Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They were murdered in terrorist attacks.

No stats then, plucked from your mighty cranium.

laoch na mona wrote: »

like the dublin and monaghan bombs?

Can you name a war where civilians aren't killed.........

laoch na mona wrote: »

no but you keep condemning republicans when unionists and army and the police and the b specials did the same lets move one

To be honest, I'm interested in this concept of Economic Warfare. It seems to be a way kids can justify idolising a terrorist organisation.

Writing off an attack on a restaurant, a shopping centre or a pub as economic warfare is simply trying to justify cold blooded murder, just as claiming the Dublin or Monaghan bombs were economic.

snafuk35 wrote: »

What happened in Northern Ireland is the sectarian and political conflict was created by sociopathic personalities at every level of authority on both sides who got off on power and manipulation. They sowed hatred in the hearts of impressionable young people and drove them against each other. The vast majority of ordinary people were waiting for which way the wind blew while keeping the head down and waiting until it had to end.

What says it all is how many innocent Catholics and members of the IRA were killed by the IRA itself and how few IRA members the UVF and other loyalist groups actually killed instead of the vast majority of innocent Catholic victims they did kill. The UVF killed more their members before you start counting the numbers of IRA members they killed.

The numbers of innocent Catholics killed by the British security forces shows how they came to either equate them with the IRA or that killing them would embarrass the IRA into action.

You basically had sociopaths in the IRA, sociopaths in the loyalist community and sociopaths in London involved in a Mexican stand off.

The ordinary people of Northern Ireland payed the price.

And for what? The egos of self-seeking power mad retards on all sides.

The conflict only ended not because right won out in the end but because it was politically expedient.

In one fell swoop you have managed to airbrush from history one of the two main belligerent's in the conflict, the British army and its allies, who suffered over 1,100 casulties.

trendyvicar wrote: »

Saying something doesn't make it true. Saying something repeatedly (as all Irish Nationalists repeatedly do) still doesn't make it true.

Its not just me saying it. 'Brigadier' David Millar 'OBE' stated if he sacked members of the UDR because they were loyalist paramilitaries he would be left without a regiment.

Fiatach wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What stats are you looking for? Are you trying to claim that Irish Terrorists didn't kill civilians?

The legitimate army of Ireland did kill civilians in some bombing raids which had gone wrong. They let of tens of thousands of bombs usually giving warnings to clear the area of civilians to inflict damage to infrastructure and economic assets. Civilians were not the targets or there would have been no warnings.

Ah yes - that old chestnut......and of course you'll 100% accept that the authorities deliberately ignored the warnings to make the IRA look bad, while ignoring the strong possibility that the warnings were deliberately confusing in order to make the authorities look bad.

BTW, the "legitimate army of Ireland" hasn't ever - to my knowledge - bombed anyone.

FACT : no bombs in civilian areas = no murders of Irish people.

No-one's responsibility other than the low-lifes that planned and planted the bomb.

Fiatach wrote: »

The legitimate army of Ireland did kill civilians in some bombing raids which had gone wrong. They let of tens of thousands of bombs usually giving warnings to clear the area of civilians to inflict damage to infrastructure and economic assets. Civilians were not the targets or there would have been no warnings.

Yep, as I thought, you will make absolutely any tenuous claim to try and justify a terrorist attack.

Was the IRA at war with Argos? What about Marks and Spencer? What was the economic damage caused by shooting dead Ross McWhirter on his doorstep, or throwing a bomb into a west end restaurant?

Did the UK's economy suddenly nose dive when bombs were planted in Birmingham pubs, or in a Belfast bus station?

These were pure acts of terrorism.

The Republican campaign was justifiable, in the sense that Civil rights were clearly not going to be given willingly by either the British Government, or some members of the Unionist tradition. I rather suspect that, without the example shown by these "leaders", peace would have been achieved in the North decades earlier.
At the end of the day, the vast majority of people of both political persuasions, voted for peace when given the opportunity.

Those "leaders", have a great deal of blood on their hands, imo.

However, much of what occurred was entirely unjustifiable. The Omagh bombing, to cite just one instance, was absolutely appalling.

However, if a balanced, and honest view of the atrocities in Northern Ireland is ever to be achieved - then people of both persuasions need to be prepared to admit the wrongs committed by both sides.
There was collusion by the security forces with Loyalist paramilitaries - and anyone who is genuinely interested in the truth should not only admit it - but openly condemn it.

I can freely admit that some of the things done in the name of Irish freedom were appalling - yet, I don't see that same readiness to admit wrongdoing from certain "Loyalist" contributors to this forum. The atrocities committed by British forces on Irish soil, which were countless, are dismissed as "800 years - yada, yada."

It probably makes it a great deal easier to justify the Loyalist paramilitary organisations atrocities, but it certainly does not indicate any desire to understand how the conflict occurred.
"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it," (George Santayana, Reason in Common Sense.)