Is there a differance between the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA?

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I've answered this a dozen times in a dozen different threads. Now I cant speak for the IRA, but clearly, a bomb at peak business time is going to cause far more disruption across an entire area, with closed roads and streets on top of everything else. If you actually look into what happened in any of these incidents, instead of just reading the roaring Daily Mail headlines of the day, you'll gain a better understanding not just into these events, but into the Troubles as a whole.
As has been pointed out to you numerous times, which you seem quite happy to ignore, if the aim is the spread terror and kill as many people as possible, why give warnings, why issue apologies when civilians are killed, why stand down units that took risks with civilian casualties and why, for the amount of IRA attacks carried out over 30 years, were civilian casualties so relatively low?

Disruption to who?

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I've answered this a dozen times in a dozen different threads. Now I cant speak for the IRA, but clearly, a bomb at peak business time is going to cause far more disruption across an entire area, with closed roads and streets on top of everything else. If you actually look into what happened in any of these incidents, instead of just reading the roaring Daily Mail headlines of the day, you'll gain a better understanding not just into these events, but into the Troubles as a whole.
As has been pointed out to you numerous times, which you seem quite happy to ignore, if the aim is the spread terror and kill as many people as possible, why give warnings, why issue apologies when civilians are killed, why stand down units that took risks with civilian casualties and why, for the amount of IRA attacks carried out over 30 years, were civilian casualties so relatively low?

(1) The timing led to more deaths
(2) Many of the warnings were inadequate at best
(3) What apologies? I don't accept an apology from a child without a promise of better behaviour in future - and better warnings for the next bomb is not a promise of better behaviour.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Disruption to who?

Commerce, traffic, business, the wider economy as part of a concerted campaign. You can try and twist this any way you want but the fact remains if the IRA just wanted to kill loads of English people, why not just place massive no-warning bombs in densely populated areas? Every historian of note looking at the conflict agrees that the IRA had no interest in killing civilians, Tim Pat Coogan goes so far as to note that one of the reasons it took people in England so long to cop on to what was happening in Ireland was because when attacking England the IRA resisted "going for the jugular."

For a man who was complaining that someone ignored his questions you sure went silent on the points I raised.

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Commerce, traffic, business, the wider economy as part of a concerted campaign. You can try and twist this any way you want but the fact remains if the IRA just wanted to kill loads of English people, why not just place massive no-warning bombs in densely populated areas? Every historian of note looking at the conflict agrees that the IRA had no interest in killing civilians, Tim Pat Coogan goes so far as to note that one of the reasons it took people in England so long to cop on to what was happening in Ireland was because when attacking England the IRA resisted "going for the jugular."

For a man who was complaining that someone ignored his questions you sure went silent on the points I raised.

Mass killings of citizens through massive no-warning bombs would have ended popular support in Northern Ireland for the IRA. That is the reality of the strategic decision that the IRA took.

Much better to plant lesser bombs with inadequate warnings. Then they could point to the police as being as fault and avoid blame from their own supporters with the added advantage of terrorising the mainland UK population.

A cynical approach with little regard for human life.

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

(1) The timing led to more deaths

Blatant lies. Are you actually insinuating that less people would have been killed if the IRA hadn't given warnings.

Godge wrote: »

(2) Many of the warnings were inadequate at best

True. These incidents were largely down to either the IRA being inexperienced in the early years of the conflict, or inexperienced volunteers carrying out attacks later in the conflict when others were dead or in jail. Neither of these reasons are an excuse, as civilian safety should have been to the forefront of their minds, but they are a reason and at the very least show that civilians were not the target.
I'd also question your use of the word "many." Obviously, it's not a word with a fixed quantity but given the number of civilian casualties over the years, measured against the number of explosive devices detonated, I'd say it would be more accurate to say that "some" warnings were inadequate at best.

Godge wrote: »

(3) What apologies?

Several attacks that led to civilian deaths were followed up with statements of apology or regret. The IRA also issued an unreserved apology to the families of all non-combatants killed following its ceasefire.

Godge wrote: »

I don't accept an apology from a child without a promise of better behaviour in future - and better warnings for the next bomb is not a promise of better behaviour.

So what are you suggesting then, that the IRA just roll over and let loyalists and the state have their merry way? Need I remind you that the provos were the last to get involved in offensive action during the conflict and the first to put an end to the violence.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Commerce, traffic, business, the wider economy as part of a concerted campaign. You can try and twist this any way you want but the fact remains if the IRA just wanted to kill loads of English people, why not just place massive no-warning bombs in densely populated areas? Every historian of note looking at the conflict agrees that the IRA had no interest in killing civilians, Tim Pat Coogan goes so far as to note that one of the reasons it took people in England so long to cop on to what was happening in Ireland was because when attacking England the IRA resisted "going for the jugular."

For a man who was complaining that someone ignored his questions you sure went silent on the points I raised.

I'm no expert on bombings, but incidents I have been affected by have shown me that when a bomb is detonated, commerce, business and traffic were affected for days, if not weeks after. You should have seen the bedlam around Hammersmith when staples corner was bombed.

The reality is, the IRA wanted to terrorise people. OK, I'll agree they avoided the Al Qeada style spectacular because they didn't want to create too many headlines in the US, where their funding was coming from. But they had to kill people, they had to show they meant what they said.

Warnings we're given, but often wrong, misleading or at too short notice. Partly because they wanted to keep casualties to an acceptable level, partly so they could give an excuse of "oh, sorry, we tried our best"

Often though, no warning was given at all.

And who has apologised?

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

Mass killings of citizens through massive no-warning bombs would have ended popular support in Northern Ireland for the IRA. That is the reality of the strategic decision that the IRA took.

Much better to plant lesser bombs with inadequate warnings. Then they could point to the police as being as fault and avoid blame from their own supporters with the added advantage of terrorising the mainland UK population.

A cynical approach with little regard for human life.

Baseless waffle. So the IRA terrorised people by not terrorising them, except for a little bit the odd time.

I also heard that the IRA was this scary monster that crawled out of the sea one day and just started killing people for no reason.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm no expert on bombings, but incidents I have been affected by have shown me that when a bomb is detonated, commerce, business and traffic were affected for days, if not weeks after. You should have seen the bedlam around Hammersmith when staples corner was bombed.

The reality is, the IRA wanted to terrorise people. OK, I'll agree they avoided the Al Qeada style spectacular because they didn't want to create too many headlines in the US, where their funding was coming from. But they had to kill people, they had to show they meant what they said.

Warnings we're given, but often wrong, misleading or at too short notice. Partly because they wanted to keep casualties to an acceptable level, partly so they could give an excuse of "oh, sorry, we tried our best"

Often though, no warning was given at all.

And who has apologised?

Same as I said to Godge, utterly baseless waffle. A little research will show you what the IRA actually wanted.

And, again, same as I said to Godge, the IRA apologised.

FTA69

SoulandForm wrote: »

What is it than?

A Ballymena accent.

SoulandForm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The reality is, the IRA wanted to terrorise people. OK, I'll agree they avoided the Al Qeada style spectacular because they didn't want to create too many headlines in the US, where their funding was coming from. But they had to kill people, they had to show they meant what they said.

I think it was more to do with headlines in Ireland than with headlines in the USA; at the start of the troubles they had massive sympathy in the 26 counties but that level dwindled partly indeed to due the media in line with the elite taking a much more hostile approach but also due their own brutality (Bloody Friday, the Braydo bar massacre, etc). Before the Enniskillen massacre Provisional Sinn Fein had been making very strong gains in the north but those gains were halted and indeed set back by that bombing. I would agree with you though that the Birmingham and Warrington bombings were pure acts of terrorism.

Fratton Fred

SoulandForm wrote: »

I think it was more to do with headlines in Ireland than with headlines in the USA; at the start of the troubles they had massive sympathy in the 26 counties but that level dwindled partly indeed to due the media in line with the elite taking a much more hostile approach but also due their own brutality (Bloody Friday, the Braydo bar massacre, etc). Before the Enniskillen massacre Provisional Sinn Fein had been making very strong gains in the north but those gains were halted and indeed set back by that bombing. I would agree with you though that the Birmingham and Warrington bombings were pure acts of terrorism.

I had colleagues in the US at the time of the Warrington bombings. They commented on the way the Jamie Bulger murder hit the headlines over there and received widespread shock, outrage etc. But a month later, two young children killed by the IRA were worth about two two inches on a page six column filler.

As has often been said, to 90% of Americans terrorism only started in 2001 and is only ever carried out by Arabs.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Same as I said to Godge, utterly baseless waffle. A little research will show you what the IRA actually wanted.

And, again, same as I said to Godge, the IRA apologised.

Take the blinkers off for a sec will you. Think about it, the IRA targeted civilian targets at their peak time. There can be no other explanation than to terrorise civilians.

Getting a politician to read out an anonymous letter isn't an apology.

SoulandForm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I had colleagues in the US at the time of the Warrington bombings. They commented on the way the Jamie Bulger murder hit the headlines over there and received widespread shock, outrage etc. But a month later, two young children killed by the IRA were worth about two two inches on a page six column filler.

As has often been said, to 90% of Americans terrorism only started in 2001 and is only ever carried out by Arabs.

A lot of Unionists believe that the Provisionals were forced to decommission because with 9/11 all their support had dried up in the USA. Im far from sure that this belief has a basis in reality. Look at the case of Peter King for instance who is extremely pro the "war on terror" yet also very Irish Republican after a certain manner. It would be interesting to find out just how much of the PIRA's resources came from Irish America, Libya, the Warsaw Pact, donations in Ireland, donations in western Europe, bank robberies, etc- I suspect that the role of Irish America has been exaggerated.

There is a poster on another forum who is Irish American who sees no contradiction between supporting the "war on the terror" and libeling Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement in the states while militantly supporting the Provisionals in a way that would make anyone on here blush.

Fratton Fred

SoulandForm wrote: »

A lot of Unionists believe that the Provisionals were forced to decommission because with 9/11 all their support had dried up in the USA. Im far from sure that this belief has a basis in reality. Look at the case of Peter King for instance who is extremely pro the "war on terror" yet also very Irish Republican after a certain manner. It would be interesting to find out just how much of the PIRA's resources came from Irish America, Libya, the Warsaw Pact, donations in Ireland, donations in western Europe, bank robberies, etc- I suspect that the role of Irish America has been exaggerated.

There is a poster on another forum who is Irish American who sees no contradiction between supporting the "war on the terror" and libeling Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement in the states while militantly supporting the Provisionals in a way that would make anyone on here blush.

NORAID certainly raised a lot of funds for Republican causes and was seen as a genuine charity in the US for a long time, but the change was well under way before 9/11. That was probably the final nail in the coffin, but the armed campaign was dead anyway.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Take the blinkers off for a sec will you. Think about it, the IRA targeted civilian targets at their peak time. There can be no other explanation than to terrorise civilians.

Getting a politician to read out an anonymous letter isn't an apology.

The IRA had nothing to gain from terrorising civilians. Their goals were only furthered when the day to day running of the British economy was upset. That's why as the bombs got bigger the brits were more and more eager to talk. Nothing to do with how many bodies there were, the british government showed quite clearly they were more than happy to keep throwing uniforms at the IRA for them to shoot so long as it didn't hit their pockets.
I'm not the one with blinkers on, you're the one with the black and white view of the conflict that you refuse to challenge.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The IRA had nothing to gain from terrorising civilians. Their goals were only furthered when the day to day running of the British economy was upset. That's why as the bombs got bigger the brits were more and more eager to talk. Nothing to do with how many bodies there were, the british government showed quite clearly they were more than happy to keep throwing uniforms at the IRA for them to shoot so long as it didn't hit their pockets.
I'm not the one with blinkers on, you're the one with the black and white view of the conflict that you refuse to challenge.

They had nothing to gain from killing a tv presenter, or two teenagers and two elderly people on a boat in Mullaghmore, but they still did.

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They had nothing to gain from killing a tv presenter, or two teenagers and two elderly people on a boat in Mullaghmore, but they still did.

Well they did to be fair. McWhirter was killed as he had put a bounty out on IRA members, something the organisation rightly saw as a direct attack on their people. They weren't going to tolerate some racist right-wing twat seeking to use his personal wealth and influence to place bounties on peoples' heads. Mountbatten was a member of the British royal family, the most eminent family in the British establishment who are also intertwined inextricably with the British Army.

Now obviously you don't agree with the above operations and I can see your reasons why, but they weren't mindlessly done for the craic either.

.jacksparrow.

I think that Fred can't name one conflict in the history of existence where innocent people didn't get caught up in it, says it all really.

But will still come out with the usual the Ira were sectarian and targetted innocent civilians.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

Well they did to be fair. McWhirter was killed as he had put a bounty out on IRA members, something the organisation rightly saw as a direct attack on their people. They weren't going to tolerate some racist right-wing twat seeking to use his personal wealth and influence to place bounties on peoples' heads. Mountbatten was a member of the British royal family, the most eminent family in the British establishment who are also intertwined inextricably with the British Army.

Now obviously you don't agree with the above operations and I can see your reasons why, but they weren't mindlessly done for the craic either.

And Mountbattens guests on his boat?

Whils I agree that there could be justification for their murders, I fail to see how anyone could take pride in them.

Besides, the Balcombe street gang were little more than thugs running around killing people.

Fratton Fred

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

I think that Fred can't name one conflict in the history of existence where innocent people didn't get caught up in it, says it all really.

difference between being caught up in a conflict than deliberately targeted. Worse still, people defending those actions.

But will still come out with the usual the Ira were sectarian and targetted innocent civilians.

The IRA weren't sectarian. When did I claim they were. They had no problem killing English people though.

OK then, maybe you can tell me why Warrington was attacked by planting a bomb outside a McDonald's on a Saturday lunchtime if they were targeting civilians?

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And Mountbattens guests on his boat?

Whils I agree that there could be justification for their murders, I fail to see how anyone could take pride in them.

I don't think anyone should take pride in someone's particular death to be honest. While I would be proud of the tradition of resistance in Ireland and what was achieved in the face of great adversity by ordinary working class people, I wouldn't cheer over specific deaths either. That's fairly ghoulish to be honest, unfortunately in political conflicts that sort of thing does emerge.

I don't think any Republican would ever say the other people on Mountbatten's boat deserved what happened to them.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And Mountbattens guests on his boat?

Whils I agree that there could be justification for their murders, I fail to see how anyone could take pride in them.

Besides, the Balcombe street gang were little more than thugs running around killing people.

Who is taking pride in any of this? I'm merely challenging your assertion that the IRA were a bunch of mindless sectarian sadists who killed for the love of it. Like all other sane people I wish no-one had been killed, I wish the war had never happened and that the IRA had never needed to exist. Sadly, the British state, along with a corrupt Stormont regime and the worst excesses of loyalism, coupled with Free State cowardice, ensured this was not to be.
Do you think people wanted to be out there, taking on a better equipped, better trained, better funded army? Planting bombs that they knew could go off at any second and kill them? Living on the run, or in subhuman prison conditions or with physical and mental injuries and disabilities?
Sadly, people were left with no choice but to fight back.

Tramps Like Us

FTA69 wrote: »

I don't think anyone should take pride in someone's particular death to be honest. While I would be proud of the tradition of resistance in Ireland and what was achieved in the face of great adversity by ordinary working class people, I wouldn't cheer over specific deaths either. That's fairly ghoulish to be honest, unfortunately in political conflicts that sort of thing does emerge.

I don't think any Republican would ever say the other people on Mountbatten's boat deserved what happened to them.

I don't see why you feel the need to defend or explain yourself to an out and out supporter of the British Army given the innocents they have massacred

FTA69

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

I don't see why you feel the need to defend or explain yourself to an out and out supporter of the British Army given the innocents they have massacred

It's a discussion like, and whatever about the fact I disagree with him on most stuff, he can usually discuss matters on a civil basis.

Tramps Like Us

FTA69 wrote: »

It's a discussion like, and whatever about the fact I disagree with him on most stuff, he can usually discuss matters on a civil basis.

Its a discussion which is going over the exact same ground again and again, what about x, what about y, explain this, explain that - its the same old thing where a borderline jingoistic British army supporter is given free reign on the moral high ground to moralize and act holier than thou - rather than a worthwhile discussion about the differences between the various republican armed groups, this petered out after the first couple of pages

FTA69

Sure whatever, it's nigh impossible to discuss this sort of topic on this forum anyway because you're immediately dealing with nonsense and general West Brit attitudes from the get go.

Iwasfrozen

FTA69 wrote: »

Sure whatever, it's nigh impossible to discuss this sort of topic on this forum anyway because you're immediately dealing with nonsense and general West Brit attitudes from the get go.

perhaps if you didn't glorify terrorists...

Tramps Like Us

FTA69 wrote: »

Sure whatever, it's nigh impossible to discuss this sort of topic on this forum anyway because you're immediately dealing with nonsense and general West Brit attitudes from the get go.

Don't mean to have a go, its just disappointing that there is no proper discussion about the various different groups, whether that be Tiny's loons, the new IRA, ONH or whomever

FTA69

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

perhaps if you didn't glorify terrorists...

I don't glorify terrorists. I recognise the fact that the IRA was a justified response to a British occupation based on physical force and backed up by a horrible, sectarian state.

SoulandForm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA weren't sectarian. When did I claim they were. They had no problem killing English people though.

OK then, maybe you can tell me why Warrington was attacked by planting a bomb outside a McDonald's on a Saturday lunchtime if they were targeting civilians?

I can see the point that you are making- and not only were such actions morally suspect but politically stupid- they greatly undermined the efforts of those in Britain working in the Labour Party and Trade Union for a just and lasting solution the problems (I dont consider the GFA to be that- we can argue about its justice but its not going to lasting however much I do hope that it lasts as long as possible). Now however real social/political power in the UK is much more concentrated so such efforts if things kick off again even under the best of circumstances will stand much less chance of being genuinely effective.

Personally I dont believe that the British elite wants to leave Ireland, I believe that they want to hold on to the north for strategic reasons which is why they havent tackled the crazier side of capital "U" Unionism because they see it as a back up (also there is the fact that it puts people in the south off the idea of national unity). Things continue to be tolerated in Northern Ireland which just wouldnt be in the UK mainland (and its not just a matter of plastic bullets, check out this- http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/catholics-land-sale-row-farmer-left-536k-in-will-29620882.html ).

Iwasfrozen

FTA69 wrote: »

I don't glorify terrorists. I recognise the fact that the IRA was a justified response to a British occupation based on physical force and backed up by a horrible, sectarian state.

1. Violence is/was never a "justified response."
2. The British were not occupying Northern Ireland. Whether you like it or not they had a democratic mandate to be there.
3. I agree the state was sectarian but the IRA was not the correct response to that. All they did was provoke unionist reprisals against catholic civilians

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Who is taking pride in any of this? I'm merely challenging your assertion that the IRA were a bunch of mindless sectarian sadists who killed for the love of it. Like all other sane people I wish no-one had been killed, I wish the war had never happened and that the IRA had never needed to exist. Sadly, the British state, along with a corrupt Stormont regime and the worst excesses of loyalism, coupled with Free State cowardice, ensured this was not to be.
Do you think people wanted to be out there, taking on a better equipped, better trained, better funded army? Planting bombs that they knew could go off at any second and kill them? Living on the run, or in subhuman prison conditions or with physical and mental injuries and disabilities?
Sadly, people were left with no choice but to fight back.

There is a huge difference between fighting back and carrying out what can only be described as terrorist atrocities.

Similarly, claiming that certain attacks were acts of terrorism, does not mean all attacks were, nor does it mean I believe they were sectarian sadists.

My point is simply that a significant number of attacks by the IRA targeted civilians.

Iwasfrozen

SoulandForm wrote: »

Personally I dont believe that the British elite wants to leave Ireland, I believe that they want to hold on to the north for strategic reasons which is why they havent tackled the crazier side of capital "U" Unionism because they see it as a back up (also there is the fact that it puts people in the south off the idea of national unity). Things continue to be tolerated in Northern Ireland which just wouldnt be in the UK mainland (and its not just a matter of plastic bullets, check out this- http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/catholics-land-sale-row-farmer-left-536k-in-will-29620882.html ).

Agree 100%. I don't get it when people say Britain wants to dump Northern Ireland. Maybe this is true for the average person but for the people who rule Britain, he true elite this is an ideological matter. What do they care if the government pumps Billions into Northern Ireland? This is petty cash for these people and well worth it to keep the United Kingdom intact.

FTA69

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

[*]Violence is/was never a "justified response."

It is at times. Especially against a state that maintains itself through violence, that uses overt and covert violence through a variety of channels to systematically attack any challenge to it,.

[*]The British were not occupying Northern Ireland. Whether you like it or not they had a democratic mandate to be there.

No, they decided to maintain a presence in Ireland under the threat of an "immediate and terrible war" and subsequently established an anti-democratic state based on repression and violence.

[*]I agree the state was sectarian but the IRA was not the correct response to that. All they did was provoke unionist reprisals against catholic civilians

This lark that Republicans are to blame for Unionist paramilitaries is one of the sillier myths to emerge from the conflict. The UVF were active and randomly killing Catholics since 1966, Loyalist paramilitarism has a long history in Ireland and has more to do with maintaining social privilege than anything else.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

No, they decided to maintain a presence in Ireland under the threat of an "immediate and terrible war" .

Britain never made such a threat.

If you read the Dail debate on the treaty, it is very clear what that sentence relates to.

A copy of the proposed treaty had been sent to Belfast and the two parties in London knew that unless it was signed, the war would break out again, but this time it would be immediate and more terrible than the previous one.

The British government were not threatening war, they were warning that a terrible civil war would break out in Ireland.

It is very clear, but has since been used as an excuse for signing the treaty and agreeing to partition.

Iwasfrozen

FTA69 wrote: »

It is at times. Especially against a state that maintains itself through violence, that uses overt and covert violence through a variety of channels to systematically attack any challenge to it,

Every state maintains itself through violence. What do you think the Gards and Army are for in the Republic?

No, they decided to maintain a presence in Ireland under the threat of an "immediate and terrible war" and subsequently established an anti-democratic state based on repression and violence.

Nope, they maintained a presence in the north east of Ireland because most people in the north east of Ireland wanted them to. They've even admitted many years later they have no strategic interest in NI. They only stayed because Unionists wanted them to.

This lark that Republicans are to blame for Unionist paramilitaries is one of the sillier myths to emerge from the conflict. The UVF were active and randomly killing Catholics since 1966, Loyalist paramilitarism has a long history in Ireland and has more to do with maintaining social privilege than anything else.

I'm not arguing which came first I'm saying IRA killings only provoked more attacks on catholic civilians. Violence begets violence even primary school children know that.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is a huge difference between fighting back and carrying out what can only be described as terrorist atrocities.

Similarly, claiming that certain attacks were acts of terrorism, does not mean all attacks were, nor does it mean I believe they were sectarian sadists.

My point is simply that a significant number of attacks by the IRA targeted civilians.

It depends what you mean by significant, but the statistics of the conflict would disagree with you.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It depends what you mean by significant, but the statistics of the conflict would disagree with you.

724 "accidental" deaths?

Really?

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain never made such a threat.

If you read the Dail debate on the treaty, it is very clear what that sentence relates to.

A copy of the proposed treaty had been sent to Belfast and the two parties in London knew that unless it was signed, the war would break out again, but this time it would be immediate and more terrible than the previous one.

The British government were not threatening war, they were warning that a terrible civil war would break out in Ireland.

It is very clear, but has since been used as an excuse for signing the treaty and agreeing to partition.

This is untrue. Macready had told Loyd George that if war broke out again he would have to be prepared to "bring the full apparatus of war, including tanks and planes" to Ireland and that he would have to "shoot 100 Sinn Feiners a day."
The Brits very clearly threatened Ireland with annihilation if the treaty wasnt accepted.
I personally think they should have called their bluff. Better to have them united and fighting the british than shooting each other.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This is untrue. Macready had told Loyd George that if war broke out again he would have to be prepared to "bring the full apparatus of war, including tanks and planes" to Ireland and that he would have to "shoot 100 Sinn Feiners a day."
The Brits very clearly threatened Ireland with annihilation if the treaty wasnt accepted.
I personally think they should have called their bluff. Better to have them united and fighting the british than shooting each other.

They wouldn't have won. If history has thought us anything sophisticated armies can annihilate the enemy's central command in hours but they'll be worn down over an extended period of occupation.

The British would have had to leave defeated eventually but they could flatten the country in the process. The leaders of the pro-treaty side probably considered this.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

724 "accidental" deaths?

Really?

Out of 10,000+ explosive devices detonated and countless shootings.
I'd also be interested to see where you're getting your figures from and what constitutes civilian. We've seen some people argue on here that the RUC should have been seen as "civilian" casualties. For example, CAIN has civilian casualties at 621.
Not, as I have said, that that's a justification, no civilian death was acceptable, but the figures clearly show that civilians were not the target.
Other evidence from throughout the conflict, such as IRA reactions to civilians deaths and the IRA's own rules and the political direction of the organisation, show they had no interest in targeting civilians. It was militarily, strategically and politically counter productive. I dont know why you are so keen to argue otherwise given the evidence but unless you have something new to add I'm finished going around in circles with you on this one.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They wouldn't have won. If history has thought us anything sophisticated armies can annihilate the enemy's central command in hours but they'll be worn down over an extended period of occupation.

The British would have had to leave defeated eventually but they could flatten the country in the process. The leaders of the pro-treaty side probably considered this.

I still think Ireland would be in a better position today had they rejected the treaty, but that's a topic for another thread.

FTA69

very state maintains itself through violence. What do you think the Gards and Army are for in the Republic?

It's a bit disingenuous to compare maintaining an occupation in a different country with maintaining the internal security of a state. Most states don't arm one strata in society with a view to using them as a watchdog against the rest of the country. Neither do they support and facilitate an economic and political system which discriminates against one community. Few other states in Western Europe were convicted of practising torture against people they interned without trial and fewer again were arming death squads to murder their own citizens.

Nope, they maintained a presence in the north east of Ireland because most people in the north east of Ireland wanted them to. They've even admitted many years later they have no strategic interest in NI. They only stayed because Unionists wanted them to.

They redrew the boundaries in 1920 to provide the northern state with as big a majority as it was possible to get, it was cynical gerrymandering done with a view to bolstering their presence in the island as a whole. This notion that the Brits have no strategic interest is a pile of thundering b*llocks to be very blunt about it. Do you think they fought a 25 year war here for the craic? That they armed and facilitated Loyalist paramilitaries to murder UK citizens because they've no intention of staying there? That they spent billions upon billions on subventions and the military cost of a low-level war all to protect the interests of Irish unionists they largely don't give a sh*t about?

The Brits view this place the same way they view every other colony. They had zero problem in vacating their other colonies when it suited them to do so. What Brooke said in 1990 is irrelevant. Tony Blair also said Saddam Hussein could attack Britain with chemical weapons in 40 minutes notice. In other words, the British government has consistently lied about its activities in Ireland.

I'm not arguing which came first I'm saying IRA killings only provoked more attacks on catholic civilians.

The only people to blame for Loyalist killings are the people themselves and the various British state agencies which encouraged and facilitated them as part of a proxy war. Nobody else.

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain never made such a threat.

If you read the Dail debate on the treaty, it is very clear what that sentence relates to.

A copy of the proposed treaty had been sent to Belfast and the two parties in London knew that unless it was signed, the war would break out again, but this time it would be immediate and more terrible than the previous one.

The British government were not threatening war, they were warning that a terrible civil war would break out in Ireland.

It is very clear, but has since been used as an excuse for signing the treaty and agreeing to partition.

That's nonsense to be fair Fred. The phrase was said to Barton with a view to what would happen if hostilities resumed; meanwhile you had Macready drawing up plans to intern 100,000 people and summarily execute thousands more.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Out of 10,000+ explosive devices detonated and countless shootings.
I'd also be interested to see where you're getting your figures from and what constitutes civilian. We've seen some people argue on here that the RUC should have been seen as "civilian" casualties. For example, CAIN has civilian casualties at 621.
Not, as I have said, that that's a justification, no civilian death was acceptable, but the figures clearly show that civilians were not the target.
Other evidence from throughout the conflict, such as IRA reactions to civilians deaths and the IRA's own rules and the political direction of the organisation, show they had no interest in targeting civilians. It was militarily, strategically and politically counter productive. I dont know why you are so keen to argue otherwise given the evidence but unless you have something new to add I'm finished going around in circles with you on this one.

724 civilians killed by republican paramilitaries.

I really fail to see how you can't grasp this, it is fairly simple.

You bomb a pub in Birmingham on a Friday night, then civilians are the target, where is the doubt?

Let me put it another way. Blow up a bus full of soldiers, as well as dead soldiers, there are four dead civilians. OK, that's an accident, soldiers were the target.

Bomb a McDonald'. On a Saturday lunchtime in a town with no military connection, who is the target? Civilians.

There is no debate about this.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

That's nonsense to be fair Fred. The phrase was said to Barton with a view to what would happen if hostilities resumed; meanwhile you had Macready drawing up plans to intern 100,000 people and summarily execute thousands more.

It was said to Barton, yes, but solemnly, not as a threat. Other than as a passing reference, none of the Irish delegates raised it. If you read the Dail debates afterwards it gets a very fleeting mention, surely this threat of annihilation would have been pretty much the main topic of discussion, whereas the main concern was the oath of allegiance.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

724 civilians killed by republican paramilitaries.

I really fail to see how you can't grasp this, it is fairly simple.

You bomb a pub in Birmingham on a Friday night, then civilians are the target, where is the doubt?

Let me put it another way. Blow up a bus full of soldiers, as well as dead soldiers, there are four dead civilians. OK, that's an accident, soldiers were the target.

Bomb a McDonald'. On a Saturday lunchtime in a town with no military connection, who is the target? Civilians.

There is no debate about this.

And around and around we go. Your fixation on two events, which are not as black and white as you are portraying them, is colouring your view of the entire conflict.
Educate yourself on the conflict and it's quite clear the IRA did not target civilians.
You also seem to be referring to the IRA specifically and then lumping the IRA in with figures that include all republican groups. This is disingenuous.
Like I said, if you come up with anything new, get back to me.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It was said to Barton, yes, but solemnly, not as a threat. Other than as a passing reference, none of the Irish delegates raised it. If you read the Dail debates afterwards it gets a very fleeting mention, surely this threat of annihilation would have been pretty much the main topic of discussion, whereas the main concern was the oath of allegiance.

So now you even know the tone in which things were said. Jesus Fred you arent doing yourself any favours.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

So now you even know the tone in which things were said. Jesus Fred you arent doing yourself any favours.

I know because Barton and Griffith both say as much in their notes. Read some primary sources (such as the Dail debates on the subject) and you'll appreciate the manner it was said as well.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know because Barton and Griffith both say as much in their notes. Read some primary sources (such as the Dail debates on the subject) and you'll appreciate the manner it was said as well.

I've studied this subject in depth, it's quite clear what the brits were up to. Sign this or die. Classic british democracy.