...and in the darkness bind them

Sleepy

gdiddy361 wrote:

Amen. You have summed up my position better than I could. I think it is better to debate these broad topics rather than argue about specifics.

Those "specifics" are people's lives.

gandalf

IRISHLILY24 wrote:

When the country is united again, they will once again be one with the republic and Ireland will be its own country...free from the Orange.

You see here is where you really do not understand things. The Orange is part of Ireland thats why the Tricolour is Green White and Orange. Its to signify people of both communities living in peace in Ireland. Green representing the Fenians/Nationalists, White for Peace & Orange for the Protestant/Orangemen.

Unfortunately some people are too blinkered to realise this.

gdiddy361

Sleepy wrote:

You're American aren't you?

Why does this matter? It might mean that he is less informed, but it does not negate his opinion. It seems that you have opinions about American politics vis-a-vis Dubya, so why can't Americans have opinions about Irish politics vis-a-vis the IRA?

gdiddy361

Sleepy wrote:

Those "specifics" are people's lives.

Yes, I realize this. My point was only that we seem to be going nowhere with the whole "conduct" part of the IRA. Why not debate more about the reason behind the organization?

I think it would make for more intellectual and less personal arguments. Just my opinion though....

Sleepy

Out of curiosity, what experience do you have with the IRA son? How many IRA Volunteers do you know? Surely lots considering you claim to have them absolutely sussed in terms of their goals, motives and operational tactics?

Okay, the question wasn't asked of me but I'm gonna answer it anyway. I've met a handful of IRA Activists both before and after the current ceasefire. Calling the "Volunteers" insults the memory of my Grandfather and many like him from the twenties so I'll ask you not to do it in my (virtual) presence again.

In terms of their goals, they seem quite naieve. They can't answer the simplest questions about how we'd pay for a United Ireland, they seem to be incredibly unquestioning of their leadership (except for when the leadership favour dropping arms) and quite frankly their goals tend to include a notion of ethnic cleansing of protestants being a good thing.

Their motives were actually very understandable. As one of them put it to me himself: "If you saw your father gunned down in front of you, wouldn't you get your hands and go after the b@stard that did it?". Bloodlust and Revenge seem to be the driving motives of the IRA. In a way it's reminiscent of the traveller's feuds tbh: bloody and pointless.

Finally, their operational tactics I found interesting. Whilst I disagree with their strategy of violence, the tactics were truly admirable. Note that I distinguish between the two. Tactically, the IRA were an extremely effective organisation in about 80/90% of their missions they were successful. As a fan of military history I can appreciate the cunning and ingenuity behind some of their strikes, that doesn't however mean I condone the actions themselves.

So, to sum up my feelings about the IRA activists I've met in a word: scary. Such tenacity and operational ability would be admirable in real soldiers, in a terrorist/criminal organisation it's bloody terrifying.

bonkey

gandalf wrote:

You see here is where you really do not understand things. The Orange is part of Ireland thats why the Tricolour is Green White and Orange. Its to signify people of both communities living in peace in Ireland. Green representing the Fenians/Nationalists, White for Peace & Orange for the Protestant/Orangemen.

Unfortunately some people are too blinkered to realise this.

You forget that part of the vision of a united Ireland would invovle changing the flag for that very reason Gandalf...

I mean....if the "Only Our Version of Freedom Matters" brigade can't accept the name of the R.o.I., the government of the R.o.I, and generally wont' accept the thinking of anyone who supports such things (which would include large swathes of the people of the R.o.I, if not the majority of them).......then what possible reason would they have to accept the flag or its meaning.

jc

Sleepy

gdiddy361 wrote:

Why does this matter? It might mean that he is less informed, but it does not negate his opinion. It seems that you have opinions about American politics vis-a-vis Dubya, so why can't Americans have opinions about Irish politics vis-a-vis the IRA?

My point would be that ill-informed Americans (that however much they like to think of themselves as Irish aren't) are indirectly responsible for an awful lot of the bloodshed in the north. Sure, it may be just money in the States, in the hands of the IRA however it's a lump of shrapnel ripping a child's face off.

bonkey

Sleepy wrote:

As one of them put it to me himself: "If you saw your father gunned down in front of you, wouldn't you get your hands and go after the b@stard that did it?".

The temptation would be almost overwhelming to ask the question back :

"But if my father was a unionist, and it was people like you who gunned him down, what should I do then? Go after you?

I guess they'd miss the point though.

jc

Sleepy

gdiddy361 wrote:

Yes, I realize this. My point was only that we seem to be going nowhere with the whole "conduct" part of the IRA. Why not debate more about the reason behind the organization?

I think it would make for more intellectual and less personal arguments. Just my opinion though....

No, it would make it an easier argument for Republicans. It makes it easy to justify Al Queda's actions too when you forget about the "specifics" of the couple of thousand lives they took on September 11th. The ends can never justify the means in any society that values justice and morality.

Sleepy

bonkey wrote:

The temptation would be almost overwhelming to ask the question back :

"But if my father was a unionist, and it was people like you who gunned him down, what should I do then? Go after you?

I guess they'd miss the point though.

jc

I'm afraid I actually thought of that, but didn't have the balls to say it.

gandalf

bonkey wrote:

You forget that part of the vision of a united Ireland would invovle changing the flag for that very reason Gandalf...

I mean....if the "Only Our Version of Freedom Matters" brigade can't accept the name of the R.o.I., the government of the R.o.I, and generally wont' accept the thinking of anyone who supports such things (which would include large swathes of the people of the R.o.I, if not the majority of them).......then what possible reason would they have to accept the flag or its meaning.

jc

Its a bit hypocritical of them to drape the coffins of their "fallen heroes" in the Flag of a state/government that they disagree with, they are kind of like "Free-Staters light".

Redleslie2

gandalf wrote:

Its a bit hypocritical of them to drape the coffins of their "fallen heroes" in the Flag of a state/government that they disagree with, they are kind of like "Free-Staters light".

The tricolor was first used by the young Irelanders in 1848 and (iirc) it was flown over the GPO in 1916. If anything, it could be said that it's us "free staters" who are being hypocritical since the flag is supposed to represent peace (white) between the orange (protestants) and the green (catholics) of the island. There should be no orange and maybe no white in the flag really since the treaty effectively cut the protestants out altogether. This is what we should have used.

sceptre

gandalf wrote:

Its a bit hypocritical of them to drape the coffins of their "fallen heroes" in the Flag of a state/government that they disagree with, they are kind of like "Free-Staters light".

Ah but it's the Freestaters that have usurped the flag brought home by Thomas Francis Meager[1] and destroyed the ideal that an entire island free of external influence[2] is worth something and nothing short of that is worth anything. They can't use the green flag with the harp on it as that was used by the despicable Parnellites[3]. What would you do, have them use no flag at all? The United Republic Of NoFlag?


[1]even though that one had the orange on the left rather than the right.
[2]darned American investment
[3]Although, for a time around 1883 the Parnellites used green, white and orange arranged horizontally

edit: I see Redleslie's gone over much the same ground. Perhaps we could use this flag instead.

Redleslie2

sceptre wrote:

They can't use the green flag with the harp on it as that was used by the despicable Parnellites[3]

Fortunate perhaps, as we would have been the only country in the world to use a beer company logo as our national emblem.

gdiddy361

Sleepy wrote:

My point would be that ill-informed Americans (that however much they like to think of themselves as Irish aren't) are indirectly responsible for an awful lot of the bloodshed in the north. Sure, it may be just money in the States, in the hands of the IRA however it's a lump of shrapnel ripping a child's face off.

One, why do you feel the need to look down on people because they have an interest in the nation of their ancestors? That's not a very accomadating view, and is elitist. I personally find it offensive.

I understand, however, your position that the people in the States fund the IRA, I agree with you that they do not think of the ramifications of their actions. However, it is precisely this fact (funding that is) that makes me skeptical of the arguments about the IRA being a criminal gang out for money. It seems odd to waste resources on petty robbery when millions of dollars are being pumped in from the US, doesn't it?

gdiddy361

Sleepy wrote:

No, it would make it an easier argument for Republicans. It makes it easy to justify Al Queda's actions too when you forget about the "specifics" of the couple of thousand lives they took on September 11th. The ends can never justify the means in any society that values justice and morality.

Really? What is the justification of Al Qaeda's actions? I have yet to hear that. You and others seem to look down on all Republicans because of the actions of the IRA. I have no hatred for Muslims because of 9/11. Nor do I hate Right-Wing Fundamentalist even though I lost my grandfather in the OKC bombing in 1995. Just because you disagree with the actions of some members of a group does not mean you have to lambast the group as a whole.

And once again, I'm trying to move the debate away from specific number of casualties for this is an area where no one seems to be able to have an intellectual debate.

One last thing: I agree that the ends can never justify the means. Tell that to Maggie Thatcher and the SAS...

OfflerCrocGod

IRISHLILY24 wrote:

We all know that todays IRA is a different breed from that of our Hero's of 1916...but they are here carrying on the fight..for you, for thier countrymen , so that you may live in a country undivided. Some would say that is a cause worth fighting and dying for, I certainly would.

1916 was an utter disaster in military terms, of course it was meant to be. I can see why it angered Michael Collins - it would have pissed me off too - the entire Rising was half-assed and the organisations behind it were all over the place and sometimes actively working againts each other. We all know that when Padraig Pearse read the Proclamation he was laughed at or ignored by passers-by. It showed the level of support that the Rising had, of course once those idiots in the British Army shot the leaders (as expected and planned - "Blood Sacrifice") their cause gained support.

About the only person I would ever respect of all those years of pointless bloodshed is Micheal Collins (who was killed by some 'Heroes') but frankly the entire mindset was wrong no huge attempts were ever made to make sure that everyone in Ireland was behind a united country. The protestants were always going to be againts a goverment that was againts them and not for them (once they wanted the same thing as us - remember!). Massive civil disobedience would have been better; an attempt at building a united front with Cath and Prot together struggling for the same thing country wide. Instead we got a half-assed, Dublin centred, short (5 days?), futile Rising. 80+ years on and our country is still divided. What Heroes those men were

gdiddy361 wrote:

I see your point. I won't use the "ridiculous" analogy, although it really isn't. So is it wrong for the British Army to fire upon innocent civilians who have done nothing to them? And conversely would you see a problem with the IRA targeting Army staff members/RUC staff members who did not carry a gun or have a combat role?

The IRA are bringing (I should say brought because everyone now realizes that the IRA are useless and should just decommission - if it weren't for the IRA's campaign of voilence the embarrassing photo would not be required ) the fight to the British, the Nazis brought the fight to the British. The British react to defend themselves, it's not such a surprising reaction. If we had tried using civil disobedience instead of violence I have no doubt that we would be closer to a United Ireland than we are now. If not already there because the Prots up North would not have such strong reasons to hate and distrust the Caths. The Brits didn't initialize anything, it's not as if Tony Blair is desperate to keep NI, I'm sure he'd be glad to get rid of it. It's other people who want to stay under Brit rule - bombing those people is not going to change their minds.

sceptre

gdiddy361 wrote:

It seems odd to waste resources on petty robbery when millions of dollars are being pumped in from the US, doesn't it?

It would do if for various reasons the money hadn't started slowing down in the 90s. These days after that 2001 WTC plane incident, getting yankee moolah for freedom fighting (as opposed to nice suits) would be harder again. Besides, with the big boys (Brian and the Slab) controlling the tightening purse strings it's harder to get money from central funds for an extra ak47 or house extension so some unofficial petty cash as a float often comes in handy.

gdiddy361

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

1916 was an utter disaster in military terms, of course it was meant to be. I can see why it angered Michael Collins - it would have pissed me off too - the entire Rising was half-assed and the organisations behind it were all over the place and sometimes actively working againts each other. We all know that when Padraig Pearse read the Proclamation he was laughed at or ignored by passers-by. It showed the level of support that the Rising had, of course once those idiots in the British Army shot the leaders (as expected and planned - "Blood Sacrifice") their cause gained support.

About the only person I would ever respect of all those years of pointless bloodshed is Micheal Collins (who was killed by some 'Heroes') but frankly the entire mindset was wrong no huge attempts were ever made to make sure that everyone in Ireland was behind a united country. The protestants were always going to be againts a goverment that was againts them and not for them (once they wanted the same thing as us - remember!). Massive civil disobedience would have been better; an attempt at building a united front with Cath and Prot together struggling for the same thing country wide. Instead we got a half-assed, Dublin centred, short (5 days?), futile Rising. 80+ years on and our country is still divided. What Heroes those men were The IRA are bringing (I should say brought because everyone now realizes that the IRA are useless and should just decommission - if it weren't for the IRA's campaign of voilence the embarrassing photo would not be required ) the fight to the British, the Nazis brought the fight to the British. The British react to defend themselves, it's not such a surprising reaction. If we had tried using civil disobedience instead of violence I have no doubt that we would be closer to a United Ireland than we are now. If not already there because the Prots up North would not have such strong reasons to hate and distrust the Caths. The Brits didn't initialize anything, it's not as if Tony Blair is desperate to keep NI, I'm sure he'd be glad to get rid of it. It's other people who want to stay under Brit rule - bombing those people is not going to change their minds.

You didn't answer my question about the British killing innocent civilians...

Another thing. You say the British don't intitialize anything, but isn't shoot-to-kill and Bloody Sunday, weren't they initialized by Britain.

I agree with you that civil disobedience would have been the correct way to rectify the situation if, and only if, the Protestants had NOT been gerrymandering and controlling the government. I think that the IRA did spiral out of control, but at the very onset they were an honorable group dedicated to protecting Catholic communities from the British Army, RUC, (btw, those are two organizations that themselves were supposed to be protecting the Catholics, interesting eh?), and the Loyalists.

gdiddy361

sceptre wrote:

It would do if for various reasons the money hadn't started slowing down in the 90s. These days after that 2001 WTC plane incident, getting yankee moolah for freedom fighting (as opposed to nice suits) would be harder again. Besides, with the big boys (Brian and the Slab) controlling the tightening purse strings it's harder to get money from central funds for an extra ak47 or house extension so some unofficial petty cash as a float often comes in handy.

I agree with you that after 9/11 US money would have been hard to come by. However, weren't the McCabe killings, for example, before 9/11? I'm not very good with my dates. Probably cause I'm not real Irish.... (Although I DO like my Guinnes )

Another thought.... The PIRA is not considered to be a terrorist organization by the US government although the RIRA is... What do you guys think?

growler

Originally Posted by OfflerCrocGod "Massive civil disobedience would have been better; an attempt at building a united front with Cath and Prot together struggling for the same thing country wide. Instead we got a half-assed, Dublin centred, short (5 days?), futile Rising."

all very well in theory, however the British Imperial War Machine didn't and doesn't have a great track record of going along with popular sentiment in all the countries they invaded and looted. They were the global superpower for so long that they seemed to actually believe they had a moral right to rule anyone who was unfortunate not to be an anglo-saxon. Their historic reaction to any talk of independende in Ireland was violence, they didn't care about their subjects in Ireland or anywhere else. With a few exceptions to only way countries achieved independence from her majesty was armed rebellion. Perhaps such a pacifist mass movement might work in the late 20th or 21st centuries but it would have simply resulted in a massive show of military strength in the 1916 era, your location would then be "Dublin, small imperial colony north west of London".


Originally Posted by OfflerCrocGod "The IRA are bringing (I should say brought because everyone now realizes that the IRA are useless and should just decommission - if it weren't for the IRA's campaign of voilence the embarrassing photo would not be required ) the fight to the British, the Nazis brought the fight to the British. The British react to defend themselves, it's not such a surprising reaction"

Damn, I had forgotten about the great Irish invasion of Britain that put them on the defensive.. .when was that again ?

OfflerCrocGod

gdiddy361 wrote:

You didn't answer my question about the British killing innocent civilians...

Another thing. You say the British don't intitialize anything, but isn't shoot-to-kill and Bloody Sunday, weren't they initialized by Britain.

Why were the army there in the first place? Was it not to take over after the shutting down of the B-specials? Why were the B-specials around? To fight againts the IRA actions, right? Of course after that totally stupid slaughter (yes the Brits were wrong for bloody sunday) the splinter groups of the IRA increased in membership. That's whats called a cycle of violence. I may be wrong but the British army were well received by the caths in NI because of the way they were treated by the B-specials. If there hadn't had been a need for the B-specials then the army would have never have been in NI and Bloody Sunday would have never happened. It's not as if the brits decided one fine day to go to NI to kill people. The British army of course paid for their violence with IRA bombings, who of course then paid for their violence with killings and bombings, and then you return to step 1 and keep killing. Not, I think, a successful strategy to nation building.

gdiddy361 wrote:

I agree with you that civil disobedience would have been the correct way to rectify the situation if, and only if, the Protestants had NOT been gerrymandering and controlling the government. I think that the IRA did spiral out of control, but at the very onset they were an honorable group dedicated to protecting Catholic communities from the British Army, RUC, (btw, those are two organizations that themselves were supposed to be protecting the Catholics, interesting eh?), and the Loyalists.

Civil disobedience tells gerrymandering to go take a jump of a cliff because it has little to do with voting. You shut down the goverment you are targeting until it's incapable of functioning - just like happened in Ukraine a while back. If you have the support of the people then you have a chance at changing their ways. I don't think the IRA were set up to protect anyone, their violence more then likely just made it harder on Caths living in NI because of course Protestants would then want to retaliate.

growler wrote:

all very well in theory, however the British Imperial War Machine didn't and doesn't have a great track record of going along with popular sentiment in all the countries they invaded and looted. They were the global superpower for so long that they seemed to actually believe they had a moral right to rule anyone who was unfortunate not to be an anglo-saxon. Their historic reaction to any talk of independende in Ireland was violence, they didn't care about their subjects in Ireland or anywhere else. With a few exceptions to only way countries achieved independence from her majesty was armed rebellion. Perhaps such a pacifist mass movement might work in the late 20th or 21st centuries but it would have simply resulted in a massive show of military strength in the 1916 era, your location would then be "Dublin, small imperial colony north west of London".

Tell that to India.

growler wrote:

Damn, I had forgotten about the great Irish invasion of Britain that put them on the defensive.. .when was that again ?

So the IRA never bombed British troops in NI (it is not yet part of the Irish state)? The IRA never bombed anywhere in Great Britain?

BCB

1) Was the IRA justified in carrying out its campaign

Yes they were,Britain occupies part of Ireland therefore armed resistance was the only way to go at that time,the Provos brought the British establishment to their knees with a series of devastating attacks..if Jack Lynch hadnt have bottled it around the time of the civil rights movement and sent the free state army into the North things could`ve been very different a United Ireland could`ve been achieved but alas it didnt happen,and thousands of killings followed..the war goes on in my opinion until the British leave the North..as the saying goes "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace"



2) Did the IRA carry out its campaign in an acceptable way

Is there any such thing as an acceptable way in war?The brave volunteers of Oglaigh Na hEireann have put their lives on the line since the formation of the Provos in 1969 to free Ireland.Its extremly unfortunate that innocent people have died and suffered in the troubles and there can be absolutely no excuse for their deaths..however British Soldiers and RUC,etc,etc were all legitamate targets and i have absolutely no sympathy at all for them..they are in my book the real terrorists,shoot to kill policy/sectarianism/collusion with Loyalists,etc,etc the list goes on,remember they are supposedly there to uphold the law and keep the peace..in war there is really no such thing as an acceptable way..




3) Has the IRA's campaign led to an improvement in the state of NI.

I dont really know to be honest...probably not..in a war situation things hardly improve in the state unless the enemy concedes,you could ask the same about Hamas,etc in Palestine....

growler

Originally Posted by OfflerCrocGod "Tell that to India."

I did say "with a few exceptions".

Anyway the political, cultural and religious philosophy in India was very different from that of Ireland, they also had a major numerical advantage, the British couldn't shoot everyone in India , they never seemed to worry about such things in Ireland : from Cromwell attempted genocide to their determined inaction during the famine , they proved one thing : that the British establishment did not care wht happened to the Catholic Irish.

Rock Climber

BCB wrote:

1) Was the IRA justified in carrying out its campaign

Yes they were,Britain occupies part of Ireland therefore armed resistance was the only way to go at that time,the Provos brought the British establishment to their knees with a series of devastating attacks..if Jack Lynch hadnt have bottled it around the time of the civil rights movement and sent the free state army into the North things could`ve been very different a United Ireland could`ve been achieved but alas it didnt happen,and thousands of killings followed..the war goes on in my opinion until the British leave the North..as the saying goes "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace"

What a load of complete and utter rubbish.
Who made up that saying anyway and how many people agree with it, thats the yardstick in a democracy-agreement.
Less than 5% of the people of the island were behind the IRA and I'm being generous in that figure.
The reason why Ireland wasn't at peace for over 30 years was because the IRA carried out an illegal war better known as terrorism
None of the inequities given as the reason for this terrorism would have survived membership of the E.U
Anti terrorist legislation, internment , h blocks, none of that would have happened.
None of the extreme inter community bitterness would have survived to the extent that it did either.
Furthermore what do ye have to show for all the terror, we still have the united kingdom of Gt Britain and Northern Ireland in existance.
The co-operation /all Ireland institutions would have eventually came about anyway as people would have got on and seen that it was practical.

What a wasted 30 years.

3) Has the IRA's campaign led to an improvement in the state of NI.

I dont really know to be honest...probably not..in a war situation things hardly improve in the state unless the enemy concedes,you could ask the same about Hamas,etc in Palestine....

You've even agreed with me, there was no outcome.
Peace came when the IRA stopped,the improvements of today came then but would have came anyway if there was no violence.

Meanwhile, the catholic population would have been and are growing, the answer to those in Nationalist Northern Ireland wanting to unite with the south always lay in them breeding like rabbits, basically throwing away the condoms.
Trust me it would have been and is far sexier than an unnecessary war!

Sleepy

gdiddy361 wrote:

One, why do you feel the need to look down on people because they have an interest in the nation of their ancestors? That's not a very accomadating view, and is elitist. I personally find it offensive.

I'm not looking down on IRISHLILY24, just proving how naieve and ill-informed his/her views are.

I understand, however, your position that the people in the States fund the IRA, I agree with you that they do not think of the ramifications of their actions. However, it is precisely this fact (funding that is) that makes me skeptical of the arguments about the IRA being a criminal gang out for money. It seems odd to waste resources on petty robbery when millions of dollars are being pumped in from the US, doesn't it?

Fair point, so you agree that McCabe's killers were acting on their own behalf and thus exempted from early release under the GFA then?

One last thing: I agree that the ends can never justify the means. Tell that to Maggie Thatcher and the SAS...

That's the most childish argument you've made yet: "Sir, sir, she did it too!". Come on, gdiddy, you've been making lucid (if ill-conceived in my view) arguments so far, don't drop to the level of the playground.

Another thing. You say the British don't intitialize anything, but isn't shoot-to-kill and Bloody Sunday, weren't they initialized by Britain.

Shoot-to-kill is the only policy you can adopt against a terrorist organisation that does the same to you. As I've already pointed out in this thread: it's not as if the IRA were shooting-to-tickle.

Stabshauptmann

Sorry about the long gap between my last post and this, some important business in Real Life TM kept me busy. Ive read as far as post 87 and just want to make this contribution then I will return to reading.

I think it had been agreed by all those (open minded ppl willing to discuss things rationally) that the answer to question one is yes.
The PIRA was founded as a defensive organisation and that there was a clear and present danger to be defended against which the security forces of NI were not doing anything about. If there are still (open minded ppl willing to discuss things rationally) in disagreement with this stop me.

This basically just saying that we agree with St. Augustine's Just War Theory." For St. Augustine the only reason for waging a war would be to defend the nation's peace against serious injury. He says, "'A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.'"

So on to question 2.
I was planning on mentioning the Firebombing of dresdon and the dropping of the a bomb but I see I was bet to it. I would recommend that the link sovtec provided be read by everyone. To summerise: Dresdon was a military target, 100,000 ppl may not have dies, it may have only been 35,000 but *Dresdon was targeted as a whole, not just the factories.
*It was the intention of the allies, particularly Harris, that civilian casualties demoralize German troops.
*The weapons and tactics used in the bombing were designed to inflict maximum civilian casualties.
*dresdon was selected because it was defenceless.

Does this action render the entire war effort wrong?

I dont beleive it does. Dont equate this opinion with my believeing that the end justifies the means because I dont. I simply believe that these tragedies were not representitive of the war effort as a whole and thus should not detract from them.
Likewise there have been specific IRA actions that were cruel and inhumain with no military or strategic value, these should not in my opininion detract from "the cause" as a whole.

In the past 100 years or so civilian to military casualties in war have moved from a ratio of 1:8 to 8:1.
43% of the PIRA's victums were civilians compared with 60% of the british armies according to this source http://www.newint.org/issue255/facts.htm
In the cold statistical analysis of things the IRA has a better record than the british army.

The arguement has been offered that the IRA are not a legitimate army unlike the Crown forces and that it isnt even a war.
If I pop over to www.dictionary.com we get the following definitions:

war ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôr)
n.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict.
The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

ar·my ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärm)
n. pl. ar·mies

A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare.
often Army The entire military land forces of a country.
A tactical and administrative military unit consisting of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary forces.
A large group of people organized for a specific cause: the construction army that built the Panama Canal.
A multitude; a host: An army of waiters served at the banquet. See Synonyms at multitude.


Another arguement was that they are not fighting for any cause.
Bonkey said that it doesnt matte what the bulk of ppl believe they are fighting for only what the objectives of their leaders are. I would disagree because it is a volunteer based army with proper structures and an anual army convention. Individual brigades have a lot of say in what activities they do or do not carry out.
Another point made was that the legitimacy of the IRA is questionable since it carries out illegal fund rasing activities. A lot of rubbish was posted on this subject which I feel needs to be confronted.

The IRA is not involved in drug dealing.
No police report in either juristiction to my knowledge has ever suggested they are. I do remember reading about a volunteer who was disciplined for his involvement with a certain drug gang and another who tried to smuggle drugs on the same boat the IRA was running guns but both volunteers were dealt with severly. I also remember reading about US amry officers who were using military vehicles to transport coke with the intent to supply but nobody is going to argue that the US army is involved in drug dealing.
The IRA has a very clear position to drug dealing and is suspected of the assassination of many drug dealers including 4 since 2002.

Yes the IRA is involved in smuggling and counterfeiting (goods and money) and armed robery where the state (NI, RoI or GB) is generally the main victum.

Other sources of income include public loans (I think thats the right name but open to correction) which is basically just a contribution. This was a big money spinner in the US.
Donations from the likes of gadaffi.
And taxing criminals.

How this conflicts with the ligitimacy of their actions I dont know though. Certainly they are illegal activities, so is their war, then again so is the war in Iraq and the treatment of prisoners in GUITMO.
Their legitimacy comes from their justification in accordance with question one.

PS
That all republicans are poor debaters is rediculous, I believe I am carrying myself quite well and I would also like to point out that most Irish ppl who have excercised their vote have voted for the republican party.
That most "shinners" are incapable of debating is a popular myth spread by those who fear the rise of SF and are too closed minded to debate with them.
That most ppl who vote SF are poor debaters might be more accurate but that might have more to do with disadvantaged areas and unequal education oppurtunities. Though the arguement of indoctrination is one I agree with, it is very true that that gate swings both ways.

PPS Bonkey, it was only your use of the present tense that caused that misunderstanding.

gdiddy361

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Why were the army there in the first place? Was it not to take over after the shutting down of the B-specials? Why were the B-specials around? To fight againts the IRA actions, right? Of course after that totally stupid slaughter (yes the Brits were wrong for bloody sunday) the splinter groups of the IRA increased in membership. That's whats called a cycle of violence. I may be wrong but the British army were well received by the caths in NI because of the way they were treated by the B-specials. If there hadn't had been a need for the B-specials then the army would have never have been in NI and Bloody Sunday would have never happened. It's not as if the brits decided one fine day to go to NI to kill people. The British army of course paid for their violence with IRA bombings, who of course then paid for their violence with killings and bombings, and then you return to step 1 and keep killing. Not, I think, a successful strategy to nation building.Civil disobedience tells gerrymandering to go take a jump of a cliff because it has little to do with voting. You shut down the goverment you are targeting until it's incapable of functioning - just like happened in Ukraine a while back. If you have the support of the people then you have a chance at changing their ways. I don't think the IRA were set up to protect anyone, their violence more then likely just made it harder on Caths living in NI because of course Protestants would then want to retaliate.Tell that to India.So the IRA never bombed British troops in NI (it is not yet part of the Irish state)? The IRA never bombed anywhere in Great Britain?

It is documented that after 1969 when Loyalists attacked/were attacking Catholics the Army and the RUC did nothing to help the Catholics. I agree wholeheartedly with you that violence was not the way to solve things. However, I think that you need to be more open-minded to the atmosphere of the time. I don't think there was ever a possibility that non-violence was to be used. Everything about NI at the time indicated that violence was to be used. It is a sad, sad cycle. However, it seems to me that you are all to willing to demonise the IRA when perhaps the British Army should be the one to share the most blame. The Army was supposed to be upholding the law, however they weren't. I mean the IRA were the "terrorists," thus you can't really expect justice from them (in the views of the British).

gdiddy361

Sleepy wrote:

I'm not looking down on IRISHLILY24, just proving how naieve and ill-informed his/her views are.


Fair point, so you agree that McCabe's killers were acting on their own behalf and thus exempted from early release under the GFA then?


That's the most childish argument you've made yet: "Sir, sir, she did it too!". Come on, gdiddy, you've been making lucid (if ill-conceived in my view) arguments so far, don't drop to the level of the playground.


Shoot-to-kill is the only policy you can adopt against a terrorist organisation that does the same to you. As I've already pointed out in this thread: it's not as if the IRA were shooting-to-tickle.

I agree that McCabe's killers should not be released, but I also think that Ahern has a point when he states that the early release could help the peace process, which obviously needs helping. Of course the IRA were shooting to kill. When I mentioned shoot-to-kill, I was mainly referring to Gibraltar. I know that the "she did it too" argument is not strong or valid, however, there IS something to be said against the murder of three unarmed civilians, even if they WERE part of a terrorist organization....

growler

OfflerCrocGod says that the IRA were not justified in engaging the forces of occupation as a real military foe with terrorist tactics, however the British were willing to shoot on sight ( as though in a typical miltiary engagement) without acknowlement of the IRA's right to act and fight as a legitimate reaction to occupation. If the IRA were criminals, then they should have been dealt with as such by the english , but they weren't, they were engaged as though they were a legitimate foreign enemy. The rules of war should not be so open to (biased) interpretation by the the vested interests.

No one, on either side of this argument, should be proud of some of the attrocities commited in the name of Eire, God , or The Queen, but I cannot but feel that the moral high-ground was with the IRA when they decided that an armed reponse was the only way to demonstrate depth of the grievances of the nationalist community of the north.