of 3nd/4rd/5st generation Protestants living peacefully in west Cork. If there was a 'slaughter campaign' then they didn't do a very good job of it.

kfallon

SocSocPol wrote: »

Evidence for those scurrilus claims? other than "they" say!

I suggest you read Brendan Hughes book, 'Voices from The Grave' and before you start rolling your eyes and saying that he was a former Provo his book is not a 'blow smoke up the PIRA's arse', far from it in fact and he is brutally honest in it.

If she wasn't an informer why was she 'disappeared'??

lugha

kfallon wrote: »

She was an informer and also she was warned to stop before she was murdered. They confiscated the radio she had but she went back to passing on intelligence to The Brits. She didn't heed the initial warning and was 'disappeared'.

I don't think you could call her an innocent tbh

So goes the official ‘ra line. To my mind there are a couple of serious implausibilites in it.

Did an informer really need a radio to do their informing? Surely there are all manners of ways information could be passed on without exposing the informer to such a risk by supplying them with something like that?

But the big frown comes from me for the notion that an informer would get off with a first offence! So someone was engaged in behaviour that could lead to the capture of death of some in the ranks of PIRA and they would be told: run along you scamp and don’t do it again!! I think not!

Of course, very few know the real truth so maybe it did play out like that. I think it is far more plausible that PIRA had their suspicions about her but had no hard evidence as you almost never do, and certainly something nice and neat like a radio! But they knew that disappearing the widow of a large family needed some media management so they concocted a cock and bull story.

Dyr

zef wrote: »

Buy the 'Sunday World'. It knows the answers to your questions.

Sunday World? Save yourself the money, there's plenty of experts on here have the inside track. So long as you don't actually want credible proof or any of that class of thing.

SEPT 23 1989

Tens of thousands of the Irish Protestant people left the state after 1922

The reasons why need to be addressed

Dyr

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Tens of thousands of the Irish Protestant people left the state after 1922

The reasons why need to be addressed

cos they're sore losers?

the keen edge

Bambi wrote: »

cos they're sore losers?

That statement implies we were the winners; and my what a progressive, independent world leading nation we won.

Fenian Army

lugha wrote: »

So goes the official ‘ra line. To my mind there are a couple of serious implausibilites in it.

Did an informer really need a radio to do their informing? Surely there are all manners of ways information could be passed on without exposing the informer to such a risk by supplying them with something like that?

When you live in the Divis flats, then yes. Instant contact needed as well as the fact she could hardly go wandering out to meet the brits. Much safer and practical to give her a radio. Also, the British have never cared very much about their informers safety.

But the big frown comes from me for the notion that an informer would get off with a first offence! So someone was engaged in behaviour that could lead to the capture of death of some in the ranks of PIRA and they would be told: run along you scamp and don’t do it again!! I think not!

When you are a single mother and one of your sons is a POW then its not outlandish that you'd be given a second chance.

Of course, very few know the real truth so maybe it did play out like that. I think it is far more plausible that PIRA had their suspicions about her but had no hard evidence as you almost never do, and certainly something nice and neat like a radio! But they knew that disappearing the widow of a large family needed some media management so they concocted a cock and bull story.

They wouldnt have done it if they werent sure, given the damage it would do in terms of propaganda as well as the fact her son was involved in the republican movement.

Dyr

the keen edge wrote: »

That statement implies we were the winners; and my what a progressive, independent world leading nation we won.

We were the winners, which is why we're a nation now. Like I said, there's some sore losers out there.

Chuck Stone

the keen edge wrote: »

That statement implies we were the winners; and my what a progressive, independent world leading nation we won.

And this statement assumes that utopia follows a struggle for independence.

We're still a relatively young nation.

SocSocPol

Bambi wrote: »

We were the winners, which is why we're a nation now. Like I said, there's some sore losers out there.

We were always a nation.
What we are now is a State, a state which has had to sell its independence to the troika because we were collectivley incompentent when it came to running our own affairs.

LincolnsBeard

hey baby let the freebirds fly

Tool_

lugha wrote: »

The problem of course is that it is all but impossible to determine that this is actually true. It is just as credible to assert that reconciliation delayed rather than hastened resolution. British politicians vowed publicly, if not always privately, that they would have no truck with physical force republicans.

The fate of Northern nationalists in the 50/60 was by no means unique. In particular, there were a lot of similarities with the lot of African-Americans (denials of voting and other rights, collusion of law enforcement officers in organisations like KKK that persecuted them etc.).

But they didn’t mount a campaign similar to the PIRA. Martin Luther King was the stand out icon of their fight, Gerry Adams will probably become the equivalent figure in the North. And IMO, African-Americans made a lot more progress a lot more quickly in combating institutionalised discrimination.

Despite what you may have read, the gun wasn't introduced into Irish politics by the IRA in 1969. To borrow your reasoning, the fate of the Irish people was by no means unique when they took up arms on several occasions over centuries against British rule. Other outposts of the British Empire took a non-violent route to agitating for independence, but Ireland didn't.

So it's strange to suggest that northern nationalists should look across the Atlantic for inspiration when their countrymen had achieved better results through force a few miles down the road.

But that's actually what they did - the Civil Rights movement strongly identified with its equivalent in the US and there was genuine optimism that they were the generation who were going to transform the squalid sectarian discrimination that had been the hallmark of the unionist junta for 50 years.

When their modest demands for equality of treatment were met with brute force, and pogroms were again launched on nationalist areas (in time honoured fashion, to keep the croppies down), it's not a huge stretch to come to see the state as incapable of reform.

Once you reach that conclusion, all bets are off.

I sincerely wish that we didn't have to go through the hell of the Troubles, but the idea that northern nationalists had the option of simply turning the other cheek and riding it out til we were handed scraps from the table isn't credible.

lugha

Fenian Army wrote: »

When you live in the Divis flats, then yes. Instant contact needed as well as the fact she could hardly go wandering out to meet the brits. Much safer and practical to give her a radio.

Even after she had been exposed, it was safer to give her a radio???? And what possibly use could an informer be once they are exposed? Surely whatever information she was able to glean before she was caught would have instantly closed off to her afterwards? What value could any informer have after they are caught, even if they are spared? Could the British even trust that she wasn’t been fed the information she passed on? No, the exposed informer going back to work makes little sense.

Fenian Army wrote: »

When you are a single mother and one of your sons is a POW then its not outlandish that you'd be given a second chance.

When you expect men to go out to face (eventually) almost certain capture or death then I think it is outlandish to think you would be so forgiving to someone that made your task even more dangerous. Far lesser “crimes” (rebuilding an RUC barracks for example) were punishable by death. Even if PIRA were in a forgiving mood after her first offence they would almost certainly have demanded she leave NI. But leaving her in place to damage them further? Perhaps the republicans who made such a decision were complete imbeciles, but I doubt it.

Fenian Army wrote: »

They wouldnt have done it if they werent sure, given the damage it would do in terms of propaganda

Weren’t sure? Even the British with far better resources were not sure about their intelligence. And PIRA, from their perspective, did not have the luxury of waiting until they were sure about an informer before doing something about it. I suspect a strong suspicion was enough to seal an informer’s fate.

But you are right about the propaganda. That did have to be managed. And so they put out a story that at first examination looks like they were as fair as they could have been. But scratch the surface and it is most implausible.

But it does seem to have worked. There seems to be plenty of republican apologists who uncritically regurgitate this story.

lugha

Tool_ wrote: »

Despite what you may have read …..

None of your post address my substantial point or answers my question. I am not asking if a violent response was justified. I am not questioning if it was unreasonable that some nationalists (a minority lets not forget) might have felt that they had no other option. I am asking if there is any evidence that the violent response was effective, or did it in fact make things worse?

And the NI state DID reform. It is not the state now that it was 40 years ago. But I don’t think that reform came because of PIRA violence. On the contrary, if anything it delayed it.

fasttalkerchat

Bambi wrote: »

We were the winners, which is why we're a nation now. Like I said, there's some sore losers out there.

That attitude is exactly why after generations, some Ulster Protestants still cant call themselves Irish.

Tool_

lugha wrote: »

None of your post address my substantial point or answers my question. I am not asking if a violent response was justified. I am not questioning if it was unreasonable that some nationalists (a minority lets not forget) might have felt that they had no other option. I am asking if there is any evidence that the violent response was effective, or did it in fact make things worse?

And the NI state DID reform. It is not the state now that it was 40 years ago. But I don’t think that reform came because of PIRA violence. On the contrary, if anything it delayed it.

There's an interesting debate to be had on the efficacy of the IRA campaign from 1969 onwards, but if you genuinely aren't interested in historical context then you're unlikely to have a meaningful contribution to make.

If you're arguing that the unionist junta was about to see the light and go against what it had done for the guts of 50 years since it's inception, I'd like to see some evidence of that. Discrimination against Catholics was it's raison d'etre and there was a visceral hatred there that I just don't think you get.

The IRA makes a handy bogeyman, but at the time when the Civil Rights movement was getting beaten off the streets, and nationalist communities were under attack, they were in complete disarray and hadn't been active since the humiliating failure of the 50s border campaign.

So the idea of the IRA as an external actor who instigated the troubles or that the north was a misunderstood place ripe for reform until the big bad Ra came along are fallacies that don't bear serious consideration.

The modern IRA grew from the need to defend vulnerable nationalist areas which were systematically whenever Catholics were seen to be getting too uppity. The burning of Bombay St was a line in the sand where the nationalist community, buoyed by access to higher education and civil rights gains elsewhere, decided that this wasn't going to happen again.

Once the genie was out of the bottle the struggle took on a life of its own and I wouldn't attempt to justify the atrocities that were done in the name of a united Ireland.

However, if you want a specific example of the effectiveness of the IRA campaign then the fact that we haven't had a repeat of Bombay St is one.

Protecting Catholic areas made space for political progress (as these areas were always targeted as soon as the taigs got too uppity) so nationalists were able to gradually make inroads into a society that was constructed to keep them in their place. Once nationalists weren't held to ransom for fear of attacks on vulnerable communities they had a platform to build on that just wasn't there before.

All this would've been possible (and preferable) without violence if the state was open to reform. If it was, it hid it well.

peabutler

Surely if you draw direct parallels with the US Civil Rights Movement, it becomes difficult to justify P.I.R.A actions, both movements were under mined by heavy handed police and powerful secretive organisations, both movements were victim to vicious violence, but ultimately the US Civil Rights movement won out peacefully.

Now of course it can be argued that in the US that the majority of people and the politicians came down on the side of those seeking civil rights and people argue this wasn't the case in the North, however on a UK wide basis the majority of people and a large number of politicians did support the movement for catholic civil rights and thats without even involving Southern Irish politics.

Ultimately the P.I.R.A used the actions of the minority who bitterly opposed the Rights movement to justify a mass campaign which lasted for far too long.

fasttalkerchat

Tool_ wrote: »

The IRA makes a handy bogeyman, but at the time when the Civil Rights movement was getting beaten off the streets, and nationalist communities were under attack, they were in complete disarray and hadn't been active since the humiliating failure of the 50s border campaign.

Agree with all you said. Also, I saw an old photo with the graffiti "I Ran Away". This was people showing their anger that the OIRA did nothing to protect the community when it came under attack from Orangies, Loyalists and the malitia police force.

Chuck Stone

Tool_ wrote: »

There's an interesting debate to be had on the efficacy of the IRA campaign from 1969 onwards, but if you genuinely aren't interested in historical context then you're unlikely to have a meaningful contribution to make.

Most people just want to have their establishment media caricature of the troubles confirmed and are not interested in placing it in a wider socio-political and historical context.

Catholics/Nationalists weren't looking for a fight - the fight came looking for them.

lugha

Tool_ wrote: »

There's an interesting debate to be had on the efficacy of the IRA campaign from 1969 onwards, but if you genuinely aren't interested in historical context then you're unlikely to have a meaningful contribution to make.

Historical context has nothing to so with the question I am asking, which is what effect the PIRA had on how the story of NI evolved. Understanding what they did or justifying what they did is a different debate. My question is not about right or wrong, or just or unjust, it is about success or failure.

Tool_ wrote: »

If you're arguing that the unionist junta was about to see the light and go against what it had done for the guts of 50 years since it's inception, I'd like to see some evidence of that.

But Northern Ireland DID change. Can you attribute any of that change to the activities of PIRA? I would argue that if you look at other troubled places around the world that also changed as much as NI did, but without violence, it would suggest that violence was not the catalyst for change.

Tool_ wrote: »

Discrimination against Catholics was it's raison d'etre and there was a visceral hatred there that I just don't think you get.

This relates to the reasons for the emergence of PIRA, not their effectiveness.

Tool_ wrote: »

The IRA makes a handy bogeyman, but at the time when the Civil Rights movement was getting beaten off the streets, and nationalist communities were under attack, they were in complete disarray and hadn't been active since the humiliating failure of the 50s border campaign.

So the idea of the IRA as an external actor who instigated the troubles or that the north was a misunderstood place ripe for reform until the big bad Ra came along are fallacies that don't bear serious consideration.

This relates to the question of root cause of the trouble, not the effectiveness of PIRA.

Tool_ wrote: »

The modern IRA grew from the need to defend vulnerable nationalist areas which were systematically whenever Catholics were seen to be getting too uppity. The burning of Bombay St was a line in the sand where the nationalist community, buoyed by access to higher education and civil rights gains elsewhere, decided that this wasn't going to happen again.

Again this relates to the question of the emergence of PIRA, not effectiveness.

Tool_ wrote: »

However, if you want a specific example of the effectiveness of the IRA campaign then the fact that we haven't had a repeat of Bombay St is one.

Finally! Effectiveness. Perhaps something like that wasn’t specifically repeated but lots of other things like Bloody Sunday or the Shankill butchers etc. did happen. The republican narrative is that the actions of PIRA served to lessen such atrocities.

I would argue that they had the very opposite effect. If events like Bloody Sunday served to drive young nationalist men into the IRA, why would you expect attacks by the PIRA not to have the very same outcome amongst loyalist / unionists? And that just pushed the resolution that eventually did come further away,

Tool_ wrote: »

Protecting Catholic areas made space for political progress (as these areas were always targeted as soon as the taigs got too uppity) so nationalists were able to gradually make inroads into a society that was constructed to keep them in their place.

Most Northern nationalists followed the lead of John Hume and the SDLP. Even in their own community, Sinn Fein never had the support of a majority until after PIRA put down their guns.

And I don’t really want to get the justification question here, my interest is to see what the arguments are for any success attributable to the PIRA. But to portray PIRA solely as defenders of nationalist communities is misleading.

The PIRA “spectaculars” that many of us take issue with had nothing to do with protecting Catholic areas. Why would PIRA use, or even have explosives, of any kind, if their role was as defenders? What had economic sabotage got to do with defence? What did their occasional murder of Gardai in this state, or even RUC or BA officers, have to do with defence?

Even when they targeted the loyalists who were actually attacking the nationalist areas this did nothing for their defence. Anybody who remembers the troubles will know that the aftermath of such attacks was maybe the most dangerous time for Northern Catholics.

If PIRA were only a militia to protect Catholics, I would have had no problem with them. But they quite clearly had a broader political purpose.

Anyway, as I say, that is about justification, not effectiveness. So back to the latter. Can you honestly argue that NI would be in a worse place today were it not for the PIRA?

I sincerely doubt it. Violence IMO only brings success if you have the capacity to defeat your opponent. Otherwise, it will almost certainly just make thinks worse.

lugha

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Most people just want to have their establishment media caricature of the troubles confirmed and are not interested in placing it in a wider socio-political and historical context.

Catholics/Nationalists weren't looking for a fight - the fight came looking for them.

I have plenty to say about the wider context of NI. But here I am asking an unrelated question (though I am having huge trouble explaining this! ).

My question is how much credit can PIRA claim for the changes that happened in Northern Ireland? Whether their actions are completely justified or completely unjustified is irrelevant.

fasttalkerchat

lugha wrote: »

I have plenty to say about the wider context of NI. But here I am asking an unrelated question (though I am having huge trouble explaining this! ).

My question is how much credit can PIRA claim for the changes that happened in Northern Ireland? Whether their actions are completely justified or completely unjustified is irrelevant.

They can claim credit for starting a process which gained us the right to self determination, civil rights to some extent and hopefully, some day, a united Ireland. If they hadn't started that process maybe it could all have been done peacefully, maybe we would have had our own Gandhi, who knows?

Nailz

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

hey baby let the freebirds fly

Lynyrd Skynyrd fan?

LordSutch

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

They can claim credit for starting a process which gained us the right to self determination . . .

In too many cases it was a finishing process for the poor victim who ended up with either a hole in the head or in a thousand bits after one of those "self determination" fellas planted a nice fat Bomb in a pub, in a car, or on a bus :mad:

If were talking about the RA here, then its all about murder, death, violence, extortion, pain, suffering, hurt and division.

Chuck Stone

lugha wrote: »

My question is how much credit can PIRA claim for the changes that happened in Northern Ireland?

And I've already told you it's an impossible question to answer with anything but conjecture but you just don't seem to be able to understand that.

lugha

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

They can claim credit for starting a process which gained us the right to self determination, civil rights to some extent and hopefully, some day, a united Ireland. If they hadn't started that process maybe it could all have been done peacefully, maybe we would have had our own Gandhi, who knows?

Are you referring to the talks between Adams & Hume around the start if the '90s? That process of course did not involve the use of violence.

OnTheCounter

An interesting point about the effectiveness of the IRA and the previous point about having to be able to defeat your opponent if you take up arms depends entirely on the situation.

In this case killing army soldiers achieved absolutely nothing.

Killing loyalist terrorists reduced the number of attacks on catholic civilians, imo.

The most effective thing the IRA did was to bomb commercial centres in England, mainly Canary Wharf, as that made the average English person question their governments involvement in NI.

Once public sentiment turned against the english government they started talking.

The same way England took a back seat in Iraq when the English public became aware of the death toll of Iraqi civilians and the notion of "collateral damage".

This crap goes back to the early 1600s and the plantations. That famine was caused by english forces scorching the crops to starve out oneill and odonnells troops.

England have a long history of attacking us, not the other way around so to say anything bad about how the provos dealt with being attacked you must not have first hand experience.

A bully wont stop because you ask them nicely.

Stained Class

OnTheCounter wrote: »

An interesting point about the effectiveness of the IRA and the previous point about having to be able to defeat your opponent if you take up arms depends entirely on the situation.

In this case killing army soldiers achieved absolutely nothing.

Killing loyalist terrorists reduced the number of attacks on catholic civilians, imo.

The most effective thing the IRA did was to bomb commercial centres in England, mainly Canary Wharf, as that made the average English person question their governments involvement in NI.

Once public sentiment turned against the english government they started talking.

The same way England took a back seat in Iraq when the English public became aware of the death toll of Iraqi civilians and the notion of "collateral damage".

This crap goes back to the early 1600s and the plantations. That famine was caused by english forces scorching the crops to starve out oneill and odonnells troops.

England have a long history of attacking us, not the other way around so to say anything bad about how the provos dealt with being attacked you must not have first hand experience.

A bully wont stop because you ask them nicely.

It doesn't matter.

They're all dirt & always will be.

OnTheCounter

For the people questioning the actions of the IRA in the 50s/60s...

If there was no armed resistance in the north why would the english have changed the status quo?

LordSutch

You're not Amish by any chance, are you

scudzilla

Stained Class wrote: »

Basically, all of them are a cancer on Irish society.

End of.

They were good enough when they were needed though