Was the Provisional IRA at any one time larger than the Irish Defence Forces?

paky · 17-06-2010 8:49pm #1

Glenshane Pass · 17-06-2010 10:16pm

No, the PIRA itself wasn't, but if you take into account supporting activists, then yes.

Run_to_da_hills · 17-06-2010 11:23pm

paky wrote: »

Was the Provisional IRA at any one time larger than the Irish Defence Forces?

It was probably more equipped than the defense forces.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 17-06-2010 11:27pm

paky wrote: »

Was the Provisional IRA at any one time larger than the Irish Defence Forces?

I doubt it, but their small size was their strength too - the war of the flea and all that.

Glenshane Pass · 17-06-2010 11:44pm

After Bloody Sunday (Hunger Strikes and Loughgall aswell for example) the ranks swelled, especially in of course Derry and Belfast, with what was a few dozen becoming thousands. Of course the Army was unable to deal both in arming new Volunteers and training them. Had the huge amounts of weapons from Libya and other sources arrived earlier - a more dramatic story would have evolved no doubt.

punchdrunk · 18-06-2010 12:43pm

I've read that the strength of active service units was only in the region of ~500 at any one time

flutered · 18-06-2010 12:51pm

in numbers no.
effectiveness yes.

punchdrunk · 18-06-2010 1:09pm

flutered wrote: »

in numbers no.
effectiveness yes.

not sure what you mean by that?

comparing an organized military organisation to a paramilitary organisation (I'll be kind and not call them terrorists) is a bit apples & oranges don't you think?

the Irish Army were never called into action North of the border by the Irish Government,so how can you call them Ineffective when they were never asked to be involved?

Sebastien De Valmont · 18-06-2010 1:29pm

The IRA had thousands of supporters, political activists, sympathisers and fundraisers.

But the number of people who actually were on active service were only a few hundred.

Few of those people would have had military quality training - tactical training, explosives and small arms.

Some IRA members joined the FCA to get basic military training or the British Army to get both training and to get inside knowledge on how the British conducted operations.

It didn't take much training to shoot someone in the head point blank with a pistol.

The few occasions where the IRA actually tried to fight a battle with the British Army rather than a hit and run attack ended with defeat.

At Loughall, eight IRA men were ambushed by the elite SAS Special Forces and wiped out.

Professional soldiers especially elite soldiers practice firing their weapons regularly and take part in simulated attack and defence exercises.
They learn to dismantle and put their weapons together blind folded.

A soldier is trained to place his shots inside the area of a saucer at a range of several hundred yards, to conserve his ammunition even when under fire and to maintain fire discipline.

Few IRA would have had that training.

The Irish Defence Forces were professional Army, equipped with heavy weapons, crew served weapons and small arms.

The IRA were a rag bag of amateurs.

They were good at shooting off duty members of the security forces and planting stolen cars loaded with homemade fertiliser explosives in the middle of Northern towns but not much more than that.

They never captured any territory or held a town or wiped out any British units.

PeterIanStaker · 18-06-2010 3:29pm

I've read that PIRA Active Service units were often very small, so no. Some "battalions" may have had only a few members.

Delancey · 18-06-2010 4:02pm

Sebastien De Valmont wrote: »

They never captured any territory or held a town or wiped out any British units.

Must tell that to the British Paratroopers killed in the Warrenpoint attack !

Glenshane Pass · 18-06-2010 5:48pm

They never captured any territory or held a town or wiped out any British units.

Derryard, Co. Fermanagh off the top of my head.

delta-boy · 18-06-2010 6:33pm

Sebastian, we can tell from your post that you a anti IRA. But be reasonable and dont deny the facts, of course IRA units could have a stand up fight with security forces. As in, wiping them out.

And by stand-up I dont mean prolonged.

Glenshane Pass · 18-06-2010 6:57pm

They never captured any territory or held a town or wiped out any British units.

Ballygawley also. The Mid-Ulster Command established 'no-go' areas whether the Brits like to admit it or not.
Officers Commanding Jim Lynagh and Seamus McElwaine were advocates of combining brigades and establishing liberated zones in the border counties. Unfortunately he didn't live long enough to experiment fully. His unit also perfected room clearance which could be contrasted with SAS modus operandi.

OS119 · 18-06-2010 7:41pm

Glenshane Pass wrote: »

Ballygawley also. The Mid-Ulster Command established 'no-go' areas whether the Brits like to admit it or not.
Officers Commanding Jim Lynagh and Seamus McElwaine were advocates of combining brigades and establishing liberated zones in the border counties...

i'd not be arguing against the idea that PIRA were a skillfull, inventive and reasonably disiplined force - but i think that those who argue that because they were able to create limited areas where a 'constabulary+' force feared to tread they had 'beaten the British Army on a military level' miss a fundamental point - that PIRA was, in those areas, operating towards the apogee of its military capability while the BA was operating at not far off its lowest level of force projection.

had the BA turned up as an army - with its Warrior AFV's, air support, heavy weapons and similar ROE's to PIRA - then these areas would not by any stretch of the imagination be 'no go areas', except perhaps for PIRA flying collumns...

creating a 'difficult to go' area for a force that was, in effect, armed policemen with helicopter support, is very different to holding an Army that acts like an Army.

i accept of course that there were political reasons that mandated the BA to operate in the way it did - but those who suggest that PIRA could up its ante, and change the political status quo fail to understand that the BA's operations would also change as the status quo changed.

Glenshane Pass · 18-06-2010 7:53pm

OS119 wrote: »

i'd not be arguing against the idea that PIRA were a skillfull, inventive and reasonably disiplined force - but i think that those who argue that because they were able to create limited areas where a 'constabulary+' force feared to tread they had 'beaten the British Army on a military level' miss a fundamental point - that while PIRA was, in those areas, operating towards the apogee of its military capability while the BA was operating at not far off its lowest level of force projection

That was the conflict that was in it. The British Army could not operate as they wanted to in conventional terms. Why? Because it just doesn't work. If they had have done so more, they would have suffered for it.

The RUC, while a constabulary, very rarely operated without the British Army close by, always hand in hand with eachother. Yes, the RUC were afraid to enter some areas, but so was the British Army. Even British soldiers will admit that.

There will always be different defintions of what it is to be a 'soldier' or an 'army', and a large part of people describing the IRA as 'terrorists' comes into it. I could give many instances of inhuman actions carried out by the British Army, which I don't believe lives up to anyones standards of soldierly behaviour. Either way - the IRA is viewed by a large number of people to be a dedicated and courageous organisation and more and more pieces of history and narrative are coming out as we move through a process of reconciliation and conflict resolution.

OS119 · 18-06-2010 8:10pm

sorry, my reply to your post was cut in half - my point was that the BA acted as a manpower reserve to the RUC, and by and large operated as the RUC+, not as an army. the BA's ability to operate as a conventional army wasn't constrained by PIRA, but by politics, and not SF politics.

PIRA didn't really fight an army, it couldn't be said to have beaten or held it - the example that proves this is that for all the success of the South Armagh ASU's, when the BA went for the Cullyhanna Gun Team as an Army, they deployed there, and stayed there - and there was fcuk all PIRA could do about it.

Glenshane Pass · 18-06-2010 10:36pm

OS119 wrote: »

sorry, my reply to your post was cut in half - my point was that the BA acted as a manpower reserve to the RUC, and by and large operated as the RUC+, not as an army. the BA's ability to operate as a conventional army wasn't constrained by PIRA, but by politics, and not SF politics.

PIRA didn't really fight an army, it couldn't be said to have beaten or held it - the example that proves this is that for all the success of the South Armagh ASU's, when the BA went for the Cullyhanna Gun Team as an Army, they deployed there, and stayed there - and there was fcuk all PIRA could do about it.

I just lost a very long post for some reason, damn it.

I would agree with you in regards to certain situations. I believe politics restricted the use of shoot to kill policy such as the awful events at Loughgall and Drumnakilly.

However, I believe that British Army movements in South Armagh and Fermanagh were definitely hampered because of IRA organisation in those areas. Heh, even today the police (armed but not armoured of course) won't go into areas such as Roslea and Lisnaskea for fear of an ambush by very willing militants in those area. With potential IED placements as well as the presence of two sniper teams (which operated for eight years and a bit) I think the decrease of the Brits on the ground replaced with observation towers and other surveillance apparatus is a clear and direct result of asymmetric warfare on the IRA's part. I don't know what you mean when you say 'deployed as an army' in the Armagh sniper capture. As far as I'm concerned the whole deployment was 'as an army' and as such was taken on in a guerrilla fighting fashion with great results.

Manic Moran · 19-06-2010 2:14am

Glenshane Pass wrote: »

I don't know what you mean when you say 'deployed as an army' in the Armagh sniper capture. As far as I'm concerned the whole deployment was 'as an army' and as such was taken on in a guerrilla fighting fashion with great results.

He means that 'no-go' areas weren't really due to the PIRA operations. If the British forces had a pressing need to go anywhere, there was nowhere they couldn't go if they had a mind to, and expect to deal with any opposition which was likely to crop up. The question was if gathering together all the units required was considered a worthy use of them. I have no doubt that if #1 on their Top Ten wanted list was identified anywhere within the boundaries of Northern Ireland, the British could have gone in there to get him. They were places that the British had to be more careful about going, and using more resources, but that they decided it wasn't worth it doesn't mean to say that they were kept out by force of arms.

Perhaps an equivalent could be found in the upper Korengal in Afghanistan. The US doesn't go there and, in fact, has pulled out generally. Perhaps the Taliban will claim that they now have made the Korengal into a no-go area for ISAF, but who cares? There's nothing that the Americans particularly need up there right now, so they're focusing elsewhere. But if Bin Laden were suddenly located in one of the Korengal sub valleys, you know that there will be helicopters showing up in short order regardless of the Taliban's 'no-go' claims.

NTM

PeterIanStaker · 19-06-2010 6:12pm

Slightly off topic, but anyone have an idea of the numerical strength of the "dissidents"? I would imagine numerically very small and not all active all of the time?

paky · 19-06-2010 7:16pm

I would say between 150-300 members of which 40-50 would be hard core activists

danbohan · 19-06-2010 7:23pm

Sebastien De Valmont wrote: »

The IRA had thousands of supporters, political activists, sympathisers and fundraisers.

But the number of people who actually were on active service were only a few hundred.

Few of those people would have had military quality training - tactical training, explosives and small arms.

Some IRA members joined the FCA to get basic military training or the British Army to get both training and to get inside knowledge on how the British conducted operations.

It didn't take much training to shoot someone in the head point blank with a pistol.

The few occasions where the IRA actually tried to fight a battle with the British Army rather than a hit and run attack ended with defeat.

At Loughall, eight IRA men were ambushed by the elite SAS Special Forces and wiped out.

Professional soldiers especially elite soldiers practice firing their weapons regularly and take part in simulated attack and defence exercises.
They learn to dismantle and put their weapons together blind folded.

A soldier is trained to place his shots inside the area of a saucer at a range of several hundred yards, to conserve his ammunition even when under fire and to maintain fire discipline.

Few IRA would have had that training.

The Irish Defence Forces were professional Army, equipped with heavy weapons, crew served weapons and small arms.

The IRA were a rag bag of amateurs.

They were good at shooting off duty members of the security forces and planting stolen cars loaded with homemade fertiliser explosives in the middle of Northern towns but not much more than that.

They never captured any territory or held a town or wiped out any British units.

wow amazing what you can learn on a wet night in the pub . getting military training from fca that really cracked me up

''The Irish Defence Forces were professional Army, equipped with heavy weapons, crew served weapons and small arms.

The IRA were a rag bag of amateurs.''

did the army union allow you to say that , i mean it wont effect their hearing or anything will it , our country cant afford our brave defence force not to be motivated

i think we all know who the amateurs were !

Locust · 19-06-2010 7:50pm

delancey42 wrote: »

Must tell that to the British Paratroopers killed in the Warrenpoint attack !

Those troopers were unarmed, and travelling in a packed bus when they were blown up by the flick of a switch. And a second bomb was detonated to kill the first responders on the scene... And a few pot shots from across the border where they knew they couldn't be followed.
They never wiped out a unit in a proper firefight.

"Derryard, Co. Fermanagh off the top of my head."

They only killed 2 soldiers on a fixed checkpoint and withdrew once the British soldiers regrouped and returned fire.

I can't think of a single engagement where the PIRA (or others) have attacked, overcame and held any ground or post against 'Security Forces' in the North. Its all hit and run, i know thats guerilla warfare but the PIRA was never the size of the defence forces, never held its own in a firefight nor was capabale of fighting a conventional war. It was all guerilla warfare

Glenshane Pass · 19-06-2010 8:02pm

Locust wrote: »

"Derryard, Co. Fermanagh off the top of my head."

They only killed 2 soldiers on a fixed checkpoint and withdrew once the British soldiers regrouped and returned fire.

I can't think of a single engagement where the PIRA (or others) have attacked, overcame and held any ground or post against 'Security Forces' in the North. Its all hit and run, i know thats guerilla warfare but the PIRA was never the size of the defence forces, never held its own in a firefight nor was capabale of fighting a conventional war. It was all guerilla warfare

You are correct, mostly. But there were these types of battles in Belfast and Derry in the early days. And correct, of course the IRA wouldn't have been capable of a 'conventional' war.

Avgas · 19-06-2010 9:22pm

Glenshane Pass wrote: »

I just lost a very long post for some reason, damn it.

"I would agree with you in regards to certain situations. I believe politics restricted the use of shoot to kill policy such as the awful events at Loughgall and Drumnakilly."

Thread seems to be moving away from OP to 'were the Provos better than the Brits, or vice versa'?

The literal answer to the OP is "perhaps". In the mid 1930s the Irish regular DF was whittled down by Dev to around 5,000...not sure what reserves were but probably effective reserves were not much more than 10,000, and IRA rolls of membership would have had several thousand in the mid 1930s..but .....perhaps of which only a few hundred were 'reliably active'.

In terms of capacity to mobilize and wider public support ...there has never been any doubt but that the majority constitutional nationalist tradition could mobilize and deploy if need be tens of thousands of troops-this was done in 1922 and again in 1939-41. Moreover, public support for the IRA campaign 1969-1996 has been estimated variously at between as low as 2% and some as high as 30+%....depends when you did the poll.

Mention was made of Loughall and 'shoot to kill'. There has been no finding of unlawful killing in the case of Loughgall....only that a proper investigation should have been carried out. It was a very different situation from other so called 'shoot to kill'....the provo unit were actually carrying their arms and using them. Pretty much classic grounds for self-defence.

The reason of course it wasn't properly investigated was to protect the intelligence source(s) for what was a complete wipe out of an entire ASU...and more importantly the removal of a number of hardliners who could have opposed the Adams long-term game plan of negotiation.....this reveals
(a) just how compromised and penetrated Provos were in terms of intelligence
(b) also perhaps how good British electronic snooping was and is--always been a strong point...the same people who cracked Enigma in WW2 wouldn't find provo comms especially hard.....
[c] how poor provo tactics often were...Lynagh and his buddies had pioneered the 'spectacular' barracks attacks with a JCB delivered bomb....but a short period of reflection should have revealed that what you might get away with once.....you won't get away with a third time. Even without the mole/intel, the SAS would have been probably able to put together something like what eventually happened...it was an insane operational plan.

A frontal attack on an enemy strong point on a May evening when light was still good...and following a modus operandi that been used a few times before...and the van behind with shooters...what for?

Republicans have spun Loughall much like the British did the miracle of Dunkirk...tried to spin a defeat into a positive story of Martyrdom and perfidious albion, etc.

In a proper army the OCs would have probably been court-martialled.

Conveniently for everyone concerned, they were killed.

Delancey · 19-06-2010 9:30pm

Loughgall is portrayed in 2 ways by the Republican propaganda machine - firstly as an heroic clash of soldier against soldier and secondly as evidence of a ' shoot to kill ' policy.

Which is it guys - cos in war when the enemy get the drop on you then you get killed and theres no talk about human rights then.

paky · 19-06-2010 9:34pm

delancey42 wrote: »

Loughgall is portrayed in 2 ways by the Republican propaganda machine - firstly as an heroic clash of soldier against soldier and secondly as evidence of a ' shoot to kill ' policy.

Which is it guys - cos in war when the enemy get the drop on you then you get killed and theres no talk about human rights then.

ya just like warrenpoint

Avgas · 19-06-2010 9:50pm

Loughall was very different from Warrenpoint for both sides.....

in Loughall there were two openly armed parties...SAS/RUC and the IRA ASU....fire was exchanged....the bomb was successfully detonated and 3 RUC were wounded....then the IRA unit were eliminated...chiefly it seems by a combination of GPMG, sniper file and close-in pistols.....not very clear.

Warrenpoint was a simple 'double trap' bombing.....the shots across Carlingford were probably distractions....what Warrenpoint shows is the provos were most effective/lethal when the adopted indirect bombing...because if they tried anything else they were too exposed....which is what Loughall revealed yet again......

paky · 19-06-2010 10:28pm

Avgas wrote: »

Loughall was very different from Warrenpoint for both sides.....

in Loughall there were two openly armed parties...SAS/RUC and the IRA ASU....fire was exchanged....the bomb was successfully detonated and 3 RUC were wounded....then the IRA unit were eliminated...chiefly it seems by a combination of GPMG, sniper file and close-in pistols.....not very clear.

Warrenpoint was a simple 'double trap' bombing.....the shots across Carlingford were probably distractions....what Warrenpoint shows is the provos were most effective/lethal when the adopted indirect bombing...because if they tried anything else they were too exposed....which is what Loughall revealed yet again......

but as far as p.issing and moaning is concerned, i think there on a par

Glenshane Pass · 20-06-2010 6:52am

delancey42 wrote: »

Loughgall is portrayed in 2 ways by the Republican propaganda machine - firstly as an heroic clash of soldier against soldier and secondly as evidence of a ' shoot to kill ' policy.

Which is it guys - cos in war when the enemy get the drop on you then you get killed and theres no talk about human rights then.

Which is it? Its both as far as I am concerned. There is no doubt the Volunteers had their human rights violated. A very large document was available online, the report of the European Court of Human Rights. The SAS were brutal. At Drumnakilly an SAS operative jumped up on the bonet, then onto the roof of the target car, and fired about fifty rounds into the sunroof in some act of sick bravado.

Some of the families of the Volunteers and indeed their comrades fully accept they were in a state of war and as such was just a bad day for the Army. But its the circumstances in/by which they were killed that becomes an issue.

I think anyone who argues that there was no shoot to kill policy at Loughgall is seriously delluded.

And just to add, no one in the Republican movement subscribes to the claims of fire over the water at Warrenpoint - that never happened. Just to clarify.

troubleshooter · 20-06-2010 9:17am

Glenshane Pass wrote: »

Which is it? Its both as far as I am concerned. There is no doubt the Volunteers had their human rights violated. A very large document was available online, the report of the European Court of Human Rights. The SAS were brutal. At Drumnakilly an SAS operative jumped up on the bonet, then onto the roof of the target car, and fired about fifty rounds into the sunroof in some act of sick bravado.

Some of the families of the Volunteers and indeed their comrades fully accept they were in a state of war and as such was just a bad day for the Army. But its the circumstances in/by which they were killed that becomes an issue.

I think anyone who argues that there was no shoot to kill policy at Loughgall is seriously delluded.

And just to add, no one in the Republican movement subscribes to the claims of fire over the water at Warrenpoint - that never happened. Just to clarify.

So why is there a republican mural showing " volunteers" firing down on the scene at warrenpoint?

If we accept the republican claims the PIRA were soldiers in a war, then they are guilty of warcrimes, ie deliberatly targetting civilans.

"While 1978 saw a decrease in terrorist activity it also saw their violence sink to a new low, with the murder of a father and daughter. The vicious murder of William Gordon, on February 8th 1978 shocked the country. A part time UDR lance-corporal aged 41 married with 3 children, was murdered along with his ten year old daughter Leslie when an IRA booby trap bomb blew up underneath his car. His seven year old son Richard was blown out of the vehicle onto the footpath. This shows the real face and nature of Francis Hughes – Hughes the child killer. In his crazed spree of terror he gave no regard for life whether that of an elderly lady or a young child, to him they were legitimate targets in a campaign fuelled by sectarian hatred."

What about these childrens human rights? why do demos or campaigns for their justice by republicans? is it because it was ok for republicans to murder, but if shot in the process it became a human rights violation, how cowardly.

As for south Armagh, it was never a no go zone for the British army, this is another lie, the area had more troops based there then any other part of the north.

Glenshane Pass · 20-06-2010 10:11am

troubleshooter wrote: »

So why is there a republican mural showing " volunteers" firing down on the scene at warrenpoint?

Why not? Its a commemorative mural. Propaganda if you will.

If we accept the republican claims the PIRA were soldiers in a war, then they are guilty of warcrimes, ie deliberatly targetting civilans.

Why would they have targatted civilians, what would it achieve?

"While 1978 saw a decrease in terrorist activity it also saw their violence sink to a new low, with the murder of a father and daughter. The vicious murder of William Gordon, on February 8th 1978 shocked the country. A part time UDR lance-corporal aged 41 married with 3 children, was murdered along with his ten year old daughter Leslie when an IRA booby trap bomb blew up underneath his car. His seven year old son Richard was blown out of the vehicle onto the footpath. This shows the real face and nature of Francis Hughes – Hughes the child killer. In his crazed spree of terror he gave no regard for life whether that of an elderly lady or a young child, to him they were legitimate targets in a campaign fuelled by sectarian hatred."

Its unfortunate to see you have quoted Willie Frazer - famous for his rants against 'dirty smelly taigs' (see video on youtube) and also for associating with Loyalist paramilitaries. Why would you quote him in all fairness? Francis Hughes was an exceptional volunteer, admitted even by SAS in a couple of books (of which one was killed in the last gun battle).

As for south Armagh, it was never a no go zone for the British army, this is another lie, the area had more troops based there then any other part of the north.

Aye, couped up in heavily fortified bases, afraid of their ****e to leave.
South Armagh, parts of Tyrone and Fermanagh were once a no go area for soldiers on the ground. Fact.

The policy of harrassing mourners and disrupting republican funerals wasn't a possibility when Volunteers openly patrolled country roads, setup checkpoints, and took over Carrickmore village in the late 1970s. There is a multitude of photos and videos to this fact in the various republican exhibitions across these counties showing checkpoints and other patrols through villages and towns in broad daylight.

Of course the army or indeed the police could have entered these areas, in that sense they were no 'no go', but they would no doubt have suffered casulties. Actions speak louder than words. If there were APCs and troops moving through South Armagh on a regular basis then I would have conceded that it wasn't a 'no go' area. Similarly, today, if I see police patrolling areas of Fermanagh as they are supposed to, then I will concede that these areas are not 'no go'.

troubleshooter · 20-06-2010 10:26am

The bomb which killed the child above had Hughes signature, the PIRA even admitted they targetted civilians, Birmingham pub bombings, various bombs of Protestant pubs in NI, hotels, even the gunning down of working men who were lined up taken out of their mini bus and shot.

If we accept they were soldiers of an army, then they are guilty of warcrimes.

South Armagh was never a "no go zone". Soldiers moved on foot and by helo, it was the roads which were not used. It had more troops there then any other part of the province.

Claiming soldiers never left their base is just more republican propeganda, patrols often went out for 10 days moving through the countryside on foot checking on PIRA known faces and keeping an eye on isolated Protesant farmers etc, who were ubder threat.

http://militarymemories.co.uk/tours/nireland.html

My first six week tour of South Armagh was a totally different experience. In this part of Ireland it was deemed to dangerous to drive round in Landrovers, so we had to be helicoptered in to our patrol area; patrols were carried out daily. We learnt how to 'fast rope' (slide down a rope) out of a helicopter hovering at around 60ft. We would patrol the whole of South Armagh, areas like, Crossmaglen, Newtownhamilton, Forkhill and Newry. During this period I was promoted to Lance Corporal and took command of a four man team.

South Armagh is a nice part of the world, however, the locals do not take kindly to the British Army being there. On one stretch of road there is the infamous sign 'sniper at work'; South Armagh has seen some of the bloodiest fighting during the troubles. Fortunately for us, and the local civilians, there was relative peace during our time out there. Apart from the odd bomb threat or the finding of dead bodies, nothing much happened.

Are you denying the fact there were permenant and mobile VCPs/vehicle check points across South Armagh?

Glenshane Pass · 20-06-2010 10:33am

troubleshooter wrote: »

The bomb which killed the child above had Hughes signature, the PIRA even admitted they targetted civilians, Birmingham pub bombings, various bombs of Proteastant pubs in NI, hotels, even the gunning down of working men who were lined up taken out of their mini bus and shot.

If we accept they were soldiers of an army, then they are guilty of warcrimes.

South Armagh was never a "no go zone". Soldiers moved on foot and by helo, it was the roads which were not used. It had more troops there then any other part of the province.

Are you denying the fact their were permenant VCPs/vehicle check points South Armagh?

Can you link me to the statement in which the IRA 'admitted' to deliberately targetting civilians? Statements are all over the internet (CAIN archive).
The republican movement have called for an international process whereby people are held to account for their actions, no matter what side they were on. The republican movement remain the only ones to have called for this. There are those out there who was to hide the truth. And could you also explain the 'Protestant pubs' aswell as answer my previous post as to what would the IRA achieve by targetting civilians?

It seems you won't agree on the no go point, which is fair enough. It makes little odds. The people of these areas know full well republican guerrillas could move around almost freely without fear of running into Brit security forces because they wouldn't enter those areas. Fact.

EDIT: I'm not all that interested in 'Military Memories', but I'll have a read later on. I prefer to take the word of people on the ground, locals. What you deem 'republican propoganda' can also be applied to the various 'bad boy' soldier diary sites and books that exist.

troubleshooter · 20-06-2010 10:40am

Glenshane Pass wrote: »

Can you link me to the statement in which the IRA 'admitted' to deliberately targetting civilians? Statements are all over the internet (CAIN archive).
The republican movement have called for an international process whereby people are held to account for their actions, no matter what side they were on. The republican movement remain the only ones to have called for this. There are those out there who was to hide the truth. And could you also explain the 'Protestant pubs' aswell as answer my previous post as to what would the IRA achieve by targetting civilians?

It seems you won't agree on the no go point, which is fair enough. It makes little odds. The people of these areas know full well republican guerrillas could move around almost freely without fear of running into Brit security forces because they wouldn't enter those areas. Fact.

Are you saying the Birmingham pub bombings did not target civilians :rolleyes:

1971: Bomb demolishes crowded Belfast pub
At least 10 people, including a 13-year-old boy and a woman, have been killed and 17 injured after a bomb exploded in a crowded pub in Belfast. The bomb is believed to have been placed near the front entrance of McGurk's Bar, in North Queen Street

The fact your claiming British army foot patrols did not patrol on a daily in areas you claim were out of bounds, marks you down as yet another armchair republican.

It was very rare the PIRA had more firepower the 12 man British army patrols or (P)VCP, a bigger danger was IEDs and Sinn Fein organised riots, were troops could quickly be outnumbered by violent and hostile civilians.

Heres an article on the repulsed attack on Derryard checkpoint, in an area you claim the British army did not have a presence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Derryard_checkpoint

The attack

The assault would involve the use of two 12.7mm DShK machine guns, 11 AK-47s, different kinds of grenades, and a flamethrower. The bulk of the flying column would be driven to the checkpoint on a makeshift armoured truck.[3] To assure widespread destruction, the column decided to detonate a van bomb after the initial surprise assault. The chosen target, a vehicle checkpoint at Derryard, near Rosslea, was manned by 8 soldiers of the 1st Battalion of the King's Own Scottish Borderers regiment and a member of the RUC.[1]

After launching a number of grenades (either RPGs or home made devices),[1] the IRA volunteers managed to break into the compound using the armour-plated lorry, supported by automatic fire and the flamethrower’s stream of fire. In the process they killed two soldiers, Pte James Houston and L/Cpl Michael Patterson. Cpl Law was severely wounded by shrapnel[4]and later airlifted for treatment. The defenders were forced to seek shelter in sangars, from where they fired into their own base.[1] The IRA unit left inside the complex a van loaded with 400-lb (182 kg) of Semtex, which failed to explode. The attack was finally repulsed by a Borderers section from the checkpoint that was patrolling nearby, with the support of a Wessex helicopter. The patrol fired more than 100 rounds.[1] The IRA column, at risk of being surrounded, then fled in the truck, possibly toward the border.[2][5]

Glenshane Pass · 20-06-2010 10:42am

troubleshooter wrote: »

Are you saying the Birmingham pub bombings did not target civilians :rolleyes:

1971: Bomb demolishes crowded Belfast pub
At least 10 people, including a 13-year-old boy and a woman, have been killed and 17 injured after a bomb exploded in a crowded pub in Belfast. The bomb is believed to have been placed near the front entrance of McGurk's Bar, in North Queen Street

Could you answer my posts apart from copying and pasting from random websites? I am well able to find this information myself, if I wanted to.

troubleshooter · 20-06-2010 10:50am

Glenshane Pass wrote: »

Could you answer my posts apart from copying and pasting from random websites? I am well able to find this information myself, if I wanted to.

Heres where the PIRA took 11 protestant workmen off a bus and shot them, was this not an attack on civilans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre

The following day, January 5, 1976, a Ford Transit mini-bus carried sixteen textile workers travelling home from work in Glenanne to Bessbrook along the Whitecross to Bessbrook road, of whom five were Catholics and eleven were Protestants. Four of the Catholics got out at Whitecross, while the remainder continued on the road to Bessbrook.[15] At this point, the coach was stopped by a group of approximately twelve armed men waiting on the road. At first, the workers assumed that they were being stopped and searched by a British Army or RUC checkpoint, and when ordered to line up beside the bus, they obeyed. However, at this point, the gunmen ordered the only Catholic, Richard Hughes, to step forward. Hughes' workmates thought then that the armed men were loyalists, come to kill Hughes and tried to stop him from identifying himself, however, when he stepped forward, he was told, "Get down the road and don't look back".[16]

The remaining eleven men were shot, with Armalite rifles, SLRs, a 9mm pistol and an M1 carbine, a total of 136 rounds were fired in less than a minute. Ten men died at the scene, and one, Alan Black, survived despite having eighteen gunshot wounds

Glenshane Pass · 20-06-2010 7:06pm

troubleshooter wrote: »

The fact your claiming British army foot patrols did not patrol on a daily in areas you claim were out of bounds, marks you down as yet another armchair republican.

How would that mark me down as an armchair republican? If anything it would mark me down as someone who knows what they're talking about, would it not? Really, how the **** would you know who I am or what I am?

It was very rare the PIRA had more firepower the 12 man British army patrols or (P)VCP, a bigger danger was IEDs and Sinn Fein organised riots, were troops could quickly be outnumbered by violent and hostile civilians.

Lots of firepower, but unwise to confront in the 'conventional' sense.

Heres an article on the repulsed attack on Derryard checkpoint, in an area you claim the British army did not have a presence.

Again, a presence in a heavily fortified base, which was annihilated by local guerrillas, never to be rebuilt. (The only time the flamethrower was used)

You can give up this 'armchair' behaviour, pasting stuff from websites. I have already stated I can find this if needs be. It doesn't make you any more intellgent either nor does it neccessarily make your points fact.

I'll ask the two questions again - and if you can't answer then I will presume you have no more intellectual capacity than to copy and paste wikipedia articles.

Where have the IRA 'admitted' targetting civilians?
What would targetting civilians achieve?

Iron Hide · 20-06-2010 7:14pm

Children please, i think ye lads have gone a tad off topic here with accusations of armchair republicans and all that.

As a few above have stated, circa 500 seems to be the general concensus here and with many people regarding active PIRA members. However taking into account sympathisers, the people who operated safehouses, various non-violent assistants(for the want of a better term) and i suppose even some contacts the numbers could be much higher. and if you believe everything you hear down the pub, about half of the Island was once a 'Ra man!! :P

Manic Moran · 20-06-2010 8:18pm

I'm inclined to agree. The original question has been asked, and answered.

NTM

Was the Provisional IRA at any one time larger than the Irish Defence Forces?

Comments