The RA

fasttalkerchat

lugha wrote: »

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.

That process started much earlier on. By the 90's they were handing over the wheel to those wanting to try peaceful means. I firmly believe that a Sinn Fein member would never have had equal say as his unionist counterpart at the head of Stormont without the PIRA but who knows...

lugha

OnTheCounter wrote: »

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

I suggest you research the aftermath of killings of some of the more infamous loyalists, Billy Wright for example. Invariably it spawned a tit for tat killing.

OnTheCounter wrote: »

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?

It would have happened anyway. How do you explain how Britain changed from a place where 40 years ago you might see a “No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish” to today where you would almost certainly be prosecuted for this? And this change wasn’t spurred by violence. Similar tales can be told for many countries the world over.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That process started much earlier on. By the 90's they were handing over the wheel to those wanting to try peaceful means. I firmly believe that a Sinn Fein member would never have had equal say as his unionist counterpart at the head of Stormont without the PIRA but who knows...

Ok, so can you cite one thing that violence achieved that would not have been achieved peacefully?

Dyr

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

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

Or, more importantly, the fact that they mostly don't want to call themselves Irish? Good luck to em, it's their culture, but "Irish" as nothing more than a regional variation of Britishness is not the cultural identity of the majority of people on this island so why pretend otherwise?

czx

OnTheCounter wrote: »

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?

Attitudes were changing. Terrorism prolonged the process and led to much ill feeling on both sides.

fasttalkerchat

lugha wrote: »

Ok, so can you cite one thing that violence achieved that would not have been achieved peacefully?

That's impossible to say. I believe that the right to vote would have come about anyway, surely the Europe would have sorted that. A system that allowed those people to vote a republican party to the top of Stormont is another matter and that is a negotiating table the British establishment would never have considered going to without some... err, encouragement.
Prolonging the campaign beyond the early 90's achieved very little and was not worth a drop of anyone's blood IMO.

Fenian Army

lugha wrote: »

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.

The process started well before that.

Tool_

lugha wrote: »

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.

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.

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

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

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

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,

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.

You're more interested in setting about that straw man you've knocked up than engaging with other posters so maybe we've gone as far as we can on this. I'm new here, so maybe asking facile questions then ignoring the answers is the done thing, but its not for me.

I didn't have a Pythonesque list of what the IRA ever did for us, I gave one specific example of what they achieved: bringing an end to progroms on vulnerable catholic areas. These occurred at regular intervals when the taigs got too uppity and didn't happen by accident - they were an orchestrated means of terrifying a community into submission, and only stopped when it was clear that there was more than hurleys under the beds of the enclaves at risk of being burnt out.

The Troubles came as close to civil war as you'd ever want to be, but attempts at displacing whole communities was nipped in the bud.

You might as well answer the rest of your post yourself as it doesn't relate in the slightest to anything I've said.

markesmith

lugha wrote: »

It would have happened anyway. How do you explain how Britain changed from a place where 40 years ago you might see a “No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish” to today where you would almost certainly be prosecuted for this? And this change wasn’t spurred by violence. Similar tales can be told for many countries the world over.

There's no guarantee it would have happened. Just because Britain embraces political correctness today, doesn't necessarily mean that they'd devolve power to the northern Irish.

lugha wrote: »

Ok, so can you cite one thing that violence achieved that would not have been achieved peacefully?

The 1917 Revolution in Russia? The French Revolution? American independence? 1916? World Wars 1 and 2? Borodino? Fall of Constantinople? The list is endless...

Or do you mean from a specifically Irish context?

lugha

Tool_ wrote: »

You're more interested in setting about that straw man you've knocked up than engaging with other posters so maybe we've gone as far as we can on this.

I'm new here, so maybe asking facile questions then ignoring the answers is the done thing, but its not for me.

I don’t think it is a facile question. Invariable in these discussions a poster will state that it was physical force by republicans that forced the British to the table to resolve the Northern Ireland problem. I am simply asking if anyone can make much of an argument to support that.

One poster says he couldn’t. You argue that one possible gain republicans might have made was to enhance the safety of Catholics when they were under attack and you went on to discuss all sorts of things that I didn’t ask about.

So let me for the sake of argument, concede that the defensive efforts of republicans did make a net difference. Can you argue that their far more regular offensive efforts served to hasten rather than hinder the resolution that eventually came?

markesmith wrote: »

There's no guarantee it would have happened. Just because Britain embraces political correctness today, doesn't necessarily mean that they'd devolve power to the northern Irish.

Devolved power has nothing to do with it, though I find it hard to see why you would think it would be denied to the Irish when it is on offer to the Scottish. But there is a respect for minorities in official Britain now. Do you think this they could simultaneously have arrived at this mindset but retained the same outlook to NI that they did in the 1950s? I don’t think so.

markesmith wrote: »

The 1917 Revolution in Russia? The French Revolution? American independence? 1916? World Wars 1 and 2? Borodino? Fall of Constantinople? The list is endless...

Or do you mean from a specifically Irish context?

I clarified this in an earlier post. Violence can be very effective when one side has the capacity to defeat the other. PIRA did not have the capacity to defeat the BA so the question remains, what if anything, did their violence accomplish?

OnTheCounter

lugha wrote: »

I don?t think it is a facile question. Invariable in these discussions a poster will state that it was physical force by republicans that forced the British to the table to resolve the Northern Ireland problem. I am simply asking if anyone can make much of an argument to support that. One poster says he couldn?t. You argue that one possible gain republicans might have made was to enhance the safety of Catholics when they were under attack and you went on to discuss all sorts of things that I didn?t ask about. So let me for the sake of argument, concede that the defensive efforts of republicans did make a net difference. Can you argue that their far more regular offensive efforts served to hasten rather than hinder the resolution that eventually came? Devolved power has nothing to do with it, though I find it hard to see why you would think it would be denied to the Irish when it is on offer to the Scottish. But there is a respect for minorities in official Britain now. Do you think this they could simultaneously have arrived at this mindset but retained the same outlook to NI that they did in the 1950s? I don?t think so. I clarified this in an earlier post. Violence can be very effective when one side has the capacity to defeat the other. PIRA did not have the capacity to defeat the BA so the question remains, what if anything, did their violence accomplish?

did the brits defeat the IRA?

was the objective of the IRA to kill the entire British Army and bring down the empire?

lugha

OnTheCounter wrote: »

did the brits defeat the IRA?

I didn't claim that they did.

OnTheCounter wrote: »

was the objective of the IRA to kill the entire British Army and bring down the empire?

Whatever their objectives I am asking what did they achieve. Nobody has been able to make much of an argument so far that they achieved anything.

The "reasoning" seems to be: there was all sort of bad stuff going on in the '50s, the IRA came along, now things are much better, so the IRA must have been the reason. :rolleyes:

OnTheCounter

Must be a ceasefire on.

15 pages and nothing about the modern day makeup and activities.

For those trying to separate the nonsense...

RIRA = Oglaigh na hEireann

32CSM is the "political" arm of Oglaidh na hEireann.

PIRA do not get on with RIRA and currently feuding.

Former RIRA army council members have raised concerns that the new council contains a large criminal element.

July of this year RIRA joined with anti drugs group and smaller paramilitary organisations and rebranded themselves "IRA".

membership estimated 500-600.

OIRA and CIRA basically no longer and INLA long gone.

PIRA in ceasefire and should not be confused with the poorly organised bombs in recent years planted by the RIRA who are the biggest threat to peace but by and large are engaged in run of the mill criminal activities these days and should be viewed as a "gang".

basically the people at alan ryans funeral in white shirts and black armbands make up a very large part of the RIRA and now the criminal thugs have been identified.

There seems to be very little information available on the modern day activities of the PIRA.

LordSutch

Oh dear, sighs . . . how bleak it is to read that list in 2012, like a list of terrorist groups from the darkest days of the 1970s (but with new names). Just thinking, wouldn't it be great if they all met up for a massive fight with each other, and nobody was left standing. All wiped out. We could do without these scumbags on the planet in the 21st century (Loyalist variety included too) if any still exist?

OnTheCounter

LordSutch wrote: »

Oh dear, sighs . . . how bleak it is to read that list in 2012, like a list of terrorist groups from the darkest days of the 1970s (but with new names). Just thinking, wouldn't it be great if they all met up for a massive fight with each other, and nobody was left standing. All wiped out. We could do without these scumbags on the planet in the 21st century (Loyalist variety included too) if any still exist?

sounds like you dont have any first hand experience to offer that opinion.

LordSutch

Have never been a supporter of the IRA, PIRA, UVF, INLA, CIRA or any of them. so you are correct, I have had no 1st hand experience of any of them, thank God.

OnTheCounter

LordSutch wrote: »

Have never been a supporter of the IRA, PIRA, UVF, INLA, CIRA or any of them. so you are correct, I have had no 1st hand experience of any of them, thank God.

you may have appreciated having an armed unit nearby to protect your estate if you lived in the north a few decades ago when a group of thugs came looking to attack a few taigs because ringing the police wouldnt have helped.

There's nothing that cannot be solved by a quick call to "The Boys".

LordSutch

OnTheCounter wrote: »

you may have appreciated having an armed unit nearby to protect your estate . . . .

No, not really into vigilantes of any hue, apart from Charles Bronson of course

Him being a make believe movie character and all that . . .

Red About Town

OnTheCounter wrote: »

Must be a ceasefire on.

15 pages and nothing about the modern day makeup and activities.

For those trying to separate the nonsense...

RIRA = Oglaigh na hEireann

32CSM is the "political" arm of Oglaidh na hEireann.

PIRA do not get on with RIRA and currently feuding.

Former RIRA army council members have raised concerns that the new council contains a large criminal element.

July of this year RIRA joined with anti drugs group and smaller paramilitary organisations and rebranded themselves "IRA".

membership estimated 500-600.

OIRA and CIRA basically no longer and INLA long gone.

PIRA in ceasefire and should not be confused with the poorly organised bombs in recent years planted by the RIRA who are the biggest threat to peace but by and large are engaged in run of the mill criminal activities these days and should be viewed as a "gang".

basically the people at alan ryans funeral in white shirts and black armbands make up a very large part of the RIRA and now the criminal thugs have been identified.

There seems to be very little information available on the modern day activities of the PIRA.

The PIRA have stood down that's why there is 'little information'. There is no PIRA.

You have many more mistakes in the above that I won't bother correcting as it is easy information to find and don't need to ask on a discussion board.

Border-Rat

OnTheCounter wrote: »

Must be a ceasefire on.

15 pages and nothing about the modern day makeup and activities.

For those trying to separate the nonsense...

RIRA = Oglaigh na hEireann

32CSM is the "political" arm of Oglaidh na hEireann.

PIRA do not get on with RIRA and currently feuding.

Former RIRA army council members have raised concerns that the new council contains a large criminal element.

July of this year RIRA joined with anti drugs group and smaller paramilitary organisations and rebranded themselves "IRA".

membership estimated 500-600.

OIRA and CIRA basically no longer and INLA long gone.

PIRA in ceasefire and should not be confused with the poorly organised bombs in recent years planted by the RIRA who are the biggest threat to peace but by and large are engaged in run of the mill criminal activities these days and should be viewed as a "gang".

basically the people at alan ryans funeral in white shirts and black armbands make up a very large part of the RIRA and now the criminal thugs have been identified.

There seems to be very little information available on the modern day activities of the PIRA.

You read too many newspapers.

Magill

It is funny how the majority of Catholics from the North (You know.. the people that were effected the most) were pro IRA during the troubles.. yet a large proportion of Southerners(Maybe its just boardsies), who mostly read about what was going on in the paper or watched the news on BBC Ireland RTE think of them as nothing but scum. I mean... as long as the Republicans South of the border weren't being treated like second class citizens then what was the problem right ? They should have just took it on the chin and used that crystal ball to tell the future and realize they'd only have to suffer for another 30 years or so. Probably the same people who look upon the old IRA as a heroes(Not saying they weren't).

Obviously no need for the IRA nowadays, these groups have very little support.

lugha

Magill wrote: »

It is funny how the majority of Catholics from the North (You know.. the people that were effected the most) were pro IRA during the troubles.. yet a large proportion of Southerners(Maybe its just boardsies), who mostly read about what was going on in the paper or watched the news on BBC Ireland RTE think of them as nothing but scum. I mean... as long as the Republicans South of the border weren't being treated like second class citizens then what was the problem right ? They should have just took it on the chin and used that crystal ball to tell the future and realize they'd only have to suffer for another 30 years or so. Probably the same people who look upon the old IRA as a heroes(Not saying they weren't).

Obviously no need for the IRA nowadays, these groups have very little support.

The problem that we had with them was not that the defended Catholics (a minute part of their activities). It was the whole business where they claimed to be acting on our behalf when they set about their bombing and murdering.

Magill

lugha wrote: »

The problem that we had with them was not that the defended Catholics (a minute part of their activities). It was the whole business where they claimed to be acting on our behalf when they set about their bombing and murdering.

The total number killed in the guerrilla war of 1919-21 between Republicans and British forces in what became the Irish Free State came to over 3,400. Of these, 363 were police personnel, 261 were from the regular British Army, about 550 were IRA volunteers (including 24 official executions), and about 200 were civilians.[1][57] Some other sources give higher figures.[94]

Quite a lot of murders back then too eh.

Border-Rat

lugha wrote: »

The problem that we had with them was not that the defended Catholics (a minute part of their activities). It was the whole business where they claimed to be acting on our behalf when they set about their bombing and murdering.

But you had no problem when the Old IRA did this - on a scale of even more brutality.

Maybe I, as a 'Nordie', has issues with the Old IRA butchering Prods all over the South in greater numbers than the Provo's did. That was done in Ulsters name.

Highly insulting hypocrisy :rolleyes:

lugha

Border-Rat wrote: »

But you had no problem when the Old IRA did this - on a scale of even more brutality.

Maybe I, as a 'Nordie', has issues with the Old IRA butchering Prods all over the South in greater numbers than the Provo's did. That was done in Ulsters name.

Highly insulting hypocrisy :rolleyes:

Through the years of the troubles there were free and fair elections in the South where the people overwhelmingly choose parties who favoured the pursuit of a united Ireland, but only by peaceful means.

A small number of republican fascists took it upon themselves to decide that they knew what was best for the Irish people and embarked upon a disastrous campaign of violence. It is regrettably, but alas not surprising, that they are still some who genuinely do not see anything wrong with this.

SocSocPol

OnTheCounter wrote: »

Must be a ceasefire on.

15 pages and nothing about the modern day makeup and activities.

For those trying to separate the nonsense...

RIRA = Oglaigh na hEireann

32CSM is the "political" arm of Oglaidh na hEireann.

PIRA do not get on with RIRA and currently feuding.

Former RIRA army council members have raised concerns that the new council contains a large criminal element.

July of this year RIRA joined with anti drugs group and smaller paramilitary organisations and rebranded themselves "IRA".

membership estimated 500-600.

OIRA and CIRA basically no longer and INLA long gone.

PIRA in ceasefire and should not be confused with the poorly organised bombs in recent years planted by the RIRA who are the biggest threat to peace but by and large are engaged in run of the mill criminal activities these days and should be viewed as a "gang".

basically the people at alan ryans funeral in white shirts and black armbands make up a very large part of the RIRA and now the criminal thugs have been identified.

There seems to be very little information available on the modern day activities of the PIRA.

The ONLY Oglaigh Na hEireann in this Jusistiction are the legimate Defence Forces of the state!
All others claiming that title are gangs of lowlife organized criminal gangs, whose sole aims are personal profit and personal power!

R P McMurphy

lugha wrote: »

I didn't claim that they did.


Whatever their objectives I am asking what did they achieve. Nobody has been able to make much of an argument so far that they achieved anything.

The "reasoning" seems to be: there was all sort of bad stuff going on in the '50s, the IRA came along, now things are much better, so the IRA must have been the reason. :rolleyes:

In the early and mid 70's (particularly with the huge numbers swelling the ranks of the ra in the aftermath of bloody sunday and widgery) there was a genuine feeling that the British could be forced out of the north through military actions. As things began to stabilise and this proved not to be the case the provos were reorganised to fight a low intensity long war. The primary objective being to make the six counties ungovernable and so bring about a British withdrawal through a campaign of attrition - those that can endure the most kind of mindset. I think from the early mid 80s on there was another rethink in light of Bobby Sand's election victory. The reason it takes so long for these things to be resolved is the investment people have already put into the campaign. Hard to call a quick halt when peoples lives and time have been so heavily invested in a movement.

What was achieved? hard to answer. The main purpose of the campaign did not succeed. If you want to look at it purely from an organisational and operational capacity, they were pretty effective in setting about this long war. Is infinitely easier to identify what was lost.

LordSutch

Magill wrote: »

It is funny how the majority of Catholics from the North (You know.. the people that were effected the most) were pro IRA during the troubles..

If you are saying that the majority of Northern Nationalists supported the Provo's during the troubles, then I think your info is very wrong and ill informed. From memory most Catholics/Nationalists supported the SDLP and their non violent/non murderous/non devisive political path.