BBC iPlayer: The Paras (1982)

whitelines wrote: »

Regarding the high lighted section - it's actually completely wrong. A large state can simply ethnically cleanse a small minority should it decide. The UK would have had very few problems doing this with Northern Ireland's RC population, had it so wished. In fact, provisional plans were discussed at cabinet level. The good news for Northern Ireland's Nationalist population is that this wasn't the solution implemented, for whatever reason.

True and ye have the history to prove it.

Yes cornered. I think that most everyone (with a half a brain anyway) will agree that the PIRA where on the ropes in the 90's. They had been infiltrated right up to the highest level, they where losing support from the population and Americas blind eye to fundraising was beginning to change.
They where not defeated but the leadership realised that they had gotten as far with the Armalite as they were going to get and a change in tactic was needed i.e. political means solely.

Dogwatch wrote: »

I would love to see that. Could you provide links to it please?

Here's a summary from The Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1417587/Secret-plan-for-the-new-partition-of-Ireland.html

The original cabinet archive material is probably available on line under the thirty year rule if you search for it.

thecommietommy wrote: »

So are you saying that the Brit general and Tony as well as their many advisors have only half a brain !!!! I may not like Tony the coniving ****, but the sly git had a very full brain unfortunatley. Individuals with half a brain, conspiracy theorists, British army groupies etc like to push the British propaganda line that the IRA were on their last legs etc, something I grew up with hearing from the early 1970's. Complete nonsense of course.


I can agree with you on this, neither side had an outright win, Sinn Fein and the IRA came to the conclusion that demographics would get them to a united Ireland with the ever rising Catholic population (you may/may not agree with this, but I don't want to get into a political debate over the merits of the Good Friday Agreement etc ) would see a United Ireland in two or at the most three decades ( Catholics are already a majority in schoools at the moment and with an ageing/declining Proteastan pop.)

If you read my earlier posts I think you'll find that I have stated from the beginning that the PIRA would never have been defeated in NI. I don't think it's brit fanboy stuff to say that the PIRA leadership realised that militarily things had run their course and that they were starting to be put on the back foot. They adopted the USMC euphemism that you don't retreat you just fight in a different direction, which they are doing politically.

Wheeling out a 30sec 1980's edited video clip with a general saying they won't defeat the IRA mean fook all either.

Rawhead wrote: »

If you read my earlier posts I think you'll find that I have stated from the beginning that the PIRA would never have been defeated in NI. I don't think it's brit fanboy stuff to say that the PIRA leadership realised that militarily things had run their course and that they were starting to be put on the back foot. They adopted the USMC euphemism that you don't retreat you just fight in a different direction, which they are doing politically.

Wheeling out a 30sec 1980's edited video clip with a general saying they won't defeat the IRA mean fook all either.

Your comment on PIRA switching from violence to politics needs some expansion. The key issue is why PIRA switched. If PIRA switched to a political path because it unilaterally reached the decision that politics would achieve strategic success without violence, then it could feel it had won some sort of victory (at least within it's collective mind). However, if PIRA abandoned violence due to third party pressure and switched to politics as a fall back position, then it can only be assumed that PIRA's cause was actually undermined (at least within it's collective mind). In either case, of course, PIRA perceptions might differ from those of other parties.

You're correct about our friend's videos by the way. He's ignoring the operational role of the security forces in NI and talking as if the security forces were fighting a war rather than keeping the peace. Soldiers can't 'win' a peace keeping mission.

whitelines wrote: »

Responding to point 1, 'They fought one of the worlds most advanced and formidable armies to a standstill for nearly thirty years' is hyperbole of the worst sort. UK State forces acted as police support during 'the troubles', operating under civil law, they couldn't even discharge their weapons unless lives were threatened. If they were one of the world's 'most advanced and formidable armies', they certainly didn't act that way in NI.

No they didn't, barely a handful of them ever served prison for the murder of almost exclusively nationalists such as Bloody Sunday etc During the troubles the British forces killed more civilians than the INLA ( I am a former member of the IRSP btw). However justice of a kind was dished out at Warrenpoint etc

Responding to point 2, 'They made large area's of the UK no go areas that could only be accessed by air'. Well, of course they did. What would you have had The UK Army do? Impose a scorched earth policy in South Armagh? Again, they were acting as an auxiliary police force, not a fighting army.

Well they tried that in Cork and Tipperary etc 1919 - 1921 with murders, mass arrests, martial law, burnings, looting etc and it didn't work. However you seem to be lost in some delusion that Britain is somehow an all powerful state like American and could do as it likes The international community wouldn't stand for it and as the Brits sharply learned during the Suez crisis in 1956 ( which they couldn't do on their own anyway without the French and Israeli's), their just a broken down former colonial power

Responding to point 3, 'They carried out some very well planned actions deep behind enemy lines. By these I refer to the mortar attack on 10 Downing St and the Brighton bombing'. These attacks were made possible because The UK State allowed PIRA to operate effectively at will, deploying The UK Army under the rule of law - civil law. In such circumstances it was inevitable that PIRA would achieve some results.

As above, far from operating under the rule of law ( indeed when John Stalker for example tried to uncover several extrajudical murders, we all know what happened). And inevitably the IRA and INLA achieved thousands of results and by your criteria Republicans were the clear winners, Republicans 2030 verses Loyalists/Brits 1379.

Responding to point 4, 'They bled the UK government white financially'. They did indeed. In fact, you could say that instead of bullets, The Nationalist community in NI was given silver.

The " Protestant state for a Protestant people is smashed and gone forever with an ever increasing nationalist and importantly better educated population - and worse of all with some of the leaders of the IRA such as Martin McGuinnes, Gerry Kelly etc running the state !!!!!

Indeed Sinn Fein/IRA is still bleeding the British state as they have amongst the highest expenses claimed in Westminister which they don't even attend

Responding to point 5, 'They forced repeated governments to the negotiation table'. They certainly created an environment in which The UK State abandoned democratic norms in NI.

The reality is that PIRA were a committed and determined terrorist organisation, with commendable staying power, but one which operated within the most benign environments imaginable. Their leaders were free to stroll around NI preaching subversion in public. It's hard to see this being applicable anywhere outside a handful of western nations. Certainly not in The US. Still, you fight what's put in front of you.

Responding to your final point - some do more bad things than others.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ