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

Fratton Fred

SoulandForm wrote: »

Look firstly the Provisionals did terrible things that cannot be excused and that I dont deny- in one case in the mid-70s the broke into a house and shot a six year girl at point blank range for instance. Secondly yes primarily they were not a defense militia and never claimed to be that- they claimed to be fighting to remove the occupation though at some point in the mid 80s they ceased to be about national liberation and became about "armed reformism"- however a large part of the CNR population believed that it would not be safe while the union remained which is why you have now former hardened Republicans willing to give the status quo a chance. My point is- that yes the Provos were brutal and often immoral but they were not acting in isolation and to single them out in particular while ignoring the other factors in the conflict is immature.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Where most people take issue is when people who weren't even a stirring in their father's loins when the Manchester bombs went off try and portray them as some sort of. Robin Hood characters defending the poor impoverished Irish people and doing the world a favour against the evil British.

Fratton Fred

SoulandForm wrote: »

Giving away our natural gas resources to Shell and our fishing resources to Brussels are two major examples of this.

Did you not see all the unemployed fishermen and oil workers in Galway?

tdv123

Painted Pony wrote: »

Well perhaps a short refresher of what PIRA were about about will help you understand?

Contrary to the lie that is continually propagated, they were NOT all about a defense militia for oppressed Catholics. I have heard no reasonable person object to anything they did in this regard. The British state failed in its first duty to protect its citizens / subjects and those it failed needed no wider mandate to justify defending themselves.

However just because some acting for the catholic community were entitled to do something it does mean they were entitled to do anything. And waging a military campaign to end British rule in Ireland was most certainly something they were not entitled to do when the vast, vast majority of Irish people did not agree with this means of achieving such an end.

But of course the lie will continue, which is perhaps none too surprising. Of course it is possible that some actually believe and take comfort in this lie. After all, their are many similarly myopic unionists who insist the RUC were nothing but an exemplary police force, and across the pond, there are plenty who insist that the various US interventions around the world are all about bringing freedom. Republicanism is no more a propaganda free zone than anywhere else!

But back to the IRA and their mindset. Essentially what they did was decree that the Irish were not enlightened / informed / intelligent enough to decide what was best for their country so and it was best for us lesser republicans not to be bother our muddled little head with such matters and leave them to our betters. The most bombastic and chauvinistic old empirical colonel would not have such a condescending stance!

And they threw out charming little phrases like “puppet” government (don’t you like to roll this one out?) and even at one point took to declaring themselves to be the legitimate government and army of Ireland!

Any you are scratching your head and wondering what’s there not to love for Southerners here!!! And with a nice touch or irony you even suggest it might be a distaste for democratic policies!!

The real mystery is that there are people like yourself who genuinely do not understand how outraged, even leaving aside all of the horrors of violence, many Irish people were at this arrogance. Especially so as many who defend PIRA will now make exactly the same “no mandate” argument in rejecting the stances of CIRA and RIRA.

I think you'll find the nationalist community in the North would have been very welcome to some help from the Dublin government or it's citizens & would have preferred their input much more than the IRA's. Obviously Dublin's foolproof plan of sitting around feeling outraged & criticizing from a safe distance didn't seem to be getting anywhere. So British soldiers are sent into the North what's Dublin's next move? Ah yes sit around & feel outraged for another 50 years, instead this time of feeling outraged by the state their outraged & criticizing the provisionals.

If the nationalists in the North waited around for Dublin or the nationalists in the South to intervene there would probably be nothing left of them by now.

The truth is the Free State couldn't give a sh** what happened to the citizens that they had a territorial claim over as they had just accepted Britain owned them so don't give me that righteous moral rhetoric bullsh**.

The Free State is just as much to blame as the Loyalists, Provos & Brits for the mess for starting a war they were only half committed to & then leaving a minority on there own to fight for themselves. The Provos seen themselves as finishing the war the Free State had started, it's only obvious there not going to pay much attention to a state that sold them out in the first place.

Godge

tdv123 wrote: »

I think you'll find the nationalist community in the North would have been very welcome to some help from the Dublin government or it's citizens & would have preferred their input much more than the IRA's. Obviously Dublin's foolproof plan of sitting around feeling outraged & criticizing from a safe distance didn't seem to be getting anywhere. So British soldiers are sent into the North what's Dublin's next move? Ah yes sit around & feel outraged for another 50 years, instead this time of feeling outraged by the state their outraged & criticizing the provisionals.

If the nationalists in the North waited around for Dublin or the nationalists in the South to intervene there would probably be nothing left of them by now.

The truth is the Free State couldn't give a sh** what happened to the citizens that they had a territorial claim over as they had just accepted Britain owned them so don't give me that righteous moral rhetoric bullsh**.

The Free State is just as much to blame as the Loyalists, Provos & Brits for the mess for starting a war they were only half committed to & then leaving a minority on there own to fight for themselves. The Provos seen themselves as finishing the war the Free State had started, it's only obvious there not going to pay much attention to a state that sold them out in the first place.

you completely miss the point that the only people who wanted that so-called war, more appropriately titled a terrorist campaign, were a very small minority of people who refused to accept the will of the democratic majority on this island and engaged in that terrorist campaign.

Tramps Like Us

SoulandForm wrote: »

If the PIRA were as evil as he says they are how is it defaming someone to say that they informed on them?

There was an interesting court case on this years ago, its not defamation...

tdv123

Godge wrote: »

you completely miss the point that the only people who wanted that so-called war, more appropriately titled a terrorist campaign, were a very small minority of people who refused to accept the will of the democratic majority on this island and engaged in that terrorist campaign.

Guerrillas can't fight against a world power these days without being labelled unfairly a terrorist. It's just laziness from the gutter media Fortunately I found one good article that paints a more balanced view & exposes who was doing the most terrorizing. If you's didn't want a war maybe your boys shouldn't have started one in 1919 & then give up half way through it.

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/01/29/286200/mali-invasion-an-imperialist-powergrab/

The pretext used by London for dispatching troops to Northern Ireland concealed its real purpose. That agenda was to target the Nationalist population with state terrorism for political ends. Whereas in previous years, the Unionist paramilitaries could rely on the collusion of the local police force to terrorize, from 1969 onwards these forces had the full might of the British army to ramp up the violence against Nationalist civilians and thereby intimidate them from supporting political opposition to the British government’s presence in Ireland.

The 1972 Bloody Sunday massacre in Derry was only one of several atrocities that the British troops perpetrated during that pivotal period of Northern Ireland’s conflict, ironically when they were supposedly there to protect civilians.

The year before Bloody Sunday, in August 1971, British paratroopers shot dead 11 unarmed civilians in the Ballymurphy area of West Belfast. Among the dead was a 50-year-old woman, Joan Connolly, who had been standing peacefully on the street. Another victim was a priest, Fr. Hugh Mullan, who was shot dead while trying to assist a man wounded on the ground.

On 9 July 1972 - six months after Bloody Sunday - British troops again shot dead five unarmed Nationalist civilians in another area of West Belfast, Springhill. Three of the victims were children, including 13-year-old Margaret Gargan, who was shot in the head by a British sniper as she was walking to her home. The two adults who died that day, Patrick Butler and Fr. Noel Fitzpatrick, were killed with the same bullet, it ripping through one man’s head into the other. One of the survivors of the Springhill massacre later told how, as he lay wounded, bullets were ricocheting off the ground near his head, fired by British soldiers who had taken up position in a nearby timber yard that overlooked the residential neighborhood.

I can't imagine anything more horrific or terrifying than a state & it's military waging war against the civilians it's suppose to be protecting. ):

Fratton Fred

tdv123 wrote: »

Guerrillas can't fight against a world power these days without being labelled unfairly a terrorist. It's just laziness from the gutter media

Here you are, this might help with your obvious confusion.
http://www.terrorism-research.com/insurgency/

Ultimately, the difference between insurgency and terrorism comes down to the intent of the actor. Insurgency movements and guerilla forces can adhere to international norms regarding the law of war in achieving their goals, but terrorists are by definition conducting crimes under both civil and military legal codes. Terrorists routinely claim that were they to adhere to any "law of war" or accept any constraints on the scope of their violence, it would place them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the establishment. Since the nature of the terrorist mindset is absolutist, their goals are of paramount importance, and any limitations on a terrorist's means to prosecute the struggle are unacceptable.

Karl Stein

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Here you are, this might help with your obvious confusion.
http://www.terrorism-research.com/insurgency/

Source: World's leading terrorist state.

The information found on this web site (Terrorism-Research.com) is provided for educational purposes only. It is derived from various US Government documents and open source/public domain material.

http://www.terrorism-research.com/privacy.php

Fratton Fred

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Source: World's leading terrorist state.

Read it again.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Read it again.

A lot of it would indicate that the PIRA was an insurgency.
That's using their own definitions of course. Personally I dont think "terrorist" or "terrorism" has any value as a word. It's a meaningless slur with no set definition except perhaps "an accusation applied to someone who uses violence and who you happen to disagree with."

Karl Stein

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Read it again.

I'm not all that interested in reading definitions of terrorism that emanate from the US state seeing as it has a record of engaging in, and supporting, some of the worst terrorist incidents in recent times (often partnered by Britain).

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

A lot of it would indicate that the PIRA was an insurgency.
That's using their own definitions of course. Personally I dont think "terrorist" or "terrorism" has any value as a word. It's a meaningless slur with no set definition except perhaps "an accusation applied to someone who uses violence and who you happen to disagree with."

It is not a meaningless slur.

"Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)"

Just about sums up the SF/IRA axis.

Karl Stein

Godge wrote: »

those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)

Just about sums up the Unionist Junta's sectarian militias and British Army and its colluded with proxies during the troubles.

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

It is not a meaningless slur.

"Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)"

Just about sums up the SF/IRA axis.

Well, firstly you have to ask whose definition is that.

Secondly, it certainly doesnt "sum up" the IRA, less still Sinn Fein. No doubt you an throw out the usual names of attacks in which civilians were killed but the numbers just dont support you. Conservative estimates say the IRA carried out well over 10,000 explosive attacks during the course of the conflict and countless shootings. This killed around 1800 people, around 2/3 of whom were combatants of one variety or another. Now, any civilian death is unacceptable, but the number of civilian deaths, measured against the numbers of combatants killed and more tellingly, the number of over all attacks, shows that the IRA did not "deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants."

Now then, more generally, there isnt a charge in that definition that couldnt be applied to any regular army, particularly the brits or yanks, yet they dont consider each other terrorists, but have both breached all those conditions on numerous occasions. Therefore you can only infer from that that it is a word with no set meaning, just one they apply to people who shoot back at them.

So which is it? The brits and yanks are terrorists too, or, for all intents and purposes, it's basically a word with no meaning.

Manassas61

Godge wrote: »

It is not a meaningless slur.

"Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)"

Just about sums up the SF/IRA axis.

It is pointless saying all this as they have an aggressive Republican ideology which no matter what you say, they will never see the PIRA as the murderous thugs they were.

Like the PIRA, the thread itself seems to have come to a halt now.

Karl Stein

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Therefore you can only infer from that that it is a word with no set meaning, just one they apply to people who shoot back at them.

This reminds me of a news broadcast by the BBC bemoaning the losses 'foreign terrorists' were inflicting on the British Army in Iraq. The implicit assumption being that the British Army was not itself a foreign army and was somehow native to southern Iraq.

It's amazing how language is twisted and contorted by those who write the narrative.

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

aggressive Republican ideology

Like the PIRA ... seems to have come to a halt now.

Again we witness the mental gymnastics.

Btw it was violent Loyalism and Unionism that gave rise to the backlash that were the PIRA. You need to look a lot closer to home to see where violence comes from in the north. Have a little look at this to see who was being terrorised back in the day.

Painted Pony

SoulandForm wrote: »

Giving away our natural gas resources to Shell and our fishing resources to Brussels are two major examples of this.

Leaving aside your rather daft interpretation of the former (& latter for that matter) and the fact that in the case of the latter, it was the people and not any government who in successive referenda elected to more and more throw their lot in with Europe, this is not what republican means with they use the “puppet” government slur. Their suggestion is that it a puppet of Britain.

SoulandForm wrote: »

My point is- that yes the Provos were brutal and often immoral

This is entirely beside the point I was making! Even if the provos had conducted their campaign in such a way that not a hair on an innocents person’s head was hurt, they were still wrong. They prosecuted a violent campaign on behalf of the people of Ireland against the clear wishes of the people of Ireland. Anyone with any understanding or respect for the concept of democracy can see that that was wrong.

tdv123 wrote: »

I think you'll find the nationalist community in the North would have been very welcome to some help from the Dublin government

Ah yes, this again. I am never quite sure when republicans put out this nonsense that the Irish army could have headed North in 1969 and put manners in the Brits, if they are deluded or just being disingenuous. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s the latter.
Anyway the substance of your post pertains to the problem of the oppression of Northern nationalists. I have already said that this is not what I take issue with. It was their arrogance to presume to act for the people of Ireland against the wishes of the people of Ireland, despite they frequently asserting that the fate of Ireland should be decided by the Irish (Sinn Fein).

Manassas61

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Again we witness the mental gymnastics.

Btw it was violent Loyalism and Unionism that gave rise to the backlash that were the PIRA. You need to look a lot closer to home to see where violence comes from in the north. Have a little look at this to see who was being terrorised back in the day.

No one said Unionism didn't get involved in violence. I was referring to the murderous thugs in the PIRA and the aggressive Republican ideology which over looks all rational thought on the murderous thugs.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well, firstly you have to ask whose definition is that.

Secondly, it certainly doesnt "sum up" the IRA, less still Sinn Fein. No doubt you an throw out the usual names of attacks in which civilians were killed but the numbers just dont support you. Conservative estimates say the IRA carried out well over 10,000 explosive attacks during the course of the conflict and countless shootings. This killed around 1800 people, around 2/3 of whom were combatants of one variety or another. Now, any civilian death is unacceptable, but the number of civilian deaths, measured against the numbers of combatants killed and more tellingly, the number of over all attacks, shows that the IRA did not "deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants."

Now then, more generally, there isnt a charge in that definition that couldnt be applied to any regular army, particularly the brits or yanks, yet they dont consider each other terrorists, but have both breached all those conditions on numerous occasions. Therefore you can only infer from that that it is a word with no set meaning, just one they apply to people who shoot back at them.

So which is it? The brits and yanks are terrorists too, or, for all intents and purposes, it's basically a word with no meaning.

When they used napalm on the le Mon restaurant, why did they do it when both function rooms were full?

When the IRA detonated bombs in Birmingham pubs, why did they do it on a Friday evening?

Why was Warrington bombed on a Saturday lunchtime?

Because on all three occasions, those places were at their busiest and because it would create the maximum amount of terror amongst the civilians there at the time.

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

No one said Unionism didn't get involved in violence.

Get involved? You mean caused.

When is Unionism going to face up to the fact that it caused the troubles?

Manassas61

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Get involved? You mean caused.

When is Unionism going to face up to the fact that it caused the troubles?

Well you are entitled to that view, most of Northern Ireland disagrees with it. The "Troubles" did not start in 1969. There has always been conflict in Ulster. But most normal people condemn PIRA murderous thugs.

Crooked Jack

Manassas61 wrote: »

Well you are entitled to that view, most of Northern Ireland disagrees with it. The "Troubles" did not start in 1969. There has always been conflict in Ulster. But most normal people condemn PIRA murderous thugs.

The vast majority of people in Ireland carry loose ice cream in their pockets at all times. See, I can just say any old shite and apply it to "most people" as well. Doesnt make it true

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

Well you are entitled to that view, most of Northern Ireland disagrees with it. The "Troubles" did not start in 1969. There has always been conflict in Ulster. But most normal people condemn PIRA murderous thugs.

Yeah it began with the plantations. The modern troubles were caused by Unionism. As for condemning the PIRA how about condemning violence against all civilians including those who were battered to death by the RUC and gunned down by the British Army?

Manassas61

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The vast majority of people in Ireland carry loose ice cream in their pockets at all times. See, I can just say any old shite and apply it to "most people" as well. Doesn't make it true

Most Nationalists at the time actually didn't agree with the PIRA death squads. Most normal people don't have any time for them now and want to move forward.

So lets do that and keep Northern Ireland moving forward.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When they used napalm on the le Mon restaurant, why did they do it when both function rooms were full?

When the IRA detonated bombs in Birmingham pubs, why did they do it on a Friday evening?

Why was Warrington bombed on a Saturday lunchtime?

Because on all three occasions, those places were at their busiest and because it would create the maximum amount of terror amongst the civilians there at the time.

To cause maximum disruption. As as been pointed out numerous times, the IRA gained nothing from the deaths of civilians or inflicting terror in anyone other than british soldiers/RUC/other combatants, so why would they do it. Why would they give warnings. Why would the issue apologies and regrets afterwards? Why would they take actions against individual members or units who caused civilian deaths?

Like I also said, I knew someone would come out listing off a few names to kick about like a political football but you've ignored the overall numbers, which counteract your claims about the IRA targeting civilians.

Karl Stein

Painted Pony wrote: »

Even if the provos had conducted their campaign in such a way that not a hair on an innocents person’s head was hurt, they were still wrong.

Do you think you'd be that cock-sure of the merits of the PIRA campaign had you been burned out of your house or watched your peers being gunned down at a civil rights protest?

Is it really so unbelievable to think that the people who were subject to such brutal state terror seen the British as the root of the problem?

Manassas61

Crooked Jack wrote: »

To cause maximum disruption. As as been pointed out numerous times, the IRA gained nothing from the deaths of civilians or inflicting terror in anyone other than british soldiers/RUC/other combatants, so why would they do it. Why would they give warnings. Why would the issue apologies and regrets afterwards? Why would they take actions against individual members or units who caused civilian deaths?

Like I also said, I knew someone would come out listing off a few names to kick about like a political football but you've ignored the overall numbers, which counteract your claims about the IRA targeting civilians.

I have already pointed out to you when they deliberately killed civilians and actually went out of their way to do it. The tullyvallen orange hall massacre. The kingsmill massacre in which they deliberately went and picked out Protestants. There is plenty of examples of them going around trying to kill Protestants or just civilians in general.

I sometimes think a bit of rewriting of history is going on here.

Crooked Jack

Manassas61 wrote: »

Most Nationalists at the time actually didn't agree with the PIRA death squads.

where is your evidence for this? You cant keep saying "most people" and not backing it up.

Manassas61 wrote: »

Most normal people don't have any time for them now and want to move forward..

Any time for who? The IRA? Sure they're gone. Or do you mean Sinn Fein, the biggest nationalist party in the north and the party that outpolled the DUP in both the European and Westminster elections?

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

So lets do that and keep Northern Ireland moving forward.

You avoided answering my question.

How about we condemn all violence against civilians including those who were beaten to death by the RUC and gunned down by the BA?

Crooked Jack

Manassas61 wrote: »

I have already pointed out to you when they deliberately killed civilians and actually went out of their way to do it. The tullyvallen orange hall massacre. The kingsmill massacre in which they deliberately went and picked out Protestants. There is plenty of examples of them going around trying to kill Protestants or just civilians in general.

I sometimes think a bit of rewriting of history is going on here.

You havent already pointed out anything to me.

You also clearly arent reading my posts, so I'll put it up for you here again.
No doubt you an throw out the usual names of attacks in which civilians were killed but the numbers just dont support you. Conservative estimates say the IRA carried out well over 10,000 explosive attacks during the course of the conflict and countless shootings. This killed around 1800 people, around 2/3 of whom were combatants of one variety or another. Now, any civilian death is unacceptable, but the number of civilian deaths, measured against the numbers of combatants killed and more tellingly, the number of over all attacks, shows that the IRA did not "deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants."

No rewriting anything, those are the facts

Manassas61

Charlie Rock wrote: »

You avoided answering my question.

How about we condemn all violence against civilians including those who were beaten to death by the RUC and gunned down by the BA?

Unlike you, I actually can. Bloody Sunday was a disgrace and I do condemn it. Unlike you, I don't try and paint it to be colourful. The British Army did take part in acts of terrorism on civilians.

No problem in saying that. I just wish you would do the same to PIRA death squads.

Manassas61

Crooked Jack wrote: »

where is your evidence for this? You cant keep saying "most people" and not backing it up.



Any time for who? The IRA? Sure they're gone. Or do you mean Sinn Fein, the biggest nationalist party in the north and the party that outpolled the DUP in both the European and Westminster elections?

The SDLP at the time was the biggest Nationalist party. Most normal Nationalists didn't agree with the death squads.

Manassas61

shows that the IRA did not "deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants."

I have already given you examples of when they did. When they deliberately went out of their way to KILL civilians and innocent people. Its bizarre how you can just ignore those sectarian killings.

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

Unlike you, I actually can.

I have no problem condemning the killing of people who wanted no part in the conflict.

Banjo String

Manassas61 wrote: »

So lets do that and keep Northern Ireland moving forward.

With the removal of the Union Jack from Belfast city hall,
and the subsequent failure of the Orange order, Loyalist bands, and their thuggish supporters to 'get their own way' and force themselves up Nationalist areas, they clearly have no need to march up (except for triumphalism), with a police force finally not buckling to the demands of the orange order, it looks like it actually is moving forward.

Some, want to remain in the past though.

The times they are a changin Manassas61, unionists better change with them, or they're gonna get left behind (even more) ~~~~.

Manassas61

Banjo String wrote: »

With the removal of the Union Jack from Belfast city hall,
and the subsequent failure of the Orange order, Loyalist bands, and their thuggish supporters to 'get their own way' and force themselves up Nationalist areas, they clearly have no need to march up (except for triumphalism), with a police force finally not buckling to the demands of the orange order, it looks like it actually is moving forward.

Some, want to remain in the past though.

The times they are a changin Manassas61, unionists better change with them, or they're gonna get left behind (even more) ~~~~.

In the overall contextual view on the Union and the position of Northern Ireland within it, this is irrelevant. Normalization has done wonders to help bring support for the Union within the Catholic population up.

Which I would support as a Unionist. I hope that can continue into the future and help keep Northern Ireland moving forward.

Karl Stein

Banjo String wrote: »

The times they are a changin Manassas61, unionists better change with them, or they're gonna get left behind (even more) ~~~~.

Seems to me that if precipitous trajectory Unionism is on doesn't change Loyalism will be identifying with the Palestinians instead of the Israelis in the not-too-distant future.

Painted Pony

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Do you think you'd be that cock-sure of the merits of the PIRA campaign had you been burned out of your house or watched your peers being gunned down at a civil rights protest?

As I have said, I think three times now,I do not take much issue with nationalist defending themselves. I only refer to the political campaign conducted by the IRA which implicitly concerned ALL of the people of Ireland and was conducted against their clear wishes. They lacked a mandate.

Most republicans (and many others for that matter) take exception to the overseas action of the US (in Iraq for example) and their criticism is premised on them having no mandate (from the UN). You even had a dig yourself on this thread.
So why are the US so bad for wading in without a mandate but physical force republicans can be excused for doing the very same thing?

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Is it really so unbelievable to think that the people who were subject to such brutal state terror seen the British as the root of the problem?

They may well be justified in seeing Britain as the root of the problem. The difficulty was that their solution involved the subversion of my state.

Which goes back to the post I initially responded to. The one speculating why some of us are none too enamoured with physical force republicanism. Their aim was to overthrow the state and they wonder why we might be a bit miffed at this???

Karl Stein

Painted Pony wrote: »

I only refer to the political campaign conducted by the IRA which implicitly concerned ALL of the people of Ireland and was conducted against their clear wishes. They lacked a mandate.

Political campaign? the PIRA were a paramilitary force and were only interested in removing the British from the north.

Most republicans (and many others for that matter) take exception to the overseas action of the US (in Iraq for example) and their criticism is premised on them having no mandate (from the UN). You even had a dig yourself on this thread. So why are the US so bad for wading in without a mandate but physical force republicans can be excused for doing the very same thing?

Having or not having a mandate does not preclude or imbue violence with/from 'virtue'. Ask the Native Americans how getting a mandate would have done them. Sitting on your hands only enables your enemy.

They may well be justified in seeing Britain as the root of the problem. The difficulty was that their solution involved the subversion of my state.

Which goes back to the post I initially responded to. The one speculating why some of us are none too enamoured with physical force republicanism. Their aim was to overthrow the state and they wonder why we might be a bit miffed at this???

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the PIRA told to avoid engaging Irish security forces and Gardai?

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

In the overall contextual view on the Union and the position of Northern Ireland within it, this is irrelevant. Normalization has done wonders to help bring support for the Union within the Catholic population up.

Which I would support as a Unionist. I hope that can continue into the future and help keep Northern Ireland moving forward.

Manassas61 why do you support the Union?

If we have a situation within Northern Ireland where you have unionists with a small "u" voting for Sinn Fein what does that tell us about the place and capital "U" Unionism?

Painted Pony

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Political campaign? the PIRA were a paramilitary force and were only interested in removing the British from the north.

And you don’t think that was political? In any case they were about more than that. They didn’t recognise the Southern state either. The aim was to shoo the Brits out and establish a united Ireland.
Are you seriously arguing that this was not political?

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Having or not having a mandate does not preclude or imbue violence with/from 'virtue'. Ask the Native Americans how getting a mandate would have done them. Sitting on your hands only enables your enemy.

Don’t know what you are getting at here. But it doesn’t answer my question.
Why is sauce for the US goose something different for the IRA gander?

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the PIRA told to avoid engaging Irish security forces and Gardai?

Yes they were. But they were permitted to engage them and frequently did when they were confronted.
But that was just an insignificant side issue. They didn’t recognise the state or the government (up until the 1980s they took to calling themselves the government) and quite clearly an aim to establish a united Ireland would necessarily involve dismantling the republic.

SoulandForm

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the PIRA told to avoid engaging Irish security forces and Gardai?

Before the Border Campaign a new rule was drawn up that they were not to engage with Free State forces- the song the Patriot Game was originally written to complain about it actually. Personally I believe that the PIRA unit deliberately set out to target Gerry McCabe but I dont think such was approved by the Army Council. The other times they killed Gardai since the 1950s was purely in self-defense.

SoulandForm

Painted Pony wrote: »

But that was just an insignificant side issue. They didn’t recognise the state or the government (up until the 1980s they took to calling themselves the government) and quite clearly an aim to establish a united Ireland would necessarily involve dismantling the republic.

I believe that the Free State has extremely questionable legitimacy given how it was foisted on the Irish people through genocidal threats. However the people who really strongly held to First Dail Legitimism were in the south and not in the north- and Adams kicked them out as soon as he could. If you have seen in the 1986 debate Martin McGuinness states clearly; "but we are not at war with the southern government".

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

I believe that the Free State has extremely questionable legitimacy...

I wouldn't worry about it. It ceased to exist in 1937.

Painted Pony

SoulandForm wrote: »

I believe that the Free State has extremely questionable legitimacy given how it was foisted on the Irish people through genocidal threats.

Well I would dispute that but this thread is tattered enough without going in another direction.

In any case, whatever questions you have about the basis on which the state was established the fact that the people of this state embraced it by voting (they could have sent a clear message of rejection by boycotting elections) means it was accepted by the people and thus for them, it was legitimate. Or does what the Irish people think not really count for anything?

(Out of curiosity, how many legitimate states do you think there might be in the world if you disqualify those that were forged by acts or threats of violence?)

Karl Stein

Painted Pony wrote: »

Are you seriously arguing that this was not political?

The PIRA's aim was to remove the British from the north by force. That's a military objective not a political one.

Why is sauce for the US goose something different for the IRA gander?

I'm not sure why you're trying to compare the PIRA campaign with the US invasion of Iraq. You'll remember too, I'm sure, that Iraq didn't attack the US and that there was a conspiracy to fool the public into thinking that Saddam had a 45 minute WMD strike capability.

But that was just an insignificant side issue. They didn’t recognise the state or the government (up until the 1980s they took to calling themselves the government) and quite clearly an aim to establish a united Ireland would necessarily involve dismantling the republic.

I'm not familiar with the details on this tbh so can't really comment.

SoulandForm

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the details on this tbh so can't really comment.

The debate around absentionism and recognizing the courts was actually quite an important moment in the Troubles. It would be well worth you time to listen to these two speeches.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

To cause maximum disruption. As as been pointed out numerous times, the IRA gained nothing from the deaths of civilians or inflicting terror in anyone other than british soldiers/RUC/other combatants, so why would they do it. Why would they give warnings. Why would the issue apologies and regrets afterwards? Why would they take actions against individual members or units who caused civilian deaths?

Like I also said, I knew someone would come out listing off a few names to kick about like a political football but you've ignored the overall numbers, which counteract your claims about the IRA targeting civilians.

Numbers? The IRA killed 800 innocent people. Don't hide behind some stupid stats.

Who exactly were the IRA trying to cause disruption to? Think about my question again. Why were those places bombed at their busiest times?

Manassas61

SoulandForm wrote: »

Manassas61 why do you support the Union?

If we have a situation within Northern Ireland where you have unionists with a small "u" voting for Sinn Fein what does that tell us about the place and capital "U" Unionism?

Better off financially and culturally. But there is many other benefits to it. The NHS being one of the major ones. Plenty of reasons.