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

The who

Godge wrote: »

That is fantasy stuff. NI is not going to become part of Ireland this century and certainly not because of anything either of those terrorist organisations do so my point about minor political differences being immaterial still stands.

It most certainly will, tiocfaidh ár lá!

jeffery lebowski

Anyone who maintains the provisional campaign had no sectarianism is simply denying the obvious....Enniskillen 1987 ???

SoulandForm

jeffery lebowski wrote: »

. This sectarian undercurrent to republicanism was creeping, but definiate and is the reason why the Presbyterian people of the North eventually decided to side with the Unionist argument and jettison their republican ideals.

So nothing to do with Presbyterians being effectively bought off by the Anglican ascendency and therefore seeking to politically protect their relative privilege? Nothing at all to do with that?

Tone was on occasion pretty ruthless with his political enemies but I guess because he is a Protestant that was due to his idealism and if a Roman Catholic does is equally ruthless that has to be down to sordid sectarianism?

The innocent Prods school of Irish history can really be as daft as it is shrill when viewed objectively- that is extremely so.

SoulandForm

jeffery lebowski wrote: »

Anyone who maintains the provisional campaign had no sectarianism is simply denying the obvious....Enniskillen 1987 ???

I will say this for the Provisional movement and its supporters- at least they are ashamed of their sectarian undercurrent unlike some who will remain nameless.

jeffery lebowski

SoulandForm wrote: »

I will say this for the Provisional movement and its supporters- at least they are ashamed of their sectarian undercurrent unlike some who will remain nameless.

So here at least you admit the sectarianism of the republician movement. The whataboutery does not interest me. I know well that sectarianism exists on both sides - I was worried that some on this forum were not aware.

SoulandForm

jeffery lebowski wrote: »

So here at least you admit the sectarianism of the republician movement. The whataboutery does not interest me. I know well that sectarianism exists on both sides - I was worried that some on this forum were not aware.

Where did I deny that it did? However unlike Unionism and Loyalism it isnt defined (or defines itself by quite openly) sectarianism.

Can you admit that the carry on of organized Unionism was the root cause of the Enniskillen bombing?

jeffery lebowski

SoulandForm wrote: »

So nothing to do with Presbyterians being effectively bought off by the Anglican ascendency and therefore seeking to politically protect their relative privilege? Nothing at all to do with that?

Tone was on occasion pretty ruthless with his political enemies but I guess because he is a Protestant that was due to his idealism and if a Roman Catholic does is equally ruthless that has to be down to sordid sectarianism?

The innocent Prods school of Irish history can really be as daft as it is shrill when viewed objectively- that is extremely so.

Didn't think I was being shrill ?

I don't remember reading of Tone bombing innocent men, women and children (Enniskillen 1987) - So I would not equate his ruthlessness with that of his modern day 'heirs'

jeffery lebowski

SoulandForm wrote: »

Where did I deny that it did? However unlike Unionism and Loyalism it isnt defined (or defines itself by quite openly) sectarianism.

Can you admit that the carry on of organized Unionism was the root cause of the Enniskillen bombing?

In what way?

jeffery lebowski

SoulandForm wrote: »

However unlike Unionism and Loyalism it isnt defined (or defines itself by quite openly) sectarianism.

So Republicanism's underhanded sectarianism is better than Unionisms open sectarianism!?

Better to be shot from behind a ditch than face to face? Hobbes choice i'd say!

Fratton Fred

The who wrote: »

The IRA are not sectarian, yes they may have some sectarian fellas in it that are not true republicans and who don't even know what the tricolour means.Also the army are not terrorists, they are freedom fighters fighting against terrorists.The only terrorists in Ireland are wearing British uniforms.

How would you describe an "army" that detonates a bomb outside a McDonald's in a busy high street on a Saturday lunch time?

jeffery lebowski

The who wrote: »

The IRA are not sectarian, yes they may have some sectarian fellas in it that are not true republicans and who don't even know what the tricolour means.Also the army are not terrorists, they are freedom fighters fighting against terrorists.The only terrorists in Ireland are wearing British uniforms.

Wow - Breathtaking revisionism and ignorance. Ask Patsy Gillespie's family if they are 'Freedom fighters' - Oh dear :pac::eek:

Karl Stein

The fallacious moral equivocation and desperate attempts to draw parallels between the PIRA and Loyalist death squads as regards capability, sectarianism and indiscriminate killing requires that facts be completely ignored.


Loyalists killings were ~85% Civilians (primarily unarmed Catholic civilians)
British Army killings ~51% Civilian
PIRA killings ~35% Civilian

An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA.

It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6276416.stm

"There is a congenial, indeed government-backed myth, in both Scotland and in Ireland, that "one side is bad as another": that Sinn Fein-IRA are pretty much the same as the UDA/UVF. This is simply untrue. There is no republican equivalent to the Romper Rooms of the UDA, wherein men were routinely beaten to a pulp by loyalist thugs, and from which both the term and the practice became celebrated. And then there was Lenny Murphy and his merry gang, the Shankill Butchers, who for years in the mid-1970s abducted, tortured and murdered Catholics -- usually by cutting their victims' throats.

This culture did not emerge simply as a response to IRA violence. It was there already. It was feckless, violent, drunken, lost, lumpen proletarians for whom a perverted tribal identity conjoined with a godlessly Calvinist sense of superiority, even as they stewed in their ghettoes of suffocating illiteracy and economic failure.

Irish Independent, June 23, 2011

You'll never guess what IRA loving journalist wrote the above?

Kevin Myers

Fratton Fred

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Loyalists killings were ~85% Civilians (primarily unarmed Catholic civilians)
British Army killings ~51% Civilian
PIRA killings ~35% Civilian
]

So in other words, the British army should not have taken prisoners, they should have shot all IRA members on site, to make their percentages look more acceptable.

Karl Stein

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So in other words, the British army should not have taken prisoners, they should have shot all IRA members on site, to make their percentages look more acceptable.

Leaving aside that the BA and its proxies did execute PIRA members on sight how would that affect the rate of civilians the killed?

jeffery lebowski

Charlie Rock wrote: »

The fallacious moral equivocation and desperate attempts to draw parallels between the PIRA and Loyalist death squads as regards capability, sectarianism and indiscriminate killing requires that facts be completely ignored.


Loyalists killings were ~85% Civilians (primarily unarmed Catholic civilians)
British Army killings ~51% Civilian
PIRA killings ~35% Civilian





You'll never guess what IRA loving journalist wrote the above?

Kevin Myers

Defending the indefensible....Why not use actual figures - rather than %. This tells one that the IRA certainly were more 'efficient' killers (of both communities)

Banjo String

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How would you describe an "army" that detonates a bomb outside a McDonald's in a busy high street on a Saturday lunch time?

What about an army that open fires on a group of unarmed, peaceful, people protesting for their civil rights, on a Sunday afternoon?

Some might even argue, was the beginning of the troubles in the north.

The who

All loyalist paramilitaries were driven by complete and utter sectarianism unlike the IRA. Yes the IRA was responsible for some sectarian killings such as the Kingsmills massacre but these were actually lads in the army who took matters into their own hands and the head leaders such as McGuinnes and Adams couldn't have known about all the killings that were about to take place because the IRA works in a cellular formation.

SoulandForm

jeffery lebowski wrote: »

SoulandForm wrote: »

However unlike Unionism and Loyalism it isnt defined (or defines itself by quite openly) sectarianism.

So Republicanism's underhanded sectarianism is better than Unionisms open sectarianism!?

Better to be shot from behind a ditch than face to face? Hobbes choice i'd say!

People should be ashamed of the usually idiotic and often violent sectarianism that makes a mess of Northern Ireland- though sectarianism is far from the only problem in NI. If you are ashamed of something it means you realize that it is wrong and it means that you will attempt not to act on it or at least show it.

jeffery lebowski

The who wrote: »

All loyalist paramilitaries were driven by complete and utter sectarianism unlike the IRA. Yes the IRA was responsible for some sectarian killings such as the Kingsmills massacre but these were actually lads in the army who took matters into their own hands and the head leaders such as McGuinnes and Adams couldn't have known about all the killings that were about to take place because the IRA works in a cellular formation.

'Cellular formation' ? this is dancing on the head of a pin.... was Patsy Gillespie sanctioned?

and your lazy stereotype of Republican Freedom fighter V Loyalkist thug is tiresome. Have you read 'Voices from the grave'? Brendan Hughes and David Ervine both seemed motivated by the same thing to me. To defend their own community and to hit the other side bloody hard. Why do you insist one side is better than the other?

Fratton Fred

Banjo String wrote: »

What about an army that open fires on a group of unarmed, peaceful, people protesting for their civil rights, on a Sunday afternoon?

Some might even argue, was the beginning of the troubles in the north.

What a surprise, the response starts with "what about..."

Fratton Fred

The who wrote: »

All loyalist paramilitaries were driven by complete and utter sectarianism unlike the IRA. Yes the IRA was responsible for some sectarian killings such as the Kingsmills massacre but these were actually lads in the army who took matters into their own hands and the head leaders such as McGuinnes and Adams couldn't have known about all the killings that were about to take place because the IRA works in a cellular formation.

Did you miss my earlier question?

.jacksparrow.

jeffery lebowski wrote: »

'Cellular formation' ? this is dancing on the head of a pin.... was Patsy Gillespie sanctioned?

and your lazy stereotype of Republican Freedom fighter V Loyalkist thug is tiresome. Have you read 'Voices from the grave'? Brendan Hughes and David Ervine both seemed motivated by the same thing to me. To defend their own community and to hit the other side bloody hard. Why do you insist one side is better than the other?

If the pira wanted to hit the other side bloody hard they could have targeted protesants daily and with such ease, the deaths would have been in the tens of thousands.

SoulandForm

jeffery lebowski wrote: »

'Cellular formation' ? this is dancing on the head of a pin.... was Patsy Gillespie sanctioned?

and your lazy stereotype of Republican Freedom fighter V Loyalkist thug is tiresome. Have you read 'Voices from the grave'? Brendan Hughes and David Ervine both seemed motivated by the same thing to me. To defend their own community and to hit the other side bloody hard. Why do you insist one side is better than the other?

Unionists who wanted to defeat the PIRA had the British Army that they could join or indeed the UDR and the RUC. Many did and whatever people might think about them here they showed bravery. Republicans and nationalists on the other hand did not have that option. Brendan Hughes did claim though that he fought for the Irish working class as a whole and in his auto-biography was incredibly honest about his own failings leaving behind an incredibly valuable historical document that shows things as they were. David Irvine's though wasnt quite that was it? The sudden emergence of David Irvine and his carry on seemed very scripted- he was a Loyalist as London would want one to be. Billy Wright on the hand had the British state basically turning a blind eye to his killing in one of the most secure prisons in Europe. Billy Wright's autobiography would have been a lot more interesting.

Banjo String

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What a surprise, the response starts with "what about..."

It was a legitimate question that you've avoided answering.

Many believe the troubles (as we all understand them) in the north began with bloody Sunday.

SoulandForm

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

If the pira wanted to hit the other side bloody hard they could have targeted protesants daily and with such ease, the deaths would have been in the tens of thousands.

I really dont understand the will of some people to make believe that the Provos were worse than actually were as if the troubles as they happened were not brutal and nasty enough.

flas

Goat the dote wrote: »

And I don't think any of them are the IRA of Collins' time

yeah,their not anywhere near as ruthless or violent.

Fratton Fred

SoulandForm wrote: »

Unionists who wanted to defeat the PIRA had the British Army that they could join or indeed the UDR and the RUC. Many did and whatever people might think about them here they showed bravery. Republicans and nationalists on the other hand did not have that option. Brendan Hughes did claim though that he fought for the Irish working class as a whole and in his auto-biography was incredibly honest about his own failings leaving behind an incredibly valuable historical document that shows things as they were. David Irvine's though wasnt quite that was it? The sudden emergence of David Irvine and his carry on seemed very scripted- he was a Loyalist as London would want one to be. Billy Wright on the hand had the British state basically turning a blind eye to his killing in one of the most secure prisons in Europe. Billy Wright's autobiography would have been a lot more interesting.

Most soldiers I know who have served in operation banner acknowledge that the difference between them and the guys they were fighting was simply one of geography.

Fratton Fred

Banjo String wrote: »

It was a legitimate question that you've avoided answering.

Many believe the troubles (as we all understand them) in the north began with bloody Sunday.

It was deflection.

Karl Stein

jeffery lebowski wrote: »

Defending the indefensible.

I've never once attempted to defend the killing of innocent people.

Why not use actual figures - rather than %.

The % gives us some insight into the mindset of the different groups. Loyalists 85% civilian kill rate (of unarmed Catholics) gives us insight into the fact they were driven by sectarian blood lust. The PIRA 75% kill-rate of 'players' in the conflict shows they were primarily concerned with attacking the security apparatus of the Unionist/British statelet.

jeffery lebowski wrote: »

Why do you insist one side is better than the other?

'Better' is the wrong word - 'more sophisticated' might be a better way of describing them. Republican para-militarism was primarily concerned with targeting military, security and economic targets.

Loyalists were little more than a collection serial killers. The two simply aren't comparable unless you choose to completely ignore the facts like you, and others, choose to.

But hey, don't listen to me:

An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA.

It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".

news.bbc.co.uk

Manassas61

You leave out the most important thing of all, context. The Loyalist paramilitaries aimed at civilians as they didn't have people in uniforms driving down the street like Republican paramilitaries had.

It would not have been any different if say the Irish Defence forces were in Northern Ireland and driving around Unionist areas. You would have had hundreds of deaths simply due to explosives and shootings, off duty shootings. One of the first deaths in the Troubles ironically of a British soldier came about from the Shankill.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

You leave out the most important thing of all, context. The Loyalist paramilitaries aimed at civilians as they didn't have people in uniforms driving down the street like Republican paramilitaries had.

It would not have been any different if say the Irish Defence forces were in Northern Ireland and driving around Unionist areas. You would have had hundreds of deaths simply due to explosives and shootings, off duty shootings. One of the first deaths in the Troubles ironically of a British soldier came about from the Shankill.

The UK state admitted that they were being fed intelligence on Republicans. They preffered soft targets.

If you joined the Provos, the INLA, the RUC or the BA you knew there was a serious risk of you ending up with a bullet in the back of your head- that risk was far, far lower if you joined the Loyalist groups and the main risk would be coming from your fellow Loyalists.

jeffery lebowski

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I've never once attempted to defend the killing of innocent people.



The % gives us some insight into the mindset of the different groups. Loyalists 85% civilian kill rate (of unarmed Catholics) gives us insight into the fact they were driven by sectarian blood lust. The PIRA 75% kill-rate of 'players' in the conflict shows they were primarily concerned with attacking the security apparatus of the Unionist/British statelet.



'Better' is the wrong word - 'more sophisticated' might be a better way of describing them. Republican para-militarism was primarily concerned with targeting military, security and economic targets.

Loyalists were little more than a collection serial killers. The two simply aren't comparable unless you choose to completely ignore the facts like you, and others, choose to.

But hey, don't listen to me:

Primarily concerned with Military targets?

Women and children in Enniskillen 1987, Kingsmills, Jean McConville, The targeting of sons of Protestant farmers along the border, a chip shop on the Shankill road........ Yes very 'sophisticated'

Manassas61

SoulandForm wrote: »

The UK state admitted that they were being fed intelligence on Republicans. They preffered soft targets.

If you joined the Provos, the INLA, the RUC or the BA you knew there was a serious risk of you ending up with a bullet in the back of your head- that risk was far, far lower if you joined the Loyalist groups and the main risk would be coming from your fellow Loyalists.

Nowhere near as much information as people think. They certainly didn't get enough information on PIRA members.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

It would not have been any different if say the Irish Defence forces were in Northern Ireland and driving around Unionist areas. You would have had hundreds of deaths simply due to explosives and shootings, off duty shootings. One of the first deaths in the Troubles ironically of a British soldier came about from the Shankill.

Why ironically?

Loyalists at the time wanted a repeat of the pogroms in the early 20s that followed the defeat of the war of independence in what had now become Northern Ireland. Given the world situation as it was and the increase of media the UK state decided that it simply couldnt allow that to happen. At that time the early 20s were in living memory- infact you could say that sitting back and allowing them to happen at that time was one of the major causes of the troubles later.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

Nowhere near as much information as people think. They certainly didn't get enough information on PIRA members.

Crap-the Prime Minister of the UK admitted a large amount of what went on in the House of Commons recently. They had the information if they wanted to target PIRA members- that would have involved actual risk though wouldnt it have?

Manassas61

SoulandForm wrote: »

Why ironically?

Loyalists at the time wanted a repeat of the pogroms in the early 20s that followed the defeat of the war of independence in what had now become Northern Ireland. Given the world situation as it was and the increase of media the UK state decided that it simply couldnt allow that to happen. At that time the early 20s were in living memory- infact you could say that sitting back and allowing them to happen at that time was one of the major causes of the troubles later.

Loyalists killing British soldiers was rare.

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

The Loyalist paramilitaries aimed at civilians as they didn't have people in uniforms driving down the street like Republican paramilitaries had.

They had plenty of intelligence passed to them about Republicans. They still managed to rack up an appalling rate of killing of innocent people.

Were the PIRA ruthless killers? Absolutely. Did they commit some vicious acts of brutality? Yes. Was the PIRA's campaign comparable to the Loyalist murder gangs' massacres of people in bars, bookies, places of work? Absolutely not.

Had the PIRA engaged in a comparable campaign of mass-murder against Protestants there'd have been many thousands more dead innocent Protestants.

Again, the moral equivocation and attempts to draw parallels require suspension of reason and denial of facts.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

Loyalists killing British soldiers was rare.

True but that the time it happened it was hardly weird.

There was actually an early massacre by the British Army of Loyalists throwing stones at them which has received very little attention. I cant remember how many were killed.

Manassas61

SoulandForm wrote: »

Crap-the Prime Minister of the UK admitted a large amount of what went on in the House of Commons recently. They had the information if they wanted to target PIRA members- that would have involved actual risk though wouldnt it have?

No, not if a lot of the targets are in houses which they regarded as safe houses. Considering there was thousands of Loyalist prisoners, they didn't have as much wide spread information.

British soldiers wearing uniforms put the PIRA in a huge advantage target wise.

Karl Stein

jeffery lebowski wrote: »

Primarily concerned with Military targets?

Military, security and economic.

Women and children in Enniskillen 1987, Kingsmills, Jean McConville, The targeting of sons of Protestant farmers along the border, a chip shop on the Shankill road........

As I've said many shameful acts were carried out by the PIRA; Kingsmill and Enniskillen stand out as some of the most heinous. These acts, as murderous as they were, were not the norm though.

Manassas61

Charlie Rock wrote: »

They had plenty of intelligence passed to them about Republicans. They still managed to rack up an appalling rate of killing of innocent people.

Were the PIRA ruthless killers? Absolutely. Did they commit some vicious acts of brutality? Yes. Was the PIRA's campaign comparable to the Loyalist murder gangs' massacres of people in bars, bookies, places of work? Absolutely not.

Had the PIRA engaged in a comparable campaign of mass-murder against Protestants there'd have been many thousands more dead innocent Protestants.

Again, the moral equivocation and attempts to draw parallels require suspension of reason and denial of facts.

300 Orangemen murdered due to them. They slaughtered people in the border region. I don't see any difference between them. Ruthless murderers. Most people don't see any honor in them.

Manassas61

Not to mention the brutal treatment they dished out to decent Gardai officers. No honor at all.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

No, not if a lot of the targets are in houses which they regarded as safe houses. Considering there was thousands of Loyalist prisoners, they didn't have as much wide spread information.

British soldiers wearing uniforms put the PIRA in a huge advantage target wise.

The pro-Union side in the low level war was not the monolith that some Republicans would like to believe. For instance there was much more sympathy within the UDR for the Loyalists than there was within the RUC- and within the British Army proper regiements varied in their attitudes. Certainly some wanted to see Loyalists locked up. However that doesnt change the fact that they were being fed information and even being co-operated with (the killing of Vol Miriam Daly comes to mind) by elements within the "security forces".

Okay lets take this argument- was the Kingsmill massacre okay than because the UVF were not wearing uniforms all the time?

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

300 Orangemen murdered due to them. They slaughtered people in the border region. I don't see any difference between them. Ruthless murderers. Most people don't see any honor in them.

The vast majority of whom were in the security forces; the very fact that so many Orange men were in the security forces shows just how crazy the place was.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

Not to mention the brutal treatment they dished out to decent Gardai officers. No honor at all.

The Gardai used torture against Republicans during the troubles.

Come on.

Manassas61

SoulandForm wrote: »

The pro-Union side in the low level was not the monolith that some Republicans would like to believe. For instance there was much more sympathy within the UDR for the Loyalists than there was within the RUC- and within the British Army proper regiements varied in their attitudes. Certainly some wanted to see Loyalists locked up. However that doesnt change the fact that they were being fed information and even being co-operated with (the killing of Vol Miriam Daly comes to mind) by elements within the "security forces".

Okay lets take this argument- was the Kingsmill massacre okay than because the UVF were not wearing uniforms all the time?

That is what I am saying. There was no honor in any of it. It was cold and precise murder.

Manassas61

SoulandForm wrote: »

The Gardai used torture against Republicans during the troubles.

Come on.

Against terrorists. They killed Gardai. Decent law abiding people doing a job.

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

300 Orangemen murdered due to them.

I suspect not for being Orangemen.

I don't see any difference between them.

That requires you to suspend your reasoning faculties and ignore facts.

Manassas61

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I suspect not for being Orangemen.



That requires you to suspend your reasoning faculties and ignore facts.

They went into an Orangehall and murdered 5 people spreading all over the place. Trying to paint some sort of honourable picture of them won't work.

Most people remember them as cowardly murderous thugs.

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

They went into an Orangehall and murdered 5 people spreading all over the place. Trying to paint some sort of honourable picture of them won't work.

Despite your moving of the goalposts from '300 Orangemen' to a particular attack I have no problem condemning acts such as that.

I recently told you that I suspected you'd spend a lot of your time on boards.ie engaging in moral equivocation and whataboutery - I'd like to add 'moving the goal posts' to the list.