...and in the darkness bind them

Sleepy · 15-12-2004 11:36am

/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\

/me misses the rep system

growler · 15-12-2004 4:21pm

Sleepy, I'm still a bit puzzeled about the cornerstone of many of your arguments, ie legality and criminality. You constantly refer to the the right of the British to deal with criminals in accordance with the law, you kill someone = you are a murderer. But surely you must understand that many the laws are not necessarily there to benefit all., and when the law is seen to be biased, corrupt and blatantly one sided then respect for the law won't last too long. Slavery was legal, but surely that does not mean that a slave was not morally justified in rebelling, with violence commensurate with the suffering they endured, against their oppressors, were the French resistance stupid to die fighting the Nazis, or sympathetic germans wrong to help Jews escape the "legal" dictats of Hitler ? Or are you such a committed pacifist that you can see no justification for violence in any situation?

Successive British Goverments were only interested in preserving the lasst vestiges of there once great and bloody empire, they had no qualms in twisting the law to their side, their use of internment, super grass evidence, etc etc were perversions of the principles of natural justice. Even the pseudo democracy of the north was designed to preserve the power and status of the unionists through fixing of constituency borders etc.

Now I don't disagree that the IRA broke the law of the land , but in a situation where the law is grossly unjust why would they respect these laws. Justice must be seen to be done, vested military and political forces ensured that there could be not justice or parity for the Catholic minority in the North within the law. If the State ( albeit one considered a foreign occupying power) neglects the rights of it's citizens then those citizens surely have a right, if not an obligation, to seek to change the State ? Again, the 1916 rising was illegal, was it also stupid ? Is there no place in your logic for national pride , self detemination, freedom and equality ?

Finally on Bobby Sands, unlike yourself I cannot detach myself from the emotions I felt watching those events unfold, it made my blood boil then and I still find the sight of Margaret Thatcher raising my blood pressure. I cannot help but admire anyone with the courage to die for their convictions, the strenght of his convictions gave many others , world wide, the moral justification to support or join SF or the IRA.

Sleepy · 15-12-2004 5:11pm

growler wrote:

Sleepy, I'm still a bit puzzeled about the cornerstone of many of your arguments, ie legality and criminality. You constantly refer to the the right of the British to deal with criminals in accordance with the law, you kill someone = you are a murderer. But surely you must understand that many the laws are not necessarily there to benefit all., and when the law is seen to be biased, corrupt and blatantly one sided then respect for the law won't last too long. Slavery was legal, but surely that does not mean that a slave was not morally justified in rebelling, with violence commensurate with the suffering they endured, against their oppressors, were the French resistance stupid to die fighting the Nazis, or sympathetic germans wrong to help Jews escape the "legal" dictats of Hitler ? Or are you such a committed pacifist that you can see no justification for violence in any situation

Violence directed at the exact source of the injustice can in rare circumstances be morally acceptable. You cannot compare the IRA to Allied Forces of WW2, this has been dealt with at length in this thread and I think it has been made perfectly clear why that is fact. The IRA declared themselves government of the entire island of Ireland with no valid mandate to do so and started a campaign of bombing, vigilantism and murder. I fail to see how anyone can support this.

Successive British Goverments were only interested in preserving the lasst vestiges of there once great and bloody empire, they had no qualms in twisting the law to their side, their use of internment, super grass evidence, etc etc were perversions of the principles of natural justice. Even the pseudo democracy of the north was designed to preserve the power and status of the unionists through fixing of constituency borders etc.

What's wrong with using "Super Grass" evidence? It's been an extremely effective means of tackling the Mafia in the States and I fail to see how it impunes on anyone's civil rights. Internment was an injustice but far less so than the repeated killing of innocents on both sides.

Now I don't disagree that the IRA broke the law of the land , but in a situation where the law is grossly unjust why would they respect these laws.

Because two wrongs don't make a right. If a law is unjust, you change it using the courts and mechanisms of democracy, not with an armalite or semtex.

Justice must be seen to be done, vested military and political forces ensured that there could be not justice or parity for the Catholic minority in the North within the law. If the State ( albeit one considered a foreign occupying power) neglects the rights of it's citizens then those citizens surely have a right, if not an obligation, to seek to change the State ? Again, the 1916 rising was illegal, was it also stupid ? Is there no place in your logic for national pride , self detemination, freedom and equality ?

What kind of justice do you refer to? The kind that loses people their kneecaps? It could very easily be argued that 1916 was stupid in that it was a suicide mission from the outset. Collins himself was on record as regarding it as a waste of life.

National pride I have very little time for outside the arena of sport to be honest. It typically leads to bloodshed over stupid notions of "dying for the glory of the flag" (not just in the north, the US, China, Japan, Russia, Britain and numerous other countries have all been to blame in this respect at some stage or other.

Finally on Bobby Sands, unlike yourself I cannot detach myself from the emotions I felt watching those events unfold, it made my blood boil then and I still find the sight of Margaret Thatcher raising my blood pressure. I cannot help but admire anyone with the courage to die for their convictions, the strenght of his convictions gave many others, world wide, the moral justification to support or join SF or the IRA.

Maybe you should learn to detach yourself from the emotions? An emotive mind rarely finds the solution to any problem as that emotion clouds one's logic, perception and reason. I fail to see, however, how one man killing himself gives anyone the moral justification to do anything. That may be because I'm atheist and haven't been raised as part of a death cult masquerading as a religeon and so am less susceptible to the "glory" of martyrdom. You only have one life and it's very short. Dying for a flag, a religeon or hatred seem very stupid to me.

FTA69 · 16-12-2004 6:30pm

Sleepy wrote:

I distinguish between the IRA and the Provisional IRA because they are two distinctly different organisations. The former had a genuine mandate as after the martyrdom of 1916, the vast majority of the country were supportive of their actions. This cannot be said to be true of the Provos. The IRA never targeted civilians (and indeed much outrage was caused when Jim Sheridan used a car bomb in his movie depicting this era: Michael Collins), again this cannot be said to be true of the Provos. I'm sure you'll argue that the civilians were never the primary target, but the fact remains that to the Provos these were acceptable "colatteral damage". Again, I'm sure you'll highlight the example of the original Bloody Sunday to show that the British weren't above killing civilians in the past. To that I'll counter with a question: would the Allies have been acting within reason if they'd set up concentration camps for captured Nazis purely because the Nazis had used them in the past?

Again, I'll restate my belief that dying for the symbolism inherrant in a uniform in a prison is a silly, needless way to die. I know Sands has helped the Republican movement far more in death than in life by giving ye a poster boy akin to Ché Guevara but I still feel he was stupid to kill himself in this way. Not once have I questioned his bravery, but again I'll restate bravery != intelligence.

Am I to assume from your own membership of Sinn Fein as opposed to the IRA that you see "more educated policy on the political scenario in Ireland" to be the peaceful, political route? If so, we're completely in agreement and that's what I meant by they "quit": they lay down their arms and become law-abiding citizens working within the constraints of democracy to achieve their goals.

Regards IRA continuity (bad choice of words I acknowledge), you stated the reason the IRA cannot be considered an army today is because they "did not wear a uniform" and do not abide by the Geneva convention in its entirity, if your same standards are applied to the IRA of the 20s then surely Óglaigh na hÉireann back then were "not an army"? The IRA was also an "illegal" (as stated by international law) organisation back then, were they a "crime gang"? I notice you ignored these questions in your response. You mentioned nothing about the 1918 Dáil earlier on in the thread. You make a fair point about the IRA then having the support of the vast majority of the Irish people but neglect to mention that the incident which spawned that (the 1916 Rising), had absolutely no support or mandate whatsoever? Were Pádraig Pearse and James Connolly "criminals" or "terrorists" for undertaking "illegal" actions with no support?

Regards the different IRA campaigns, like many others I encounter you seem to be in the habit of sanitising the War of Independence, make no mistake, it was a dirty affair as are all wars in which people are killed. In Cork the houses of Loyalists were burned in response to reprisals, in the same county a 70 year old woman was shot in the head and left in a laneway with a "spies and informers beware" placard. During Bloody Sunday an innocent man was riddled in his bed by Volunteers mistaking him for a G man. IRA Volunteers frequently used dum-dum bullets that shattered and sometimes amputated limbs, these were banned by the Hague convention but yet you do not label these men "criminals" as you do the people who fought using similar methods and for the same goals. When civilians die in a war it is a tragic thing but to claim the ethos behind it is "illegal" because of civilian death it defies logic.

Regards the Hunger Strike, again, the symbolism behind the 5 Demands is not something to be brushed off as insignificant. I outlined above how the right to be recognised as politically-motivated is self-evident for Irish Republicans but if needs be that right will be defended by any means necessary. Was Terence McSweeney a fool? When O'Donovan Rossa spent 4 years in a cell covered in excrement was he gullible? On a previous post you state that the majority of Irish people were against the 5 Demands, this is blatantly untrue. While most are opposed to the IRA it does not mean they vew them as criminals, the general consensus of Fianna Fáil (Ireland's largest party) and the population in general was that the Strikers were correct in their demands. Bobby Sands was elected as an MP, Paddy Agnew and Kieran Doherty as TDs as well as the 100,000 people who attended Sands' funeral. They were far from isolated.

My membership of Sinn Féin is not because I disapprove of the IRA, I by no means look down on that organisation or the people in it.

Sleepy · 17-12-2004 9:46pm

Yes, the IRA of the 20's was an illegal organisation but they had the moral right to conduct their actions as they represented the majority view and at the time their attempts to achieve self-determination peaceably (the 1918 Dáil) weren't in any way successful. I'm well aware that the war of independance had it's share of cock-ups where innocents were killed but the death-toll would have been nothing like the amount of innocents killed by the provos. The provos have never had the mandate to conduct any kind of war. I've already conceeded that their initial defenderist actions were morally acceptable, however, I feel that once they became the hit and run aggressors that killed practically indiscriminately, set up their kangaroo courts and began to administer "justice" they lost their moral credibility. For 30 years the people (both unionist and republican) of Northern Ireland suffered at the hands of the IRA. Whether they were just innocents who were maimed or killed by explosions, families who lost loved ones or even the unsanctioned drug dealers who were kneecapped instead of being given a proper trial in a courtroom.

Do you honestly feel that the IRA were morally right to carry out their campaign when the vast majority of northerners (including large swathes of the republican community) wanted it ended?

Do you honestly feel that there was enough of an effort to avoid civilian casualties?

Do you honestly feel that the IRA had the moral right to become a vigilante group?

and finally: do you honestly feel that the north is a better place because of the actions of the provisionals?

FTA69 · 18-12-2004 12:43am

Those in 1916 also had absolutely no mandate from anyone and had even less support in the country than the Provisional IRA had in 1969. Were they "criminals"? You can state that the subsequent elections approved their actions but the fact remains at the time they did not and to be honest, they wouldn't have cared less what the majority thought. Most were members of the IRB for years, an armed organisation with similar amounts of support to that of the IRA today. You support unilateral action back then to free Ireland, why not support it now?

The subject of "mandates" is a tricky one and is by no means simplistic. True, there was no all-Ireland election granting the IRA a mandate, but there was no election disapproving it either. What constitutes a mandate in the first place? The IRA had the broad support of the people in many areas, people who were fed up with British soldiers in Belfast and heroin dealers in Dublin. I believe that when people are subject to a repressive military occupation they are entitled to resist that oppression by any means at their disposal and if that means taking up a gun and shooting the British soliders who are running down toddlers in armoured cars or interning people without trial then so be it. People have a right to self defense, including armed struggle if no other recourse is available, and judging by the military force with which the brits came down in this country, there was little other recourse.

Now, to answer your questions;

1) Was the IRA right to carry out their campaign considering a majority of northerners opposed it?

Much of what I said above answers this question but I will say that owing to the gerrymandered nature of the 6 County state a pre-selected majority existed because of the dictat of a foreign government. What an artificial minority who want to maintain an apartheid state that is exclusive to them think is irrelavant to most people, ie northern nationalists and southerners too.

2) Was there enough of an effort to avoid civilian casualties?

In nearly all operations yes there was, look at the statistics, the IRA carried out tens of thousands of bombings against infrastructural and economic targets yet the civilian death toll is relatively small. It is the mistakes that were made that are remembered by people though, and rightly so, civilian deaths are an awful and tragic occurence of a war, but it is not a pragmatic position to abandon a war for liberation because of it.

3) Has the IRA a right to become a vigilante group?

Again yes, make no mistake, IRA Volunteers take no pleasure in undertaking these actions, "us maiming our own people is ****in' terrible, there must be another way" is one memorable quote I have. However, you must understand the circumstances in which these incidents occur. In working class estates nationwide (and especially in the north) old people are routinely beaten and mugged by a young army of addicts who are being supplied by oppurtunists getting rich from the misery of their own people. People are vandalising property and stealing cars which often end up mowing down toddlers playing in the street. You are no fool and thus do not need me to tell you this. These people are often encouraged both at major and street level in their activities by police forces north and south of the border who run them as informers. Irish policing is usually centred around the policitcal interests of the respective states, and not about the protection of people, there is a massive difference. What feasable recourse do working class people have in this situation? Ring the police and report thugs to their employers? Or go to the people who they hope will sort the problem out? The IRA, faced with assaulted and desperate communties have little choice but to act in the peoples' defense.

4) Is the North a better place because of the provos?

Again yes, all previous agreements etc were undertaken as a counter-insurgency measure with the hope of undermining and isolating Republicans and the people we represent. It was the IRA campaign that stipulated the inclusion of all communities in a process based on equality and reconciliation, it also prevented an internal "British" settlement which would have undoubtedly failed to address the real grievances of Irish people.

Sleepy · 18-12-2004 5:33pm

FTA69 wrote:

Those in 1916 also had absolutely no mandate from anyone and had even less support in the country than the Provisional IRA had in 1969. Were they "criminals"? You can state that the subsequent elections approved their actions but the fact remains at the time they did not and to be honest, they wouldn't have cared less what the majority thought. Most were members of the IRB for years, an armed organisation with similar amounts of support to that of the IRA today. You support unilateral action back then to free Ireland, why not support it now?

I think you over-estimate support for the provisional thugs in this country in the present day if you equate their current levels of support to that of Pearse et al of 1916.

The subject of "mandates" is a tricky one and is by no means simplistic. True, there was no all-Ireland election granting the IRA a mandate, but there was no election disapproving it either. What constitutes a mandate in the first place? The IRA had the broad support of the people in many areas, people who were fed up with British soldiers in Belfast and heroin dealers in Dublin. I believe that when people are subject to a repressive military occupation they are entitled to resist that oppression by any means at their disposal and if that means taking up a gun and shooting the British soliders who are running down toddlers in armoured cars or interning people without trial then so be it. People have a right to self defense, including armed struggle if no other recourse is available, and judging by the military force with which the brits came down in this country, there was little other recourse.

Again, I think you over-estimate the support for the IRA outside of republican estates in the north. Would you not agree that the military force which the British applied was for the most part a response to the IRA's actions? This would have been the view taken by many in the north who called time and time again for cease-fires as they were sick of having their family members killed in IRA and UVF car bombs.

Now, to answer your questions;

1) Was the IRA right to carry out their campaign considering a majority of northerners opposed it?

Much of what I said above answers this question but I will say that owing to the gerrymandered nature of the 6 County state a pre-selected majority existed because of the dictat of a foreign government. What an artificial minority who want to maintain an apartheid state that is exclusive to them think is irrelavant to most people, ie northern nationalists and southerners too.

I was referring to the valid majority in the country, both catholic and protestant. The vast majority of northeners were always against the violence of the sectarian groups.

2) Was there enough of an effort to avoid civilian casualties?

In nearly all operations yes there was, look at the statistics, the IRA carried out tens of thousands of bombings against infrastructural and economic targets yet the civilian death toll is relatively small. It is the mistakes that were made that are remembered by people though, and rightly so, civilian deaths are an awful and tragic occurence of a war, but it is not a pragmatic position to abandon a war for liberation because of it.

A valid effort to avoid civilian casualties would have been a campaign entirely directed at legitimate military targets. Attacks on army barracks, control towers etc. while I disagreed with them, were understandable. Blowing up shopping centres I can't accept as legitimate military action as it places too many civilians at risk for a non-military target.

3) Has the IRA a right to become a vigilante group?

Again yes, make no mistake, IRA Volunteers take no pleasure in undertaking these actions, "us maiming our own people is ****in' terrible, there must be another way" is one memorable quote I have. However, you must understand the circumstances in which these incidents occur. In working class estates nationwide (and especially in the north) old people are routinely beaten and mugged by a young army of addicts who are being supplied by oppurtunists getting rich from the misery of their own people. People are vandalising property and stealing cars which often end up mowing down toddlers playing in the street. You are no fool and thus do not need me to tell you this. These people are often encouraged both at major and street level in their activities by police forces north and south of the border who run them as informers. Irish policing is usually centred around the policitcal interests of the respective states, and not about the protection of people, there is a massive difference. What feasable recourse do working class people have in this situation? Ring the police and report thugs to their employers? Or go to the people who they hope will sort the problem out? The IRA, faced with assaulted and desperate communties have little choice but to act in the peoples' defense.

Who gave the IRA the right to become judge, jury and executioner? Did God himself have a word in Gerry's ear and tell him it was okay? I can understand why criminals might like the IRA to be their police force (given that they paid "taxes" to them) and the police are unlikely to be sympathetic if stolen goods go missing, however I find your argument that the petty thugs and drug dealers were the employees of the police forces to be completely farcical. Would you also try to claim that the IRA didn't use criminals to their own advantage? How can you denigrate the valid police forces of the country for something your organisation had down to a fine art and then claim that the IRA made a more legitimate police force? You can't. The IRA had no mandate, right or legitimacy in their vigilantism.

4) Is the North a better place because of the provos?

Again yes, all previous agreements etc were undertaken as a counter-insurgency measure with the hope of undermining and isolating Republicans and the people we represent. It was the IRA campaign that stipulated the inclusion of all communities in a process based on equality and reconciliation, it also prevented an internal "British" settlement which would have undoubtedly failed to address the real grievances of Irish people.

So, by killing a few thousand people you think the IRA helped the country? :rolleyes: Peaceable action or peaceful civil disobedience would have gotten the republican movement far further than their policies of death and destruction.

pork99 · 18-12-2004 6:14pm

Sleepy wrote:

A valid effort to avoid civilian casualties would have been a campaign entirely directed at legitimate military targets. Attacks on army barracks, control towers etc. while I disagreed with them, were understandable. Blowing up shopping centres I can't accept as legitimate military action as it places too many civilians at risk for a non-military target.

Shopping centres are a nice low-risk target. By the end of the "war" the whole point of IRA terrorism was to get attention and make a political point not to achieve "military" goals. That's why Canary Wharf, Heathrow Airport and 10 Downing St were such tempting targets.

The IRA could carry out successful attacks on the British army, eg Warrenpoint in 1979, pulling it off the next time was the problem. As the British Army and RUC gained experience in counter-terrorism attacking security force targets became a game of diminishing returns and riskier and riskier, eg the attack on the RUC station in Loughgall in 1986 (1987?).

Despite what they said at the time about only having to be lucky once, this meant that the IRA had to get luckier and luckier all the time. The "getting lucky once" was becoming harder to pull off. Attacking civilian targets could be justified as economic warfare and was easier but the risk of "collateral damage" conflicted with Sinn Fein's burgeoning political ambitions.

Just my impression of what was happening - can't prove it or anything

FTA69 · 18-12-2004 9:47pm

Sleepy wrote:

I think you over-estimate support for the provisional thugs in this country in the present day if you equate their current levels of support to that of Pearse et al of 1916.

Again, I think you over-estimate the support for the IRA outside of republican estates in the north. Would you not agree that the military force which the British applied was for the most part a response to the IRA's actions? This would have been the view taken by many in the north who called time and time again for cease-fires as they were sick of having their family members killed in IRA and UVF car bombs.

A valid effort to avoid civilian casualties would have been a campaign entirely directed at legitimate military targets. Attacks on army barracks, control towers etc. while I disagreed with them, were understandable. Blowing up shopping centres I can't accept as legitimate military action as it places too many civilians at risk for a non-military target.

Who gave the IRA the right to become judge, jury and executioner? Did God himself have a word in Gerry's ear and tell him it was okay? I can understand why criminals might like the IRA to be their police force (given that they paid "taxes" to them) and the police are unlikely to be sympathetic if stolen goods go missing, however I find your argument that the petty thugs and drug dealers were the employees of the police forces to be completely farcical. Would you also try to claim that the IRA didn't use criminals to their own advantage? How can you denigrate the valid police forces of the country for something your organisation had down to a fine art and then claim that the IRA made a more legitimate police force? You can't. The IRA had no mandate, right or legitimacy in their vigilantism.

So, by killing a few thousand people you think the IRA helped the country? :rolleyes: Peaceable action or peaceful civil disobedience would have gotten the republican movement far further than their policies of death and destruction.

I don't think I underestimate the support for Republicans at all Sleepy, I feel you are when you make comments like "1-2% support" (said on a different thread). When Pearse undertook the Rising in 1916 Republicans had very little support in the country, they did however, recieve support after the executions of Rising leaders.

Regards the war, I notice you include IRA and UVF casualties but ignore those who were killed by the RUC and the British Army, why? The British Army prescence was and is not a case of keeping the mad warring paddies apart, they are maintaining order in a colony that became troublesome. Remember, the British Army were in this country in 1969, a time when the Provisional IRA campaign had not even got off the ground. They came to this country under the pretext of "protecting nationalists" but they then sought to suppress the community making trouble by demanding civili rights and whipping up protests, the Nationalist community. Your phrase should be reversed to say the IRA campaign was response to British Army, RUC and Loyalist provocation.

I don't think it is pragmatic to say that a valid campaign would consist solely of attacks on military targets. To be blunt, the IRA can shoot working class soldiers in Ireland until the cows come home but that will not put much pressure on the British establishment at all. It is only when bombs start to run up massive insurance bills that keeps Ireland in the news. When economic targets are attacked that inevitably places civilians at risk, the IRA are the first to admit that, but the war cannot cease because of that.

Regards punishment activity, first of all I will say that it is impossible to answer many of your points considering they are complete misconceptions. The IRA do not routinely "tax" criminals at all, criminals are terrified of the IRA and with good reason too. They are not afraid of "taxation" they were afraid of a bullet in the head, how was PJ Judge "taxed" may I ask? The IRA are an anti-drugs organisation who are against anti-social behaviour. You can term my points about paid informers "farcical" all you want but it won't undermine the fact that this is a reality in many working class estates, north and south. I think that we can all agree that both police forces in this country consider Republicans to be the number one target considering they oppose the political positions of both states in Ireland. Thus when the guards catch criminals in a compromising position they are often pressured into becoming informers on Republicans or other criminals, in other case criminals are simply bribed or payed for information. They are then let loose back into the community to peddle their filth at the expense of working-class children ie Declan Griffin in Dublin and Cricky O'Kane in Belfast.

I will be the first to admit that IRA policing is not ideal but it is far better than no policing in my opinion, until there is a decent police force accountale to the people instead of serving political interests these activities will continue, if not by the IRA, it will be the INLA, RIRA or simply agrieved individuals. Like it or not, that's the scenario at hand at that's the way it will stay unless changes are made.

Regards the IRA campaign, to sum it up as "killing a few people" is overly simplistic and it naively ignores the political effects of the campaign on a political problem. The war that was fought in this country ensured that things would never go back to the way they were, it ensured that there would be no "internal solution" and it created a scenario where all parties were treated reasonably equally. This was a far cry from the counter-insurgency measures taken in the past which were not preoccupied with peace, rather the defeat of the IRA. I would have obviously preffered if civil disobedience would have worked but incidents such as Bloody Sunday underlined the futility of placards and leaflets. It was British repression that drove people into the IRA and thus elevated the conflict, if the brits had taken a different approach in 1969 things may well have been different.

spongebob · 18-12-2004 10:19pm

FTA69 wrote:

I would have obviously preferred if civil disobedience would have worked but incidents such as Bloody Sunday underlined the futility of placards and leaflets. It was British repression that drove people into the IRA and thus elevated the conflict, if the brits had taken a different approach in 1969 things may well have been different.

FTA is by far the most literate of our 'recent influx'

. That part of his analysis is absolutely correct .

Whether the analysis is applicable any longer , especially post Thatcher ....the last 14 years.... is another matter of course . I feel it is not and that normal politics is now the only game in town . I am now extremely annoyed at the foot dragging and guff coming out of SF HQ.

Its over, it should never have happened of course but it s over.

Now say that as clearly as you explained how it all came about. Please !

M

Alex27 · 19-12-2004 1:13am

These people are often encouraged both at major and street level in their activities by police forces north and south of the border who run them as informers.

No paramilitaries = no need for informers.

Want to keep drugs off the streets, join police force.

FTA69 · 19-12-2004 1:22am

Well Alex the only way to end the existence of paramilitary groups and guerilla armies is to address the political climate which has created them. It seems to me that many here hold the naieve and simplistic notion that peace will suddenly develop simply owing to the absence of the IRA campaign. The IRA is not the only party to this conflict and that should always be kept in mind.

In the mean time though, I don't see how licensing heroin dealers to poison our communties can simply be dismissed in some sort of word equation.

FTA69 · 19-12-2004 1:25am

Muck wrote:

Whether the analysis is applicable any longer , especially post Thatcher ....the last 14 years.... is another matter of course . I feel it is not and that normal politics is now the only game in town . I am now extremely annoyed at the foot dragging and guff coming out of SF HQ.

Its over, it should never have happened of course but it s over.

Now say that as clearly as you explained how it all came about. Please !

M

I have mixed feelings about the Good Friday Agreement myself but what transcends that doubt is my solid belief that armed struggle is no longer a legitimate tactic in the present circumstances. However, that having been said, there is no doubting the sacrifices and effort the Republican Movement has put into this process.

spongebob · 19-12-2004 1:33am

Well put but can we hear "Its Over" .....its more reassuring.

TIA

M

FTA69 · 19-12-2004 1:39am

I have no intention of letting you dictate my posts Muck.

spongebob · 19-12-2004 2:53am

Rather than trouble us with an elegant construct then simply say "Its Not Over "

How's that for an offer

M

pork99 · 19-12-2004 1:29pm

FTA69 wrote:

The war that was fought in this country ensured that things would never go back to the way they were, it ensured that there would be no "internal solution" and it created a scenario where all parties were treated reasonably equally. This was a far cry from the counter-insurgency measures taken in the past which were not preoccupied with peace, rather the defeat of the IRA. I would have obviously preffered if civil disobedience would have worked but incidents such as Bloody Sunday underlined the futility of placards and leaflets. It was British repression that drove people into the IRA and thus elevated the conflict, if the brits had taken a different approach in 1969 things may well have been different.

Really? Spot the difference:

Sunningdale 1973

Sunningdale for slow learners 1998

"British repression"? - It was Loyalist terrorists who destroyed the Sunningdale agreement. The British government was promoting it. Or am I reading the wrong history books?

I believe the foundations of a solution were there in 1973. There's two sides to the reasons for its failure On the Loyalist side there was a mind-set, which still exists, that found dealing with "Taigs" (or anyone else for that matter) on an equal basis deeply revolting. Despite the fact that the government to which they are nominally loyal has/had no problems doing just that. Unfortunately it has taken 3 decades of grief to even begin to change that.

But there were faults on the other side; in the late 60s/early 70s what influenced Republicans in deciding their strategy for the "armed struggle"? They looked around the world and saw anti-imperialist insurrectionary movements everywhere, the PLO, the Vietnamese communists, the Cuban revolution, the wars of independence against the Portugese in Angola and Mozambique, the struggles against the rascist regimes in Rhodesia and South Africa. For young idealists joining the Republican movement I think it was very appealing to see themselves as part of this global struggle of liberation. Bourgeoise democracy - involving people sitting around a table and reaching a compromise (the sort of thing which ultimately solves the problems) - was a feature of capitalist imperialism their revolution was going to sweep away.

Put the clock forward 20 or 30 years and what do you see? The headlines were dominated by struggles which were the result of ancient bitter ethnic hatreds as in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The revolutionary movements in the ascendency in the 1990s were those advocating turning the clock back to the middle ages as in Iran and with the Taliban in Afghanistan. In that context it gets harder to promote "armed struggle" as a progressive idea. Why would anyone in this country support the idea of a 32 county socialist republic when we have North Korea as a horrific preview of what that might be like? It has been a large part of Sinn Fein's achievement of political maturity that they have distanced themselves from all that.

So to get back to the original question; was the IRA justified in carrying out its campaign? Yes - only as a sort of gruesome learning process. But this is nothing to be proud of. If there was any original justification it came out of the retarded state of affairs in Northern Ireland 40 years ago. We've all moved on since then. There has been an improvement in the state of NI but correlation is not causation. I would say that the improvements owe more to the ceasation of the IRA campaign than otherwise. I'd prefer to think that it owes more to John Hume than to the gunmen and bombers on either side.

FTA69 · 19-12-2004 2:55pm

You are failing to grasp the fact that Sunningdale was a brit engineered agreement undertaken as a counter-insurgency measure. It did not seek to include the substantial Republican element in Ireland but sought to isolate them in favour of the SDLP and co. A process built on the exclusion of one party in the conflict could never had succeeded.

The substantial difference between Sunningdale and the GFA is the mindset of those who were participating in those agreements, Unionism remained firmly entrenched in a reactionary position (it still is, but has less leverage) and a war on the part of the brits was still raging against Nationalists. Besides, the extent of British sincerity was summed up in the context of the IRA ceasefire in 1975 where an oppurtunity for conflict resolution was thrown away when the brits simply launched a new political and military offensive against Republicans.

cdebru · 19-12-2004 3:07pm

Muck wrote:

Well put but can we hear "Its Over" .....its more reassuring.

TIA

M

because it is not over in the current political context there is not a need for armed struggle
If britain was to change its stated view that it has no selfish interest in ireland then the situation could change
the british are still in Ireland so it will not definitely be over until they have gone
so to state it is over would be premature unless you were only referring to the recent phase of armed struggle.

before someone jumps in with some nonsense by british Iam refering to the british government and their armed forces
not to the Irish unionists of british descent

spongebob · 19-12-2004 3:59pm

cdebru wrote:

it will not definitely be over until they have gone
so to state it is over would be premature

Fine, so why are Bertie and Blair wasting their time talking to Adams and co and with Paisley and co seeing as its not over ....and can never seem to be over according to Sinn Féin ideology . The governments have been honourable and the prisoners are out .

The next phase of the struggle wll be fought between the Criminal Assets Bureaus and the south armagh banditi , once those greedy gangsters are locked up we can resume politics........maybe

I fail to see why these pig smugglers should hold the country to ransom.

M

cdebru · 19-12-2004 4:35pm

Muck wrote:

Fine, so why are Bertie and Blair wasting their time talking to Adams and co and with Paisley and co seeing as its not over ....and can never seem to be over according to Sinn Féin ideology . The governments have been honourable and the prisoners are out .

The next phase of the struggle wll be fought between the Criminal Assets Bureaus and the south armagh banditi , once those greedy gangsters are locked up we can resume politics........maybe I fail to see why these pig smugglers should hold the country to ransom.

M

where did I mention pig smugglers

if you are determined to misrepresent what i said as some support for pig smuggling there is not much point in talking to you

it can be over when the british government has no longer has any involvment in irish affairs
the reason for the talks is to secure an arrangement which all the people of the 6 counties can accept
the arrangement is not an end in itself it is a step towards an end
As britain has stated that they have no selfish interest in Ireland then there should be no problem with them leaving when the people decide they want them to leave if they change their position at that time or any other time then the need for armed struggle would have to be reviewed

so until they have left armed stuggle can not be ruled out completely
however i would say that the recent phase of armed struggle is over

spongebob · 19-12-2004 4:40pm

cdebru wrote:

As britain has stated that they have no selfish interest in Ireland then there should be no problem with them leaving when the people decide they want them to leave if they change their position at that time or any other time then the need for armed struggle would have to be reviewed

As there s no reason to doubt the British when they say they will gladly walk out of NI (and have signed treates to that effect) can we simply have a clear:

It's Over

oh and stand down the pig (etc) smuggling gangs .

M

cdebru · 19-12-2004 4:45pm

Muck wrote:

As there s no reason to doubt the British when they say they will gladly walk out of NI (and have signed treates to that effect) can we simply have a clear:

It's Over

M

yes as soon as they have left

spongebob · 19-12-2004 5:22pm

Lets deal with the Criminal Assets phase first , then we will see how true some of these greedy ****s are.

M

bonkey · 19-12-2004 11:18pm

cdebru wrote:

yes as soon as they have left

Who, as a matter of interest, are "they"???

Does it include the people who can trace families back hundreds of years (some to even before the English counquered here), but who consider themselves British and/or support the Unionist movement?

Does it exclude those who consider themselves Republicans but who's family history in this contry would be shorter than those mentioned in the previous paragraph?

Does it include or exclude those who have immigrated to Ireland over the past decades, who are neither Republican nor Unionist nor even Irish???

Bluntly put, is "they" anything more than a polite label to describe anyone subscribes to Unionism, and if not, then why on earth should "they" even consider leaving when many of them are as Irish as anyone can claim to be except in political outlook?

One could just as easily say that the troubles in the North would be over whenver the Republicans decide to go home and leave for the 26 counties. After several hundred years, both points of view are as realistically valid whatever about their ideological appeal.

jc

Alex27 · 20-12-2004 12:53am

These people are often encouraged both at major and street level in their activities by police forces north and south of the border who run them as informers.

No paramilitaries = no need for informers.

Want to keep drugs off the streets, join police force.

In the mean time though, I don't see how licensing heroin dealers to poison our communties can simply be dismissed in some sort of word equation.

Are you claming that police actually giving permission almost blessing to drug dealers to sell heroin in communities and will do so even there will be no need for informers?

Do you think that if paramilitary groups (IRA, UDF, etc) dissolve and UK goverment continue to be a civilised in the North still there will be no peace?

Some people are saying that UK gov have to withdraw from NI. How UK goverment are to withdraw from NI, when substancial part of NI population want them to stay put?

Any other factors that have to be addressed for peace to come?

I have mixed feelings about the Good Friday Agreement myself but what transcends that doubt is my solid belief that armed struggle is no longer a legitimate tactic in the present circumstances.

That`s a good news. Then there is no need for paramilitaries. And people can be represented by their respective political parties.

cdebru · 20-12-2004 1:01am

bonkey wrote:

Who, as a matter of interest, are "they"???

Does it include the people who can trace families back hundreds of years (some to even before the English counquered here), but who consider themselves British and/or support the Unionist movement?

Does it exclude those who consider themselves Republicans but who's family history in this contry would be shorter than those mentioned in the previous paragraph?

Does it include or exclude those who have immigrated to Ireland over the past decades, who are neither Republican nor Unionist nor even Irish???

Bluntly put, is "they" anything more than a polite label to describe anyone subscribes to Unionism, and if not, then why on earth should "they" even consider leaving when many of them are as Irish as anyone can claim to be except in political outlook?

One could just as easily say that the troubles in the North would be over whenver the Republicans decide to go home and leave for the 26 counties. After several hundred years, both points of view are as realistically valid whatever about their ideological appeal.

jc

cdebru wrote:

before someone jumps in with some nonsense by british Iam refering to the british government and their armed forces
not to the Irish unionists of british descent

If you had bothered to check back you would have found this in my previous post
which would have saved you typing out a rant about who has a right to live on this Island
and putting questions to which iam sure you already know my views as i have stated them here before

other than that just for the record Northern republicans do not claim to be decendants of any 26 county state nor to have an afinity with the 26 county state their afinity is to a 32 county Ireland
they are Irish because they are from Ireland not because they can trace a bloodline back to the 26 county state
the 26 counties is not their home the 32 counties are their home

nor would I suggest that that britain would be Home for Irish Unionist that may well be were some of them are descended from but that would not be there home Ireland Is their home

Slutmonkey57b · 20-12-2004 2:27pm

cdebru, the Irish people have already told you what they think of the "need" for an armed struggle in the referendum for the GF agreement - they are of the opinion there isn't one. The situation will never have to be reviewed - the people have spoken.

Of course, since republican supporters have no interest in supporting the wishes of the people, I know you won't.

bonkey · 20-12-2004 2:34pm

cdebru wrote:

If you had bothered to check back you would have found this in my previous post which would have saved you typing out a rant about who has a right to live on this Island

Well, see, I did read that. The problem is that I had difficulty believing that this is what you actually meant....that you believe the entire solution is simply for teh British government and their army to leave.

Let me ask you a couple of hypothetical questions...

If the governments of Ireland and the UK were to decide that the best solution was to give Northern Ireland its independance, and did so, would that be good enough for it all to be over? No unification. No chance of unification. A new nation. That would end it?

And If this was good enough for Republicans but not for Unionists, who continued with their campaigns of violence...would it still be over for the Republcians? No retribution? No "defending" their own?

Or if unification did occur, but Unionist groups took up where the Republican's left off and went on their own campaign of terror in the name of achieving the government they wanted....would the IRA stand by and allow the Republican public to be freely attacked because they had achieved what they wanted?

And so on....

You see, I don't believe that any Republican seriously believes that all it takes is for the British government to leave. It takes that, plus a whole lot of other stuff.....most of which generally boils down to "and Ireland is reunited, accompanied either with "and the Unionists accept it" or "and the unionists 'go home'".

jc

Slutmonkey57b · 20-12-2004 2:47pm

To answer the inital post:

1: No the IRA was not justified. At no time did the Irish people state in an election or a referendum, or an act of parliament, that they wanted to have a group of terrorists conduct any kind of campaign. What is depressing as usual about the republican element is the spin they like to put on things - while most posters have agreed that there were good reasons why life in NI was unjust, or dangerous, or repressive, that does not mean that everyone agrees that the IRA was the solution - apart from the IRA themselves of course.

2: No it did not. The IRA might like to style itself a freedom fighter group. The truth is that they planted bombs outside shopping centres to kill small children. They planted bombs to intimidate and terrorise a population that had nothing to do with any repression they were facing. They tarnished the name of Ireland and the Irish for no good reason.

3: No. Peaceful discussion has. The IRA's campaign has only reinforced prejudices on both sides in NI, and outside NI has only served to convince me that NI is a fetid backwater full of unemployable criminal scum. On the other hand they do have broadband. Perhaps SF will try and take credit for that too.

...and in the darkness bind them

Comments