Does the GFA imply that the troubles were in fact a war?

maithanfear

I was watching UTV news last night to keep up to date with affairs in the north. One of news reports they covered was that of the new unionist party which has been set up. According to the report, one of the founding members father or uncle was 'murdered' by the IRA. It came at no surprise that UTV would take time to mention this since it seems to be proper procedure for the pro unionist channels to remind us of the troubles and the dirty part nationalists played in it.
But I think this type of newspaper reporting creates certain problems.
First of all; this type of reporting implies that there existed no conflict in northern ireland. To say that the IRA murdered a member of the UDR implies certain guilt on behalf of the IRA.
I mean really, are we to believe that the IRA are somehow guilty of launching a campaign against a state which oppressed a large section of its populace?
Secondly, doesn't the release of political prisoners following the Good Friday Agreement not imply that what actually happened in the north was in fact a war?
It seems to me so silly that the people who are responsible for the running of channels such as UTV refuse to accept the northern states involvment in bringing about the troubles. The troubles didn't just appear out of nowhere, they were very much a product of Unionsist misgovernment.

iDave

The inconvienient truth for Unionism is it created and fostered an apartheid state post partition. The Unionist ideology in itself is apartheid by nature. Yes it was a war, a civil war to be exact.

Iwasfrozen

No it wasn't war, it was never war. To say it was is daft. It was an insurrection with irredentist tendencies. Organised civil disobedience ≠ war.

golfball37

The British courts regcognised it as a war as far back as the late 70's when an UDR man said on his deathbed he wanted everything left to a certain person just after being involved in a shoot out with Francis Hughes [H Block hunger striker].

The only way a will can be enforced in this way is if its a testament made by a dying soldier at war. Judge upheld the dying mans wishes therefore legally he accepted it was a wartime situation.

Iwasfrozen

golfball37 wrote: »

The British courts regcognised it as a war as far back as the late 70's when an UDR man said on his deathbed he wanted everything left to a certain person just after being involved in a shoot out with Francis Hughes [H Block hunger striker].

The only way a will can be enforced in this way is if its a testament made by a dying soldier at war. Judge upheld the dying mans wishes therefore legally he accepted it was a wartime situation.

Source on this? No source I've ever read described the troubles as a war, more just an ethnic and political conflict. This news article would suggest it wasn't http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7176271.stm.

LordSutch

maithanfear wrote: »

According to the report, one of the founding members father or uncle was 'murdered' by the IRA.

Many people were murdered by the PIRA in Northern Ireland, in Britain, and here in the ROI.

maithanfear wrote: »

It came at no surprise that UTV would take time to mention this since it seems to be proper procedure for the pro unionist channels to remind us of the troubles and the dirty part nationalists played in it.

The Troubles happened, and all sides were involved

maithanfear wrote: »

To say that the IRA murdered a member of the UDR implies certain guilt on behalf of the IRA.

Quite a biarre comment to make if you don't mind me saying so :rolleyes:

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Organised civil disobedience ≠ war.

Civil disobedience?

Like below?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF-iHsyjJPY

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Civil disobedience?

Like below?

Yep, I did call it an insurrection.

LordSutch

In reply to post#7, the Army should have used something like this http://www.wallsave.com/wallpapers/1024x768/heavy-arms/182543/heavy-arms-warship-mil-mi-hind-helicopter-gunship-picture-gallery-182543.jpg to combat the PIRA.

But I guess it wearn't part of their arsenal at the time?

Iwasfrozen

LordSutch wrote: »

In reply to post#7, the Army should have used something like this http://www.wallsave.com/wallpapers/1024x768/heavy-arms/182543/heavy-arms-warship-mil-mi-hind-helicopter-gunship-picture-gallery-182543.jpg to combat the PIRA.

But I guess they wearn't part of their arsenal at the time?

Deploying big guns would be an admission that there was a war.

Chuck Stone

LordSutch wrote: »

In reply to post#7, the Army should have used something like this http://www.wallsave.com/wallpapers/1024x768/heavy-arms/182543/heavy-arms-warship-mil-mi-hind-helicopter-gunship-picture-gallery-182543.jpg to combat the PIRA.

But I guess it wearn't part of their arsenal at the time?

Didn't do the Russians much good did they?

Manach

Just because there was no formal declaration does not make it any less of small scale guerilla war that have been commonly seen through history.

GRMA

Of course it was a war, Brits liked to say it wasn't but acted like it was

LordSutch

There was no war between the State of Ireland and Great Britain.
There was no war between the Irish people and the people of Britain.
There was no official war declared by any of the combatants either.

But there was a Terrorist campaign by the Privisional IRA against anybody and everybody who got in their way.

Chuck Stone

LordSutch wrote: »

Terrorist

And what of the state terrorism against the Catholic population that gave rise to militancy?

Was that good terrorism was it?

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And what of the state terrorism against the Catholic population that gave rise to militancy?

Was that good terrorism was it?

Didn't your parents teach you two wrongs don't make a right? I find it amazing how simplistic childhood idioms can often be applied to real world adult discussions.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Didn't your parents teach you two wrongs don't make a right?

Didn't your parents teach you that when you make your bed you must lie in it?

See that? I can throw up a useless idiom that adds nothing to the discussion too. Pretty simple.

I find it amazing how simplistic childhood idioms can often be applied to real world adult discussions.

I find it amusing how some can have such unashamed double standards.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You make your bed you lie in it.

See that? I can throw up a useless idiom that adds nothing to the discussion too. Pretty simple.

Your problem is you see "the Brits" as a single conciousness. A 16 year old lad in the army who was shot dead by the Ra did not colonise Ireland. So how was that "making his bed and lying in it?"

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I find it amusing how some can have such unashamed double standards.

Saying two wrongs don't make a right is not a double standard.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Your problem is you see "the Brits" as a single conciousness.

That's an interesting diagnosis Dr Psych. Totally wrong but interesting nonetheless.

A 16 year old lad in the army who was shot dead by the Ra did not colonise Ireland.

Leaving aside the ridiculous caricature of a innocent child-soldier you've painted - where did I say he was?

So how was that "making his bed and lying in it?"

I'm guessing that when you join the the BA (or any army ftm) you're kind of aware that your role is not chasing butterflies with a net. Yes, he's not personally responsible for the conflict but the people moving the pawns on the board very much are.

guttenberg

LordSutch wrote: »

There was no war between the State of Ireland and Great Britain.
There was no war between the Irish people and the people of Britain.
There was no official war declared by any of the combatants either.

But there was a Terrorist campaign by the Privisional IRA against anybody and everybody who got in their way.

Would you agree with the Americans that the Iraq War ended in 2011 or is it still ongoing? Just because it has no official recognition does not mean it can't be classed as a war. Plus, I'm sure there is ample Provo statements made over the years talking about their "war" with the British Government.

Fratton Fred

GRMA wrote: »

Of course it was a war, Brits liked to say it wasn't but acted like it was

Both sides considered it a war, or not, to suit their agenda at the time.

oscarBravo

maithanfear wrote: »

To say that the IRA murdered a member of the UDR implies certain guilt on behalf of the IRA.

Yeah, I mean we all know that the IRA had every legal right to go around killing people.

Jesus, threads like this make my head hurt. Are we really arguing over whether or not we should be hurting the feelings of people who killed thousands of their fellow human beings by suggesting that those killings might not have been legal?

The mind boggles.

junder

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Both sides considered it a war, or not, to suit their agenda at the time.

By the terms of the 'international law of armed conflict' which is a descendent of the Geneva convention, then no it was not a war

SoulandForm

LordSutch wrote: »

But there was a Terrorist campaign by the Privisional IRA against anybody and everybody who got in their way.

You are forgetting the Dublin bombing- and also just how much has come out and/or being admitted about how linked the Loyalist death squads were to the British state. The British state was not some innocent bystander just trying to keep the peace- infact it was the cause and a major player in the troubles.

GRMA

junder wrote: »

By the terms of the 'international law of armed conflict' which is a descendent of the Geneva convention, then no it was not a war

Not much solace for those killed in the decades long war is it

Fratton Fred

SoulandForm wrote: »

You are forgetting the Dublin bombing- and also just how much has come out and/or being admitted about how linked the Loyalist death squads were to the British state. The British state was not some innocent bystander just trying to keep the peace- infact it was the cause and a major player in the troubles.

Has any new evidence come out about the Dublin bombings, because last I heard the uff or whoever did it.

Or is it the usual case of "if we keep saying it, it must be true".

Chuck Stone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

last I heard the uff or whoever did it.

Collusion was very much a fact. To imagine that the degenerates who carried out the bombings did so without, at the very least, higher-ups in the security forces being aware would be foolish.

The British authorities could easily put the issue to bed by releasing all the files they have on the D&M bombings which they refuse to.

SoulandForm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Has any new evidence come out about the Dublin bombings, because last I heard the uff or whoever did it.

Or is it the usual case of "if we keep saying it, it must be true".

Actually it was the UVF who claimed it.

The UFF was just the cover for the UDA while it was legal (did it become illegal in the late 80s or early 90s?).

SoulandForm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Collusion was very much a fact. To imagine that the degenerates who carried out the bombings did so without, at the very least, higher-ups in the security forces being aware would be foolish.

The British authorities could easily put the issue to bed by releasing all the files they have on the D&M bombings which they refuse to.

The Loyalists did not have the capacity to carry out that attack.

There is also the strong possibility that pro-British elements in the ROI state apparatus may have helped out as well.

scuba8

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And what of the state terrorism against the Catholic population that gave rise to militancy?

?

I am very surprised that you claim attacks on Catholics as justification for a campaign of terror. The ira killed more Catholics than all the rest put together. By your logic the Catholics should have risen up against the ira. The ira also waged a campign of terror against the Republic of Ireland with a view to overthrowing the democraticaly elected government.Read your little green book.
The real defenders of the rights of Catholics was the SDLP. They were the true peacemakers in the North. The SDLP were the party that fought for justice and equality for the Catholic population and they succeeded without murdering anybody.

Sand

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Collusion was very much a fact. To imagine that the degenerates who carried out the bombings did so without, at the very least, higher-ups in the security forces being aware would be foolish.

The British authorities could easily put the issue to bed by releasing all the files they have on the D&M bombings which they refuse to.

They could do so and if you didn't like the answers in the file you could still claim they had edited the files, or not released all of the files. Either you trust that the British government didn't decide to randomly bomb people in Dublin for no apparent purpose - or you don't and never will regardless of evidence.

SoulandForm

scuba8 wrote: »

I am very surprised that you claim attacks on Catholics as justification for a campaign of terror. The ira killed more Catholics than all the rest put together. By your logic the Catholics should have risen up against the ira. The ira also waged a campign of terror against the Republic of Ireland with a view to overthrowing the democraticaly elected government.Read your little green book.
The real defenders of the rights of Catholics was the SDLP. They were the true peacemakers in the North. The SDLP were the party that fought for justice and equality for the Catholic population and they succeeded without murdering anybody.

Are you referring to the civil war there?

The PIRA were not fighting for civil rights for Catholics or anyone else per se but to force a withdrawal of the British state- they failed, and it was obvious they were not going to win from the mid-80s at least onwards which does raise moral questions as to why they continued.

Chuck Stone

scuba8 wrote: »

I am very surprised that you claim attacks on Catholics as justification for a campaign of terror.

Could you point out where I've done this?

Xantia

When I was a young child I watched for at least 20 minutes Irish Army convoys going north to the nearby border.
A few years later we had many northern accents in our schools, children with their parents who were 'billited' in places like Kilworth Camp.
They had been traumatised and burnt out of their homes.
Yes a war it was but it was not like any other.

scuba8

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Could you point out where I've done this?

The quote from your post.

Dubhlinner

People only shirk from calling it a war because they fear that gives legitimacy to PIRA/INLA/UVF etc

Its as if calling it a war means saying the republican campaign was justified. I think this is silly. Its a bit like saying the Iraq war of 2003 wasn't a war because America had no right to start it. You can call it a war and at the same time condemn republicans/loyalists just as America is rightly condemned for that war.

If it wasn't a war then why don't we have the elite security forces go into Limerick or Manchester and take out the crime gangs like the SAS took out an IRA unit at Loughall?

LordSutch wrote:

There was no war between the State of Ireland and Great Britain.
There was no war between the Irish people and the people of Britain.
There was no official war declared by any of the combatants either.

But there was a Terrorist campaign by the Privisional IRA against anybody and everybody who got in their way.

I don't agree recognised nations need to be part of a conflict for the conflict to be described as war. Like think of tribal wars in Africa, they're often completely disconnected with the national governments, but no one disputes they are wars.

Chuck Stone

scuba8 wrote: »

The quote from your post.

Says nothing about justifying the campaign.

Bertie Woot

maithanfear wrote: »

I was watching UTV news last night to keep up to date with affairs in the north. One of news reports they covered was that of the new unionist party which has been set up. According to the report, one of the founding members father or uncle was 'murdered' by the IRA. It came at no surprise that UTV would take time to mention this since it seems to be proper procedure for the pro unionist channels to remind us of the troubles and the dirty part nationalists played in it.
But I think this type of newspaper reporting creates certain problems.
First of all; this type of reporting implies that there existed no conflict in northern ireland. To say that the IRA murdered a member of the UDR implies certain guilt on behalf of the IRA.
I mean really, are we to believe that the IRA are somehow guilty of launching a campaign against a state which oppressed a large section of its populace?
Secondly, doesn't the release of political prisoners following the Good Friday Agreement not imply that what actually happened in the north was in fact a war?
It seems to me so silly that the people who are responsible for the running of channels such as UTV refuse to accept the northern states involvment in bringing about the troubles. The troubles didn't just appear out of nowhere, they were very much a product of Unionsist misgovernment.

Absolutely, but UTV and indeed the Beeb are the mainstream news channels in the North, and they have never taken a Nationalist stance on their reporting. The PIRA have frequently been described as "terrorists", which of course they are, and when Mr. Adams was banned from airing his views mid-conflict by Thatcher, the Beeb and UTV had no issue with this, but cleverly got round it by employing actors to voice Adam's words. So in that sense, whilst taking an extablishment line on news reporting, they did go put of their way to allo Adams to get hs message across at a time when the Conservative gvt had attempted to completely ban SF from the airwaves.

Much of the Northern establishment is still in a state of denial about Unionist dominated Stormont's institutionalised discrimination against the Nationalist people, and the term "war" has mostly been used by Republicans to describe their armed campaign. Among the Unionist community you shall find an astonishing level of ignorance and/or denial about the role that the Unionist state played in bringing about PIRA violence. Some unionists, like David Ervine of the PUP admitted that wrongs had been committed by Unionism, and he condemned the Unionist establishment for that. But most other Unionists, take the UUP and DUP, shall never admit or even entertain the notion that it was Unionist misrule which instigated IRA violence, and that is a classic example of Unionist tenacity.

scuba8

scuba8 wrote: »

The quote from your post. 'Says nothing about justifying the campaign'

Am I to understand that you believe that the actions of the ira during the troubles was unjustified and they should never have started.

Chuck Stone

scuba8 wrote: »

Am I to understand that you believe that the actions of the ira during the troubles was unjustified and they should never have started.

No. You should believe that I understand that the PIRA were a reactionary paramilitary backlash against state violence. That's why I asked this..

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And what of the state terrorism against the Catholic population that gave rise to militancy?

Was that good terrorism was it?

scuba8

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No. You should believe that I understand that the PIRA were a reactionary paramilitary backlash against state violence. That's why I asked this..

There was no state violence in the Republic. How do you justify the actions of the ira against the people of Ireland and their efforts to overthrow the legitimate government of the Republic of Ireland.

Chuck Stone

scuba8 wrote: »

How do you justify the actions of the ira against the people of Ireland and their efforts to overthrow the legitimate government of the Republic of Ireland.

I can't.

SoulandForm

scuba8 wrote: »

There was no state violence in the Republic. How do you justify the actions of the ira against the people of Ireland.

Are you kidding me? Have you never heard of the so called heavy gang?

Also do nordies not count as the part of the people of Ireland?

I have very mixed feelings about the Provos- they committed some genuinely horrible deeds that have made matters worse in the long run and they continued long after it was obvious that they were not going to win; however if they had succeed in driving the British state out of Ireland my feelings towards them would be very different.

Unlike you probably I have had family members killed by the PIRA.

SoulandForm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I can't.

The Provos never attempted to overthrow the Dublin government. Infact they had orders to avoid all confrontation with the Garda.

scuba8

SoulandForm wrote: »

Are you kidding me? Have you never heard of the so called heavy gang?

Also do nordies not count as the part of the people of Ireland?

I have very mixed feelings about the Provos- they committed some genuinely horrible deeds that have made matters worse in the long run and they continued long after it was obvious that they were not going to win; however if they had succeed in driving the British state out of Ireland my feelings towards them would be very different.

Unlike you probably I have had family members killed by the PIRA.

You are correct I do not have family murdered by the ira. The heavy gang did not target the people of Ireland. They may have been heavy with certain individuals. However their actions did not generaly effect law abiding citizens and the people of Ireland were not generaly bothered by their behaviour. The ira were never going to get a united Ireland through the use of violence.

scuba8

SoulandForm wrote: »

The Provos never attempted to overthrow the Dublin government. Infact they had orders to avoid all confrontation with the Garda.

This is the copout used by ira apologists. The ira targeted Gardai. A number of Gardai were murdered by the use of booby traps. The ira considered the the army council of the ira to be the legitimate government of the Republic of Ireland. Their stated aim was to remove the Government of the Republic and install the army council.

SoulandForm

scuba8 wrote: »

You are correct I do not have family murdered by the ira. The heavy gang did not target the people of Ireland. They may have been heavy with certain individuals. However their actions did not generaly effect law abiding citizens and the people of Ireland were not generaly bothered by their behaviour. The ira were never going to get a united Ireland through the use of violence.

The IRA didnt target people in the south, and for a lot of the time only targeted those involved in the British state in the north and not people generally going about their business. They did not target the "people of Ireland".

The Dublin middle classes are not the people of Ireland- very many people were concerned about state torture.

Looking back on it the PIRA were probably never going to win though it was touch and go in the mid 70s when there was a possibility that the British would withdraw (and at that time the slide into sectarian butchery by the PIRA insured that those in the British state who wanted to leave drew back on that desire because they didnt want leave utter chaos).

Ultimately though the British will not leave peacefully and there will never be a just and lasting peace until they go.

SoulandForm

scuba8 wrote: »

This is the copout used by ira apologists. The ira targeted Gardai. A number of Gardai were murdered by the use of booby traps. The ira considered the the army council of the ira to be the legitimate government of the Republic of Ireland. Their stated aim was to remove the Government of the Republic and install the army council.

How many Garda exactly were killed by the Provisionals?

No that was not their stated aim.

Its funny what you say because a lot of Loyalists and Unionists will tell you that the Garda were sympathetic to the Provies.

scuba8

SoulandForm wrote: »

The IRA didnt target people in the south, and for a lot of the time only targeted those involved in the British state in the north and not people generally going about their business. They did not target the "people of Ireland".

The Dublin middle classes are not the people of Ireland- very many people were concerned about state torture.

Looking back on it the PIRA were probably never going to win though it was touch and go in the mid 70s when there was a possibility that the British would withdraw (and at that time the slide into sectarian butchery by the PIRA insured that those in the British state who wanted to leave drew back on that desire because they didnt want leave utter chaos).

Ultimately though the British will not leave peacefully and there will never be a just and lasting peace until they go.

When a bomb explodes does it distinguish between 'those involved in the British state in the north and not people generally going about their business'.
Support for the ira and by extension sinn fein was miniscule during the 70's and 80's. All you have to look at is their election results.

Dubhlinner

scuba8 wrote: »

A number of Gardai were murdered by the use of booby traps.

never heard that before, would have thought it would be mentioned here http://www.thejournal.ie/ultimate-sacrifice-the-gardai-who-have-been-killed-on-duty-771198-Jan2013/

SoulandForm

scuba8 wrote: »

When a bomb explodes does it distinguish between 'those involved in the British state in the north and not people generally going about their business'.
Support for the ira and by extension sinn fein was miniscule during the 70's and 80's. All you have to look at is their election results.

Just how many Garda were killed by the Provies?

Sinn Fein was not seriously involved in the 70s- it was only with the hunger strikes that the whole Armalite and Ballot Box thing came about. The Provisional movement wasnt interested in elections at that time. Down south a lot of people supported or were sympathetic to the PIRA without voting for SF.