Northern Ireland and the IRA

James Brown

Gatling wrote: »

They can't be made look worse no matter what sfers repeatedly post ,

The sf achievements for the 100 year's


( Come back in another 100 years we might have something for the list )

You've not thought this through have you? Helping free the Irish from British rule and continuing same up north when others left the Irish to their fate?
Pales in comparison to the mother and baby homes and wanting to commemorate the RIC/Tans adding further insult to the Irish people, (aside from the record breaking crises, cronyism, fraud, sweet deals etc.).

Next hundred years? The same people wore poppies, met with the OO for selfies and wanted a parade for the tans, wearing aran sweaters and flying the flag to the sounds of the Wolfe Tones to commemorate a united Ireland no doubt

end of the road

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

They weren't though.

plenty of them were.
anyone who says otherwise is an out and out liar or has some sort of agenda they wish to push.

blanch152 wrote: »

They were heroes in their own imagination, and in the imagination of their supporters.

no, they were heroes in fact and reality.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

There were legitimate grievances and opposition from the Unionist side to protests about them. But my point is that if the effort that went into the IRA went into civil disobedience they’d have improved at least as quickly with less bloodshed. There’d probably still have been some, but not nearly as much. Even the IRA must know the campaign didn’t succeed and the concessions could have been won peacefully, if there had been a strong campaign over a 30 year period.

but that's not the case and all of the evidence shows that.
had they just stuck to civil disobedience the reality is they would have been ethnically cleansed at best and absolutely slaughtered at worst.
the violence by the unionist side would have been a hell of a lot worse and there would have been greater blood shed.
the campaign did succeed, the only thing they didn't get was a straight UI but they got everything else.
a campaign of civil disobedience just wasn't realistic, whether it be over 30 years or more or less, a violent rebellion was the only option.

Gatling

James Brown wrote: »

You've not thought this through have you?

The north is still British and likely always will be,

So other than getting a few TDs elected in a century nothing ,oh that time they didn't win again

end of the road

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

I suggest you read the posts in the timelines please.

So did the Catholics in Northern Ireland vote to have the PIRA and SF? or was the decision made by a few and then everyone else just had to accept it?

You will also see the other side of the community by the way in the majority didn't want the UDA etc. I expect they didn't get to vote either

we have all read them, they are unreliable.
it could be argued that voting for the likes of the DUP which were the main unionist party was voting for the UVF/UDA etc.

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Shouting "Up da 'Ra"
Tweets about killing in the North
etc etc

Nothing to do with FF/FG. Can't always point the finger at those parties

all irrelevant and a non-issue, people wish to celebrate and commemorate those who fought for irish freedom and that isn't going to change.
sf voters know the party's past and we aren't bothered, it's in the past and it's time to move on.

James Brown

Gatling wrote: »

The north is still British and likely always will be,

So other than getting a few TDs elected in a century nothing ,oh that time they didn't win again

Tell that to the nationalist community. See how they compare life today to 30/40 years ago.
You are mixing up north and south, but it doesn't matter, whatever works right?

CrazyFather1

end of the road wrote: »

we have all read them, they are unreliable.
it could be argued that voting for the likes of the DUP which were the main unionist party was voting for the UVF/UDA etc..

I am sure if the same reports said the population was 100% behind the PIRA it would be waved around here constantly.

end of the road wrote: »

all irrelevant and a non-issue, people wish to celebrate and commemorate those who fought for irish freedom and that isn't going to change.
sf voters know the party's past and we aren't bothered, it's in the past and it's time to move on.

I was answering a specific question

CrazyFather1

James Brown wrote: »

Aren't every single one of these threads about trying to make Sinn Fein look worse than Fine Gael and Fianna Fail to dodge the issues of the day? Why else are you here, public service?

It's a discussion forum, to discuss topics. People are allowed to discuss topics of interest, kind of the point of it. if you don't like the topic, move onto the next thread

Plenty of threads already on the failings of FF and FG but you seem to mention both parties in every single thread. This is a thread about Northern Ireland and PIRA yet you are discussing FF & FG? how is that relevant?

James Brown wrote: »

Give over. FF/FG use IRA, UI, murder, and terrorism to avoid discussing present day governmental issues. When every conversation goes to that I personally get bored listening to it.
Signing up to the GFA was a choice. You seem to feel the GFA was something that just happened to the IRA and Sinn Fein. Them signing up to the GFA robbed FF/FG of excuses, which is why they need dip into history anytime SF criticise them.

FF party was one of the biggest players in that agreement, you might disagree but it would never have happened without FF.

end of the road

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

I am sure if the same reports said the population was 100% behind the PIRA it would be waved around here constantly.

I was answering a specific question

yes, if it was the case and there was proof of it then it would be because it would be factually correct.
but just like there is no evidence to show the amount of lack of support for the PIRA, there is no evidence to show the amount of support for it, apart from that it was high.

John Doe1

The British army instigated a war when they attacked a civil rights march in Derry.

In war, civilians die as a byproduct but violence put an end to the apartheid society.
it also lead the way to the GFA which will eventually lead to a United Ireland within 25 years.

As someone who lives 10 minutes from the border in Donegal and who comes from a mixed religious background, I will be so proud when I can say that my friends and relations in Tyrone/Derry who speak the same as me and have the same culture as me are part of the same country as me

CrazyFather1

end of the road wrote: »

yes, if it was the case and there was proof of it then it would be because it would be factually correct.
but just like there is no evidence to show the amount of lack of support for the PIRA, there is no evidence to show the amount of support for it, apart from that it was high.

Have a read of post 40, others available if you google which clearly show the PIRA wasn't supported. But seemingly they don't give the answer people want so we are now told to ignore them.

maccored

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

If you look around the web seems to be a few bits and pieces. The first part came from a website and mentions a study but no link to the study. The second part includes a study.

In the majority based on these studies the people of Northern Ireland and Republic didn't support the PIRA. It didn't matter what background.

The most shocking part is 71% of people killed where civilians.
So the PIRA was never fighting for the people of Northern Ireland or the Republic which is the claim made on here all the time, the people in the majority never supported the PIRA.

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Irish-people-supported-the-IRA-during-the-violent-decades-known-as-The-Troubles-Could-you-say-it-was-a-civil-war-or-just-an-isolated-rebel-and-terrorist-group-acting-on-their-own-in-spite-of-the-population%E2%80%99s-will
Since you asked for percentages, we can actually state that. I assume you are using the layman’s definition of support, and not the distinctions that are applied by experts.

With that in mind let’s look at some of the statistics. In 1973 a study of younger members of society found the following.

29.6% had stated that PIRA was “doing what was necessary” in Northern Ireland.
6% had declared that PIRA members were “National heroes”.
18% had stated that PIRA was composed of “vicious gunmen”
33% had declared that PIRA was “harming Ireland”.

So if we include the 2 uppers as support we have around 35% in Ireland supported the IRA, and please remember its terrorist nature was obvious at the time.

If you want the other years, that reduced to around 21% in 1978. Further numbers are not something I can remember or find at the moment.

As to whether it was a civil war, not really. That was the dictate of the government at the time as the violence was not utterly insane for the most part. And the British Army clearly did not act as if it was a war.

As to the population’s will, depends what you refer to as will. If it’s strictly support than I suppose so, although not by much in Southern Ireland. But whilst they may not have had the support of the majority, they had the tacit acceptance of the majority. What these statistics hide is that a large chunk of those who DIDN’T support the IRA were still sympathetic and unwilling to do much against them.

This is evidenced by the fact that only 30% of those in Dublin in 1973 supported jailing based on IRA membership. Meaning the majority of Irish people did not support even the most basic actions against the IRA.And other studies bear this out.

Also this document
https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc207/polviolence.pdf

Percentages of who was killed
Police 6.0
Police Reserve 3.0
Army 13.5
UDR=RIR 6.1
Civilian 71.4

Percentages of who did the killing
Police=Police Reserve 1.4
Army 8.2
UDR=RIR 0.2
Republicans 58.6
Loyalists 29.2
Other 2.4

The question was phrased so as to permit respondents to indicate sympathy, while not at the same time explicitly supporting the use of force. Table 5 shows that significant minorities within both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland lend support to paramilitary groups. A total of 26 percent of respondents in Northern Ireland express some level of sympathy for republican paramilitaries, while the figure for those sympathizing with loyalists is almost identical, at 27 percent. An even stronger level of support is echoed in the Republic of Ireland. Here, whereas a total of 40 percent of respondents express some level of sympathy for republican paramilitaries, the figure for those sympathizing with loyalists is somewhat lower, at 32 percent.

this post proves what exactly? holy **** batman - I was right not to bother 'debating' the subject with you. have you the data on the 'statistics' from 1973 (1973?? - a couple of years after the PIRA started?) - who was asked for example.

maccored

and right below in your link you have this:

"An Irish historian says his new book aims to shine a light for the first time on the role of people from all levels of Irish society in supporting the Provisional IRA from its inception in 1969 to 1980."

"As I have posted before every thinking person knows they could not have survived without the support and sympathy of the majority of people in the South" (nevermind the north)


Jesus - talk about shooting yourself in the foot

blanch152

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

SF/IRA having no identity other than the rather repulsive obsession with a UI, murder, and terrorism, SF supporters only understand themselves in relation to other parties. They generally dont want to get involved in discussion about their support for murder and terrorism, so end up back with more to say about FF or FG than about SF. The GFA removed much of their identity and purpose. Leaving a shell of a party in search of a purpose.

That is a very good point.

The things that define Sinn Fein - support for terrorism, obsession with a UI, their history of covering up child abuse, punishment beatings etc - are repulsive. Very difficult for them to allow a discussion about themselves, they have to turn every discussion into one about other parties. The party of negativity.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a very good point.

The things that define Sinn Fein - support for terrorism, obsession with a UI, their history of covering up child abuse, punishment beatings etc - are repulsive. Very difficult for them to allow a discussion about themselves, they have to turn every discussion into one about other parties. The party of negativity.

Must be terrible to see all your predictions over the last few years of their demise just not happening. aww.

blanch152

Gatling wrote: »

The north is still British and likely always will be,

So other than getting a few TDs elected in a century nothing ,oh that time they didn't win again

The north will always be British, that is true. No matter who has jurisdiction, the tradition and identity of Britishness on this island is here to stay. We will never be an Ireland for the Irish, that reality needs to sink in to nationalist minds.

Natterjack from Kerry

blanch152 wrote: »

The north will always be British, that is true. No matter who has jurisdiction, the tradition and identity of Britishness on this island is here to stay. We will never be an Ireland for the Irish, that reality needs to sink in to nationalist minds.

Exactly. Britishness runs deep through us all. History cannot be rewritten. And nor should it - we are all the beneficiaries today of our long and deep links. And that does not contradict Bein Irish either. Its just intrinsic to what is being Irish.

Junkyard Tom

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Britishness runs deep through us all.

There is lots of great stuff relating to Britain: philosophers, economists, writers, musicians, comedians, and so on, that Irish people respect, enjoy, and involve themselves in.

The pseudo-Britishness that N/Irish unionists espouse is repugnant to the vast majority of Irish people as it is seeks the survivor to subordinate himself to the perpetrator, this will never happen to anyone with a modicum of self-respect.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

The north will always be British, that is true. No matter who has jurisdiction, the tradition and identity of Britishness on this island is here to stay. We will never be an Ireland for the Irish, that reality needs to sink in to nationalist minds.

british? but its in the UK, not britain

maccored

maccored wrote: »

british? but its in the UK, not britain

British is a recognised description of a person from the United Kingdom of GB & NI.

steddyeddy

Gatling wrote: »

The north is still British and likely always will be,

So other than getting a few TDs elected in a century nothing ,oh that time they didn't win again

I would elaborate by saying tell that to the British who consider them nothing but Irish and the unionist community to be anything but British.

end of the road

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Have a read of post 40, others available if you google which clearly show the PIRA wasn't supported. But seemingly they don't give the answer people want so we are now told to ignore them.

as i said earlier i have already read it and it isn't reliable given the various factors, mainly people who privately supported the PIRA but did not state it in public.

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a very good point.

The things that define Sinn Fein - support for terrorism, obsession with a UI, their history of covering up child abuse, punishment beatings etc - are repulsive. Very difficult for them to allow a discussion about themselves, they have to turn every discussion into one about other parties. The party of negativity.

you would have some legitimate complaint if you didn't support a party who helped subject the population to the brutality of the catholic church and it's many crimes, not to mention all the other crimes which were committed by organs of the state.
you really do not get to complain about sf i'm afraid.

blanch152

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would elaborate by saying tell that to the British who consider them nothing but Irish and the unionist community to be anything but British.

Nobody can impose an identity on anyone else.

Nationalists continually try to impose an Irish identity on British people living on this island. That is wrong and must stop.

That there are a few people living on the next island over who don't consider them British either, is neither here nor there.

blanch152

end of the road wrote: »

as i said earlier i have already read it and it isn't reliable given the various factors, mainly people who privately supported the PIRA but did not state it in public.




you would have some legitimate complaint if you didn't support a party who helped subject the population to the brutality of the catholic church and it's many crimes, not to mention all the other crimes which were committed by organs of the state.
you really do not get to complain about sf i'm afraid.

I don't support any party, I voted for the Greens in the last two elections. That doesn't mean anything for the next one.

The only party label you can attach to me is that I am anti-SF.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody can impose an identity on anyone else.

Nationalists continually try to impose an Irish identity on British people living on this island. That is wrong and must stop.

That there are a few people living on the next island over who don't consider them British either, is neither here nor there.

you obviously missed the loyalist memo when they tried that on nationalists in the north. Be a loyalist and all will be grand. dont be a loyalist and we'll treat you like ****. One side blanch152 yet again.

blanch152

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

British is a recognised description of a person from the United Kingdom of GB & NI.

We saw again there the attempts of the nationalist perspective to deprive unionists of their British identity.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

We saw again there the attempts of the nationalist perspective to deprive unionists of their British identity.

the other way around doesnt matter though - thats your point im taking?

Sure why not answer posts you agree with and ignore those you cant answer... that sounds like a great ploy.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody can impose an identity on anyone else.

Nationalists continually try to impose an Irish identity on British people living on this island. That is wrong and must stop.

That there are a few people living on the next island over who don't consider them British either, is neither here nor there.

Ha ha B it took pressure the Good Friday agreement to force the British to recognise the Irish in NI as Irish.

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ha ha B it took pressure the Good Friday agreement to force the British to recognise the Irish in NI as Irish.

The wasn't a single word in the GFA that the British couldn't have delivered in 1969.

They are ultimately responsible for it going up in flames. They then tried to shore up the sectarian suprematist Unionist state in their arrogance and it got worse, as Harold Wilson recognised it would, but sadly Heath didn't. They had to be forced as you say to deliver the GFA, which they did after Unionism/Loyalism shat in the bed and they frankly took the veto away from them in the Anglo Irish Agreement. Perfidious Albion in all her legendary glory at work.

Nobody was right in northern Ireland but the British, as the responsible government, supremely bear the responsibility for doing the greatest wrong.

end of the road

blanch152 wrote: »

We saw again there the attempts of the nationalist perspective to deprive unionists of their British identity.

you are thinking of the loyalists who tried to deprive the nationalists of their identity, and not just that, but tried to ethnically cleanse them from northern ireland.
you don't have any credibility when you crowe about nationalists apparently trying to deprive unionists of their identity when that has never happened, but yet say nothing about loyalists trying to deprive nationalists of their identity which did happen.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The wasn't a single word in the GFA that the British couldn't have delivered in 1969.

They are ultimately responsible for it going up in flames. They then tried to shore up the sectarian suprematist Unionist state in their arrogance and it got worse, as Harold Wilson recognised it would, but sadly Heath didn't. They had to be forced as you say to deliver the GFA, which they did after Unionism/Loyalism shat in the bed and they frankly took the veto away from them in the Anglo Irish Agreement. Perfidious Albion in all her legendary glory at work.

Nobody was right in northern Ireland but the British, as the responsible government, supremely bear the responsibility for doing the greatest wrong.

They delivered it in 1974 in Sunningdale, but the two sectarian groups up North wouldn't accept it.