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

An Coilean

Manassas61 wrote: »

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

If members of the Gardaí were conducting torture then they were neither decent nor law abiding.

SoulandForm

Charlie Rock wrote: »

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.

I wonder should you add in sneaking regarding?

Karl Stein

SoulandForm wrote: »

I wonder should you add in sneaking regarding?

Huh?

Edit: Got it. So we've arrived at the victim blaming now?

How depressing.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

Most people remember them as cowardly murderous thugs.

Do they really?

Manassas61 I can imagine very easily an actually anti-Protestant nationalist or communal movement emerging in the north east of Ireland and place descending into an out and out sectarian blood bath. Your demonization of the Provos shows a great lack of imagination. There could easily be much worse around the corner if the place isnt sorted out.

SoulandForm

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Huh?

Sneaking regarder= someone who sympathized strongly with Paramilitaries but would never admit up front.

SoulandForm

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Huh?

Edit: Got it. So we've arrived at the victim blaming now?

How depressing.

I dont think he has got there yet but I see a certain subtext- I could be wrong though.

tdv123

SoulandForm wrote: »

Do they really?

The British Army didn't see them as cowards anyway.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/calculating-professional-enemy-that-faces-kosb-1.598672

A senior military officer said: "They are murdering bastards, but they are not cowards. This team actually pressed home a ground attack right into the heart of the compound. That takes guts when there are people firing back.''

Fratton Fred

tdv123 wrote: »

The British Army didn't see them as cowards anyway.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/calculating-professional-enemy-that-faces-kosb-1.598672

The IRA carried out numerous cowardly attacks against civilians, members of the RUC, members of the UDR and members of the British army. The amount of times they actually engaged the BA in head on assaults was rare and if they did, and lost, then they cried shoot to kill and demanded an enquiry.

Painted Pony

There is a familiar approach here from those who criticise the IRA (in all its modern guises) which is to (understandably) focus on innocent victims (Enniskillen, Warrington etc.). There is also a less used line being pushed here, which is that the IRA were as bad as the loyalists.

Unfortunately this plays right in to the hands of those who would defend the IRA. The latter point is plainly not true, the loyalist were much more abhorrent. As to the former argument, well they can credibly point out that when violence is utilised, by anyone, there is an inevitable likelihood that innocents will be killed.

The focus should be on the willingness by republicans to use violence in the first place. Resorting to force is a very extreme course of action and anyone who does so should have considerable justification. The IRA’s purpose and their reason for using violence was political, to end the British “occupation” of Ireland, as they would put it. And certainly the vast majority of Irish nationalists agreed with this end but they made is abundantly clear that they did not favour violence means to bring this end about.

But the IRA, with a blatant disregard of the very notion of what republicanism is about, decided that the Irish people didn’t really know what was best for them and they could be simply ignored. (Interestingly, while they engaged in this behaviour they simultaneously decried British imperialism!).

There is a lot of debate about attitudes to republicans with some bizarre accounts for the distrust some of us have for them. But the oft repeated mantra from the troubles era of “not in my name” neatly explains the reason for this distrust.

Fratton Fred

SoulandForm wrote: »

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.

The objection I have is that there is a genuine attempt to portray the IRA as a benevolent team of swasbucklers who only took on military targets. They carried out numerous terror attacks which many posters will claim were bonafide acts of war.

I challenged a poster on this, which he has chosen to ignore.

Rubeter

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA carried out numerous cowardly attacks against civilians, members of the RUC, members of the UDR and members of the British army. The amount of times they actually engaged the BA in head on assaults was rare and if they did, and lost, then they cried shoot to kill and demanded an enquiry.

Why do soldiers wear Camoflage gear in battle?
What is the purpose of a Tank?
What was the 50mm sniper rifle invented for?
Why were Drones invented?
What is artillery for?

Head on assaults my arse. Get real.

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA carried out numerous cowardly attacks against civilians, members of the RUC, members of the UDR and members of the British army. The amount of times they actually engaged the BA in head on assaults was rare and if they did, and lost, then they cried shoot to kill and demanded an enquiry.

Yeah, you'd want to be a right pussy to risk death and imprisonment fighting one of the most effective armies in the world. :rolleyes:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BATTLE-ANNUAL-1983-84-FLEETWAY-action-boys-book-world-war-II-soldier-german-UK-/200963118080

Is this where you're getting your perspective on war from Fred?

Crooked Jack

Painted Pony wrote: »

There is a familiar approach here from those who criticise the IRA (in all its modern guises) which is to (understandably) focus on innocent victims (Enniskillen, Warrington etc.). There is also a less used line being pushed here, which is that the IRA were as bad as the loyalists.

Unfortunately this plays right in to the hands of those who would defend the IRA. The latter point is plainly not true, the loyalist were much more abhorrent. As to the former argument, well they can credibly point out that when violence is utilised, by anyone, there is an inevitable likelihood that innocents will be killed.

The focus should be on the willingness by republicans to use violence in the first place. Resorting to force is a very extreme course of action and anyone who does so should have considerable justification. The IRA’s purpose and their reason for using violence was political, to end the British “occupation” of Ireland, as they would put it. And certainly the vast majority of Irish nationalists agreed with this end but they made is abundantly clear that they did not favour violence means to bring this end about.

But the IRA, with a blatant disregard of the very notion of what republicanism is about, decided that the Irish people didn’t really know what was best for them and they could be simply ignored. (Interestingly, while they engaged in this behaviour they simultaneously decried British imperialism!).

There is a lot of debate about attitudes to republicans with some bizarre accounts for the distrust some of us have for them. But the oft repeated mantra from the troubles era of “not in my name” neatly explains the reason for this distrust.

This is disingenuous in the extreme. The IRA did not collaborate to start a war that nobody wanted. War was upon them. The Stormont regime had been waging war on the nationalist population for 50 years. Loyalists were burning nationalist homes. The RUC were beating people off the streets, that's when they werent beating them to death. The writing was on the wall - IRA - I Ran Away. The people needed defending and with the British government blustering as usual and the free state government wallowing in their shame faced silence, the IRA stepped in to do so.
War was already a reality.
The IRA went on to carry out a 30 year campaign against British occupation of Ireland, that simply could not have been done without the support of the community.
I would suggest, particularly in the early days of the conflict, that while not everybody would have supported the IRA, most nationalists, even those who identified with an SDLP line of thinking, accepted that the IRA was a necessary evil.

Fratton Fred

Rubeter wrote: »

Why do soldiers wear Camoflage gear in battle?
What is the purpose of a Tank?
What was the 50mm sniper rifle invented for?
Why were Drones invented?
What is artillery for?

Head on assaults my arse. Get real.

I used the term head on assaults to distinguish between engaging an armed soldier who is able to defend themselves and shooting an unarmed unsuspecting RAF officer and his six month old daughter in Germany, or two unarmed unsuspecting New recruits at a Lichfield train station.

Then there's the numerous RUC officers, judges, politicians etc shot in front of their families.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

Yeah, you'd want to be a right pussy to risk death and imprisonment fighting one of the most effective armies in the world. :rolleyes:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BATTLE-ANNUAL-1983-84-FLEETWAY-action-boys-book-world-war-II-soldier-german-UK-/200963118080

Is this where you're getting your perspective on war from Fred?

I genuinely thought you were better than that.

Rubeter

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I used the term head on assaults to distinguish between engaging an armed soldier who is able to defend themselves and shooting an unarmed unsuspecting RAF officer and his six month old daughter in Germany, or two unarmed unsuspecting New recruits at a Lichfield train station.

Then there's the numerous RUC officers, judges, politicians etc shot in front of their families.

Because death is death, personally I prefer the limitations of a surgical strike taking out someone as an individual rather than taking out a whole building containing many people just to get the one.
Of course you could think it better to loose many more individuals on both sides for some 17th century code of "honour" or some sense of "fair play" gotten from reading too many Biggles books.

War is hell Freddy and the point is to get rid of the enemy at the least cost to yourself, Stalin would be proud of your "cannon fodder" ideals.

SoulandForm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I genuinely thought you were better than that.

No its actually a fair point; compared to the PIRA the UK government had massive resources at its disposal so of course conventional warfare wasnt a serious option for them.

Fratton Fred

Rubeter wrote: »

Because death is death, personally I prefer the limitations of a surgical strike taking out someone as an individual rather than taking out a whole building containing many people just to get the one.
Of course you could think it better to loose many more individuals on both sides for some 17th century code of "honour" or some sense of "fair play" gotten from reading too many Biggles books.

War is hell Freddy and the point is to get rid of the enemy at the least cost to yourself, Stalin would be proud of your "cannon fodder" ideals.

What the actual **** are you on about?

The poster was lauding the brave heroes of the IRA, I pointed out that a great many, if not the majority, of the IRA's attacks were in fact easy soft targets, yet when the tables were turned they cried foul.

And we haven't even mentioned the "surgical" method of bombing a pub

And your on about Stalin?

Fratton Fred

SoulandForm wrote: »

No its actually a fair point; compared to the PIRA the UK government had massive resources at its disposal so of course conventional warfare wasnt a serious option for them.

The British army also played by different rules.

Rubeter

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What the actual **** are you on about?

The poster was lauding the brave heroes of the IRA, I pointed out that a great many, if not the majority, of the IRA's attacks were in fact easy soft targets, yet when the tables were turned they cried foul.

You can't win if you are dead, so one tries to avoid dying and at the same time taking out as many of the opposition as possible, whether they happen to be eating lunch or patrolling a street is quite irrelevant.
Trying to make the enemy look bad is also quite common and used by all sides in conflicts.

Odd that your heroes the BA and yanks in the middle east have no prob taking out a whole family to get a major Al-K figure yet you moan about people being killed in front of their family. Is it only ok if the whole family are killed?

Fratton Fred

Rubeter wrote: »

You can't win if you are dead, so one tries to avoid dying and at the same time taking out as many of the opposition as possible, whether they happen to be eating lunch or patrolling a street is quite irrelevant.
Trying to make the enemy look bad is also quite common and used by all sides in conflicts.

What is done and what people should be proud of are two different things.

Should someone be considered a hero for walking up to an unarmed unsuspecting teenager and shooting them in the head, or for shooting a judge (and his family) outside a church?

Because that is what is happening.

Fratton Fred

Rubeter wrote: »

You can't win if you are dead, so one tries to avoid dying and at the same time taking out as many of the opposition as possible, whether they happen to be eating lunch or patrolling a street is quite irrelevant.
Trying to make the enemy look bad is also quite common and used by all sides in conflicts.

Odd that your heroes the BA and yanks in the middle east have no prob taking out a whole family to get a major Al-K figure yet you moan about people being killed in front of their family. Is it only ok if the whole family are killed?

Ooh, quick edit. Your post need a bit of ad hominem for good measure did it?

Rubeter

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What is done and what people should be proud of are two different things.

Should someone be considered a hero for walking up to an unarmed unsuspecting teenager and shooting them in the head, or for shooting a judge (and his family) outside a church?

Because that is what is happening.

Just pointing out the realities of war Fred, I see no moral difference in someone walking up to someone in a street and shooting them in the back of the head or dropping a million dollar smart bomb on them, no moral difference whatsoever.
The only difference is one method is a hell of a lot more precise.

Ooh, quick edit. Your post need a bit of ad hominem for good measure did it?

Edit yep, makes the point nicely.

Fratton Fred

Rubeter wrote: »

Just pointing out the realities of war Fred, I see no moral difference in someone walking up to someone in a street and shooting them in the back of the head or dropping a million dollar smart bomb on them, no moral difference whatsoever.
The only difference is one method is a hell of a lot more precise.

Edit yep, makes the point nicely.

But apparently if you bomb a shopping centre and call it an economic target you're a brave hero.

Rubeter

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But apparently if you bomb a shopping centre and call it an economic target you're a brave hero.

Is that right? Though that's not something I would agree with myself.

You aren't putting words in my mouth by any chance are you? Just because I pointed out the hypocrisy in calling one method of killing cowardly and not yet not doing so for another similar one.

Fratton Fred

Rubeter wrote: »

You aren't putting words in my mouth by any chance are you? Just because I pointed out the hypocrisy in calling one method of killing cowardly and not yet not doing so for another similar one.

Err, aren't you the one that started on about Stalin, "my heroes the BA" and drone attacks?

And you're accusing me of putting words in your mouth,

OK.

Rubeter

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Err, aren't you the one that started on about Stalin, "my heroes the BA" and drone attacks?

And you're accusing me of putting words in your mouth,

OK.

Since you seem to have given up on my point, I'll take it as "taken".
Bye, till next time.

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I genuinely thought you were better than that.

Better than what? Pointing out the ridiculous nature of your comment?

Since time immemorial Irish revolutionaries were erroneously portrayed by the Brits as nothing but a collection of criminals and cowards. Even back in the 1920s we had senior British commanders publicly stating that they were "corner boys" and "cowards firing out from behind hedge walls." The reality is that the IRA engaged in guerrilla warfare as it was the only method available to them in order to prosecute their campaign. Britain maintained itself in Ireland, at a bottom line, with superior military force. It would be impossible for an organisation of under-resourced predominantly working-class people to challenge a regular, highly trained and armed standing army in the field Fred and well you know it.

Personally I don't see any great legitimacy or bravery in the British Army's record in Ireland. There was nothing "tally ho" about driving Saracen armoured cars over young boys, or blinding a middle-aged woman by shooting her in the face with a plastic bullet. I imagine in every conflict there are examples of individual bravery, but please spare me the silly narrative of 'brave squaddies' and the 'cowardly, sneaky Irish.'

Fratton Fred

Should you not have mentioned Cromwell and the famine in there?

FTA69 wrote: »

but please spare me the silly narrative of 'brave squaddies' and the 'cowardly, sneaky Irish.'

Now you're making up non existant arguments. Point out when I said anything of the sort. That is just some silly "poor old me" retort.

The modern IRA are being rapidly painted as a bunch of care free freedom fighters who helped old ladies across the road in their spare time.

We have posters on here who insist that they only attacked political, military and economic targets and weren't terrorists (yet run away when challenged on it)

Sure, the IRA were brave (and fwiw I don't buy in to the sectarian argument at all. Xenophobic maybe, but mot sectarian) and they carried out a lot of clever campaigns, but they also carried out some of the lowest most cowardly attacks these islands have seen.

FTA69

Should you not have mentioned Cromwell and the famine in there?

And you're saying I'm making up non-existent arguments?

I never mentioned either of those, I said that the British Army was a vastly superior force to any Irish opposition and that it's record in Ireland isn't exactly exemplary. That's a fair enough point to make in my eyes.

Now you're making up non existant arguments. Point out when I said anything of the sort

Whether you realise it or not your post, your post came across as a bit jingoistic to be honest. Comments about "cowards" shooting people in the back etc and "crying" when they had to fight our boys fair and square etc are as old as the conflict itself. They were nonsense in the 1920s and they're nonsense now. Your post neatly echoes a long history of sh*te talk when the subject of guerrilla warfare in Ireland is brought up.

We have posters on here who insist that they only attacked political, military and economic targets and weren't terrorists (yet run away when challenged on it)

I wouldn't call them terrorists either. I would also say that their campaign was indeed launched along military and political lines but there was undoubtedly a number of incidents that were disgraceful. Anyone who thinks a 25 year campaign wouldn't feature such events is a fool to be honest, but as far as I'm concerned the IRA campaign was anti-imperialist and in general was conducted along legitimate lines.

SoulandForm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The British army also played by different rules.

Up to a point- elements in the Army were extremely lawless and Im not talking about the "shoot to the kill policy" towards Republican volunteers- the British side was hypocritical in saying that it was just a "law and order" and than acting as if it was a war and Sinn Fein was hypocritical in saying it amounted to murder and than talking about what was going on as a war (which it was basically).

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

Whether you realise it or not your post, your post came across as a bit jingoistic to be honest. Comments about "cowards" shooting people in the back etc and "crying" when they had to fight our boys fair and square etc are as old as the conflict itself. They were nonsense in the 1920s and they're nonsense now. Your post neatly echoes a long history of sh*te talk when the subject of guerrilla warfare in Ireland is brought up.

Ok, point taken. That wasn't my intention.

I wouldn't call them terrorists either. I would also say that their campaign was indeed launched along military and political lines but there was undoubtedly a number of incidents that were disgraceful. Anyone who thinks a 25 year campaign wouldn't feature such events is a fool to be honest, but as far as I'm concerned the IRA campaign was anti-imperialist and in general was conducted along legitimate lines.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Hearing heroines claiming they were following in their father's footsteps and going off to bomb the English, makes me believe there was a very real xenophobic terrorist side to the IRA campaign.

Tramps Like Us

The IRA routinely cooperated with foreign groups, Basque country, South Africa etc... they were not xenophobes. However they didn't like the British occupying their country, the reason they "followed in their fathers footsteps" is because things were the exact same.

Fratton Fred

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

The IRA routinely cooperated with foreign groups, Basque country, South Africa etc... they were not xenophobes. However they didn't like the British occupying their country, the reason they "followed in their fathers footsteps" is because things were the exact same.

But their terror campaign was never against the British, it was against the English. They were strictly forbidden from carrying out attacks in "Celtic countries", which leads me to conclude they saw the English as expendable.

Tramps Like Us

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But their terror campaign was never against the British, it was against the English. They were strictly forbidden from carrying out attacks in "Celtic countries", which leads me to conclude they saw the English as expendable.

Could have sworn the IRA carried out attacks in Ireland.

SoulandForm

FTA69 wrote: »

I wouldn't call them terrorists either. I would also say that their campaign was indeed launched along military and political lines but there was undoubtedly a number of incidents that were disgraceful. Anyone who thinks a 25 year campaign wouldn't feature such events is a fool to be honest, but as far as I'm concerned the IRA campaign was anti-imperialist and in general was conducted along legitimate lines.

Violence in my opinion is always an evil but it can be justified if it removes or limits a greater evil- the problem with out and out pacifism is that it hands the world over to the Ghenghis Khans of this world. By the mid-70s at the earliest and the mid-80s at the latest it was obvious that the PIRA campaign was not going to secure a withdrawal and yet it continued; now of course Unionists were feeding the conflict and doing their best objectively to prolong it, and of course the British government though to a somewhat lesser extent was doing the same- but can the Provos long war strategy really be morally justified? At the end of it they ended up giving Northern Ireland a legitimacy that it never had before. Would it not have been better to keep ideological Republicanism and yet call off the armed struggle much earlier?

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But their terror campaign was never against the British, it was against the English. They were strictly forbidden from carrying out attacks in "Celtic countries", which leads me to conclude they saw the English as expendable.

Well they saw England as the power base of the UK, which of course it was. They had zero problem targeting Scottish regiments of solidiers for instance.

Fratton Fred

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Could have sworn the IRA carried out attacks in Ireland.

Only in the north, or if forced to in the south.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

Well they saw England as the power base of the UK, which of course it was. They had zero problem targeting Scottish regiments of solidiers for instance.

Or Welsh, but they were forbidden by the green book from carrying out attacks in those countries.

FTA69

SoulandForm wrote: »

Violence in my opinion is always an evil but it can be justified if it removes or limits a greater evil- the problem with out and out pacifism is that it hands the world over to the Ghenghis Khans of this world. By the mid-70s at the earliest and the mid-80s at the latest it was obvious that the PIRA campaign was not going to secure a withdrawal and yet it continued; now of course Unionists were feeding the conflict and doing their best objectively to prolong it, and of course the British government though to a somewhat lesser extent was doing the same- but can the Provos long war strategy really be morally justified? At the end of it they ended up giving Northern Ireland a legitimacy that it never had before. Would it not have been better to keep ideological Republicanism and yet call off the armed struggle much earlier?

I wouldn't say the campaign was immoral, rather redundant as a tactic (and that's all armed struggle is) by a certain point. Personally I think they'd have been better off seeking to wind up the campaign by around 1990 and push themselves into becoming a radical political movement but many things prevented this; partly circumstance and mainly the fact the Provisionals weren't ideologically committed to real change at a fundamental level.

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or Welsh, but they were forbidden by the green book from carrying out attacks in those countries.

They saw the UK as an extension of English imperialism and therefore it was England where they should strike. I wouldn't say that's xenophobic, it may be slightly naieve in part but it certainly isn't xenophobic. I encountered many English people who were involved in Sinn Féin. Similarly they did much to reach out to groups based in England who were sympathetic to their cause, Jeremy Corbyn and Tony Benn etc come to mind.

SoulandForm

FTA69 wrote: »

I wouldn't say the campaign was immoral, rather redundant as a tactic (and that's all armed struggle is) by a certain point. Personally I think they'd have been better off seeking to wind up the campaign by around 1990 and push themselves into becoming a radical political movement but many things prevented this; partly circumstance and mainly the fact the Provisionals weren't ideologically committed to real change at a fundamental level.

Its a bit more than that- taking anyone's life is a very serious thing. Was the UK's recent invasion of Iraq and destruction of the country just a tactic or was it something evil? Im not demonizing the Provos of the 80s, what they did was understandable in the circumstances BUT I dont think you can completely divorce morality from politics.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

They saw the UK as an extension of English imperialism and therefore it was England where they should strike. I wouldn't say that's xenophobic, it may be slightly naieve in part but it certainly isn't xenophobic. I encountered many English people who were involved in Sinn Féin. Similarly they did much to reach out to groups based in England who were sympathetic to their cause, Jeremy Corbyn and Tony Benn etc come to mind.

Odd way of reaching out for support.

"Hi, we just murdered popular children's tv presenter Ross McWhirter and thrown a bomb in a popular west end restaurant, would you like to help us?"

Oddly enough it was never well received in England.

FTA69

I never said you can but armed struggle is a political tactic, that's what it always has been. Von Clausewitz put it best when he said "war is the continuation of politics by other means." Some Republicans (especially the crowd attempting it today) believe armed struggle is an end in itself, something to be preserved at all costs when in reality it is simply a tactic that you may or may not draw upon when trying to effect political change. That isn't the same as saying it may be immoral to use it, or aspects of it may be immoral or whatever.

SoulandForm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Odd way of reaching out for support.

"Hi, we just murdered popular children's tv presenter Ross McWhirter and thrown a bomb in a popular west end restaurant, would you like to help us?"

Oddly enough it was never well received in England.

Yet the Left of the Labour Party played a much more honourable role in the Troubles than Fine Gael very openly and managed to get elected quite happily by English people. A lot of English people understood that their government and their government's past history in Ireland as well as its present tactics was making the problem worse.

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Odd way of reaching out for support.

"Hi, we just murdered popular children's tv presenter Ross McWhirter and thrown a bomb in a popular west end restaurant, would you like to help us?"

Oddly enough it was never well received in England.

There were a number of people in England who spoke out against what was happening in Ireland and many of them had a fair enough view of what went on there. At the end of the day though, failing to sell themselves to the English public doesn't make the IRA xenophobes. You didn't have the FLN in Algeria attempting to woo the French public into liking them, they were too busy fighting a war.

Fratton Fred

SoulandForm wrote: »

Yet the Left of the Labour Party played a much more honourable role in the Troubles than Fine Gael very openly and managed to get elected quite happily by English people. A lot of English people understood that their government and their government's past history in Ireland as well as its present tactics was making the problem worse.

It didn't stop the IRA singling them out for attack though did it.

Whatever message the civil rights campaign was trying to get across was just drowned out by the IRA bombing campaign.

But then, the IRA weren't interested in civil rights.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

There were a number of people in England who spoke out against what was happening in Ireland and many of them had a fair enough view of what went on there. At the end of the day though, failing to sell themselves to the English public doesn't make the IRA xenophobes. You didn't have the FLN in Algeria attempting to woo the French public into liking them, they were too busy fighting a war.

Growing up in the 70s and 80s it certainly felt like the IRA had declared war on the people of England.

In effect, all it ever did was make it harder for any government to seek a peaceful outcome.

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Growing up in the 70s and 80s it certainly felt like the IRA had declared war on the people of England.

In effect, all it ever did was make it harder for any government to seek a peaceful outcome.

Well the Viet Cong didn't beat the Yanks in Vietnam by persuading the American public that their government should be nice to them. They did it by escalating the conflict to the point that the American public called for withdrawal. The IRA correctly reasoned that while the British government wanted to remain in Ireland, their public generally thought the place was a backward sh*thole they'd do well to be rid of. As such they thought enough bombs in England and a steady stream of bodies being sent home would tilt the balance. After all, it was the British public who previously forced their government to talk a Truce in 1921; not the IRA (despite the romanticised nature of the gallant IRA defeating a superior force.)

The IRA couldn't really keep Ireland at the top of the political agenda for long enough however, and due to Ulsterisation they were predominantly killing local police and soldiers as opposed to sending home a steady stream of bodies. This in turn had the effect of the British public viewing it as a foreign internal squabble as opposed to an imperial conflict. On top of this the British also managed to achieve an "acceptable level of violence" and while the IRA could tip away indefinitely, it wasn't going to break that deadlock.

Elmer Blooker

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Growing up in the 70s and 80s it certainly felt like the IRA had declared war on the people of England.

In effect, all it ever did was make it harder for any government to seek a peaceful outcome.

The people in England during the troubles just believed their government's propaganda which was the British Army was powerless and doing it's best to keep mad paddies apart - an unfinished 16th century religious war. The reality was very different with British Intelligence pulling the strings and doing everything in their power to prevent a political solution, an example is the Ulster Workers strike (and the Dublin and Monaghan bombings) in May 1974 which successfully brought down the Sunningdale Agreement and ultimately the Harold Wilson government. The north was brought to a complete standstill by masked UDA thugs with baseball bats as the RUC watched and the army did nothing.