Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

hoorsmelt

The PIRA's campaign began in 1969 and didn't end until 2005. They were responsible for the deaths of about 1,800 people, mostly security service personnel, with smaller Republican groups like the INLA and the OIRA responsible for another 160-200 deaths on top of that. Could/should their actions be justified? Ireland was colonised by force centuries ago, to argue that anyone who resorts to armed action to put an end to that rule does not have the right to respond to the original violence by armed struggle is hypocritical imo, and the deaths of civilians are an unfortunate side-effect of war- most of the organisations listed above tried to minimise civilian casualties with phone warnings, etc, and the majority of their casualties were security forces, who might be classed as valid targets. I reckon they were justified, and I think that groups who continue to take action today do have the right to resort to force, just that it is tactically unviable at present.

I'm a sympathiser with the IRSP fwiw.

p1akuw47h5r3it

This will just be an absolute car crash of a thread

criticalcritic

Let me begin with the controversy

Yes it was

And republican resistance is alive and well, dont mind what Sinn Fein tell you

Britain still occupys the North of this island, aslong as they do there will be resistance

People can object to that but tough, not all Irish people are lemmings willing to swallow half their country being denied sovereignty while the other half is glorified Commonwealth territory devoid of Irish culture propped up by money of ex-colonial super powers

'Ireland unfree will never will be at peace' - Padraig Pearse

Southern unionism and national self hating is rife nowadays

Im a republican, deal with it

I hope Irps areant developing Provo style revisionism

trendyvicar

You suffer from some sort of mental illness in my opinion.

FeckinUsername

Was the campaign justifiable? Yes of course it was. It is the right of every nation to take up arms to combat oppression and in the name of freedom. Was the campaign worth it? That is another question. All those people left dead, Catholics, Protestants, protagonists and innocents, and what has been achieved? A political settlement that could have been reached about 15 years before the eventual conclusion.

criticalcritic

FeckinUsername wrote: »

Was the campaign justifiable? Yes of course it was. It is the right of every nation to take up arms to combat oppression and in the name of freedom. Was the campaign worth it? That is another question. All those people left dead, Catholics, Protestants, protagonists and innocents, and what has been achieved? A political settlement that could have been reached about 15 years before the eventual conclusion.

Your argument is immediately void when you bring religion into it

The republican struggle is and has always been secular and guided by socialist principles

And the settlement you speak of was never what the war was fought for

criticalcritic

trendyvicar wrote: »

You suffer from some sort of mental illness in my opinion.

Because I follow the fundementals of a political ideaology

There must be millions out there mentally ill, an infliction I dont made light of

FeckinUsername

criticalcritic wrote: »

Your argument is immediately void when you bring religion into it

The republican struggle is and has always been secular and guided by socialist principles

And the settlement you speak of was never what the war was fought for

How is my argument void when I mention that all sections of the community suffered from the conflict?

I am very aware of what the Republican struggle is all about a Chara, I don't need a lecture.

And I stated that the settlement was not what the war was fought for, and thus it is debatable whether it was all worth it. I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with me or arguing against me.....

Chuck Stone

FeckinUsername wrote: »

All those people left dead, Catholics, Protestants, protagonists and innocents, and what has been achieved? A political settlement that could have been reached about 15 years before the eventual conclusion.

15 years? Try the 1974 Sunningdale Agreement.

Scuppered by Unionist/loyalist violence and a general strike.

criticalcritic

FeckinUsername wrote: »

criticalcritic wrote: »

Your argument is immediately void when you bring religion into it

The republican struggle is and has always been secular and guided by socialist principles

And the settlement you speak of was never what the war was fought for

How is my argument void when I mention that all sections of the community suffered from the conflict?

I am very aware of what the Republican struggle is all about a Chara, I don't need a lecture.

And I stated that the settlement was not what the war was fought for, and thus it is debatable whether it was all worth it. I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with me or arguing against me.....

Im agreeing with you,

In the eyes of the revisionists, the war, all the lives lost, all those who rotted in prisons for years, all was pointless when they could could have just sold out in 69 and bought into Watered down Brit administration in Stormont

Was it all to put likes of Gerry Adams, Gerry Kelly and Mary Lou McDonald into comfy partitionist positions so they can live in mansions?

later12

It wasn't a republican campaign. They weren't aspiring to rid themselves of monarchy or impose democracy, for example; in fact Padraig Pearse himself mulled over the possibility of having a German prince Lording it over Paddy and Josephone in place of an elected figurehead.

The IRA in both its modern and historic forms have sullied the term 'republican'. They were, and are, militant nationalists.

criticalcritic

later10 wrote: »

It wasn't a republican campaign. They weren't aspiring to rid themselves of monarchy or impose democracy, for example; in fact Padraig Pearse himself mulled over the possibility of having a German prince Lording it over Paddy and Josephone in place of an elected figurehead.

The IRA in both its modern and historic forms have sullied the term 'republican'. They were, and are, militant nationalists.

Pure sh*te

James Connolly, Seamus Costelloe, Frank Ryan were militant nationalists?

The principles of Irish republicanism has been guided by revolutionary socialist principles, the opposite militant nationalism

Read the proclamation which is basis for all republican groups exist,
Nothing nationalist about it

domkk

seen quite a good few of the ol red white and blue flag down here south of the border

hoorsmelt

criticalcritic wrote: »

Let me begin with the controversy

Yes it was

And republican resistance is alive and well, dont mind what Sinn Fein tell you

Britain still occupys the North of this island, aslong as they do there will be resistance

People can object to that but tough, not all Irish people are lemmings willing to swallow half their country being denied sovereignty while the other half is glorified Commonwealth territory devoid of Irish culture propped up by money of ex-colonial super powers

'Ireland unfree will never will be at peace' - Padraig Pearse

Southern unionism and national self hating is rife nowadays

Im a republican, deal with it

I hope Irps areant developing Provo style revisionism

I'd broadly agree with that perspective a chara. To clarify, I'm not an Irp, just a sympathiser, and I wanted to see how widespread this analysis would be when put to people like that.

FeckinUsername

The Democratic Programme of the First Dáil is also inherently socialist and republican in nature.

Revisionism knows no bounds it seems.....

Surely the poster does not honestly believe that the IRA, of any era, were willing to accept the continuation of the monarchy in Ireland?

Of course it should also be noted that Pearse's alleged statement regarding the German Kaisers son becoming monarch of Ireland is based on hear say. There is no reference to it anywhere in his writings. He is alleged to have suggested it during Easter Week, according to the father of Garret Fitzgerald. If in fact he did suggest it, I am sure that men such as Connolly would have dismissed it out of hand almost immediately.

irishh_bob

criticalcritic wrote: »

Let me begin with the controversy

Yes it was

And republican resistance is alive and well, dont mind what Sinn Fein tell you

Britain still occupys the North of this island, aslong as they do there will be resistance

People can object to that but tough, not all Irish people are lemmings willing to swallow half their country being denied sovereignty while the other half is glorified Commonwealth territory devoid of Irish culture propped up by money of ex-colonial super powers

'Ireland unfree will never will be at peace' - Padraig Pearse

Southern unionism and national self hating is rife nowadays

Im a republican, deal with it

I hope Irps areant developing Provo style revisionism

the movement from the sixties was an obvious reaction to the orange fascists state of northern ireland but thier is a new dispensation in place which the elected reps of the nationalist people are signed up to

deal with that

LordSutch

hoorsmelt wrote: »

Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

NO

criticalcritic

FeckinUsername wrote: »

The Democratic Programme of the First Dáil is also inherently socialist and republican in nature.

Revisionism knows no bounds it seems.....
K
Surely the poster does not honestly believe that the IRA, of any era, were willing to accept the continuation of the monarchy in Ireland?

Of course it should also be noted that Pearse's alleged statement regarding the German Kaisers son becoming monarch of Ireland is based on hear say. There is no reference to it anywhere in his writings. He is alleged to have suggested it during Easter Week, according to the father of Garret Fitzgerald. If in fact he did suggest it, I am sure that men such as Connolly would have dismissed it out of hand almost immediately.

Sure werent the Fitzgeralds great friends to Irish republicans in subsequent years?

FeckinUsername

irishh_bob wrote: »

the movement from the sixties was an obvious reaction to the orange fascists state of northern ireland but thier is a new dispensation in place which the elected reps of the nationalist people are signed up to

deal with that

The leadership of the IRA following the OIRA split included men who had been active back as far as the 1950's and beyond. Men such as Ruairi O Bradaigh. There have often been attempts to cast the struggle in a reactionary light, to portray it as a struggle for civil rights, or to demolish the Orange state. It was never any such thing. It was a fight for Irish freedom, the same fight that has been ongoing for centuries.

The new political dispensation holds potential but I sometimes wonder what kind of Ireland might it create? Look at the current situation involving the SF Mayor of Belfast. Seemingly in the new Ireland Republicanism shall be something to be ashamed of. Something to apologise for.

criticalcritic

irishh_bob wrote: »

criticalcritic wrote: »

Let me begin with the controversy

Yes it was

And republican resistance is alive and well, dont mind what Sinn Fein tell you

Britain still occupys the North of this island, aslong as they do there will be resistance

People can object to that but tough, not all Irish people are lemmings willing to swallow half their country being denied sovereignty while the other half is glorified Commonwealth territory devoid of Irish culture propped up by money of ex-colonial super powers

'Ireland unfree will never will be at peace' - Padraig Pearse

Southern unionism and national self hating is rife nowadays

Im a republican, deal with it

I hope Irps areant developing Provo style revisionism

the movement from the sixties was an obvious reaction to the orange fascists state of northern ireland but thier is a new dispensation in place which the elected reps of the nationalist people are signed up to

deal with that

The nationalist people have been led up a hill but areant being led back down

While the Shinners may be getting their fifteen minutes down South

Their going down a lead balloon up North

FeckinUsername

criticalcritic wrote: »

Sure werent the Fitzgeralds great friends to Irish republicans in subsequent years?

Haha, indeed....

I wouldn't like to throw around wild accusations but....

It has often been the case that revisionists and anti-Republican's have targeted Pearse in an attempt to sully the name of Republicanism in general.

In fact it has happened on this thread already..... 2 pages in.

walrusgumble

criticalcritic wrote: »

Let me begin with the controversy

Yes it was

And republican resistance is alive and well, dont mind what Sinn Fein tell you

Britain still occupys the North of this island, aslong as they do there will be resistance

People can object to that but tough, not all Irish people are lemmings willing to swallow half their country being denied sovereignty while the other half is glorified Commonwealth territory devoid of Irish culture propped up by money of ex-colonial super powers

'Ireland unfree will never will be at peace' - Padraig Pearse

Southern unionism and national self hating is rife nowadays

Im a republican, deal with it

I hope Irps areant developing Provo style revisionism

As someone who is sympathetic to the Republican movement,and what Sinn Féin are trying to do (bar economics) , imho your the type of bar stooler that the movement need to got rid of.

The ordianary Northern Catholic Nationalist - Republican are doing a whole lot better than they were years ago, via University, being able to walk the street and work, having a voice in Politics, and people like you are trying to drag it back down to square one, if, what you appear to imply is violence. You will need to clarify. If you refer to Constitutional means, fair enough so.

As for Southern Unionism, some people have no time for Northerners, which in my opinion is wrong, but many others believe the first step is to get both communities to trust each other and move on by way of politics and democracy. That has not fully happened yet.

Devoid of culture? Many Northerns on both sides have more in common with the Scots than people down South, and many come down here with chips on their shoulders. Being able to speak pigeon Irish (well done Mr Adams) is nothing to shout about. A need to not to hang on to the god awful sean nos miserable music or diddly iddy crap is hardly , and less said about some of the rebels songs the better. Black armbands and black flags for fallen hero's and a love for military uniform/black caps and sun glasses (nazi cough) is hardly culture. Northerns are just as keen on Scottish - English football, watch the same tv, play gaelic and a bit of hurling, listen to the same music etc

People in the South did have some sympathy for the problems in the 1970-1980's as burning of the British Embassy and Hunger strikes shall show. Granted view every knew what it was really like but any of the carry on now has no justification,

Ya there is definitely self hating in the South, sadly, but some of your stuff is off the wall.

walrusgumble

criticalcritic wrote: »

Im agreeing with you,

In the eyes of the revisionists, the war, all the lives lost, all those who rotted in prisons for years, all was pointless when they could could have just sold out in 69 and bought into Watered down Brit administration in Stormont

Was it all to put likes of Gerry Adams, Gerry Kelly and Mary Lou McDonald into comfy partitionist positions so they can live in mansions?

Eh, they take industrial salaries. Adams makes additional money from writing. He clearly came down South to improve the rates in the Dail. Jesus you would be complaining if the Southern movement were stagnant.

Mary Lou is from the South, why would she run in the north were she probably would not get in? Were has Mary Lou spouted partitionist attitudes?

Your living in cloud cuckoo land if you really taught that militant means and militant means alone were ever going to win the day

Did you ever use a gun for the cause, by the way?. You seem very bitter

Gerry Kelly, what is your problem with him?

K-9

The IRPS will eventually cop on that that the armed struggle doesn't work in the long run, and some other group will come along to call them traitors.

History repeats itself, particularly Irish history and nobody learns anything!

criticalcritic

walrusgumble wrote: »

criticalcritic wrote: »

Let me begin with the controversy
I
Yes it was

And republican resistance is alive and well, dont mind what Sinn Fein tell you

Britain still occupys the North of this island, aslong as they do there will be resistance

People can object to that but tough, not all Irish people are lemmings willing to swallow half their country being denied sovereignty while the other half is glorified Commonwealth territory devoid of Irish culture propped up by money of ex-colonial super powers

'Ireland unfree will never will be at peace' - Padraig Pearse

Southern unionism and national self hating is rife nowadays

Im a republican, deal with it

I hope Irps areant developing Provo style revisionism

As someone who is sympathetic to the Republican movement,and what Sinn Féin are trying to do (bar economics) , imho your the type of bar stooler that the movement need to got rid of.

The ordianary Northern Catholic Nationalist - Republican are doing a whole lot better than they were years ago, via University, being able to walk the street and work, having a voice in Politics, and people like you are trying to drag it back down to square one, if, what you appear to imply is violence. You will need to clarify. If you refer to Constitutional means, fair enough so.

As for Southern Unionism, some people have no time for Northerners, which in my opinion is wrong, but many others believe the first step is to get both communities to trust each other and move on by way of politics and democracy. That has not fully happened yet.

Devoid of culture? Many Northerns on both sides have more in common with the Scots than people down South, and many come down here with chips on their shoulders. Being able to speak pigeon Irish (well done Mr Adams) is nothing to shout about. A need to not to hang on to the god awful sean nos miserable music or diddly iddy crap is hardly , and less said about some of the rebels songs the better. Black armbands and black flags for fallen hero's and a love for military uniform/black caps and sun glasses (nazi cough) is hardly culture. Northerns are just as keen on Scottish - English football, watch the same tv, play gaelic and a bit of hurling, listen to the same music etc

People in the South did have some sympathy for the problems in the 1970-1980's as burning of the British Embassy and Hunger strikes shall show. Granted view every knew what it was really like but any of the carry on now has no justification,

Ya there is definitely self hating in the South, sadly, but some of your stuff is off the wall.

Can assure you Im no barstooler as you put it and Im by no means part of your 'movement'
Just today I was at picket supporting republican POWs, who your 'movment now condemn'

Sinn Fein is not a movement anymore it is a populist collection of opportunists who shame republicanism by still claiming be its bastion

But its folk like your yourself with your watered down psuedo republicanism we need rid of

Because I hate to break it to you, you aint republican, supporting Sinn Fein your a moderate nationalist at best

Supporting British police who continually repress the republican/nationalist community

Destroying thousands of arms at behest of British government

Watering down every ebb of revolutionary tendency your party had

Abandoning POWS who served decades for Provo leadership

What will be end result?


Hang your head lad and cope on

walrusgumble

criticalcritic wrote: »

Pure sh*te

James Connolly, Seamus Costelloe, Frank Ryan were militant nationalists?

The principles of Irish republicanism has been guided by revolutionary socialist principles, the opposite militant nationalism

Read the proclamation which is basis for all republican groups exist,
Nothing nationalist about it

I don't think Clarke, McDonagh, Pearse , Plunkett and co were too gone in Connolly's Socialist-Nationalist views, if you look at their backgrounds. The tone of the Proclamation was a sop to Connolly to get him on board with them. Sadly, and despite the repeat of it in the 1919 Declaration, the movement quickly got rid of such notions . To say that all Provo's were dye in the wool socialists is nonsense.

dlofnep

It was absolutely justified. The partition of this country had no merit, and was wholly against the will of the majority of the people. Compare and contrast how the British state treated the nationalist population post-partition. The state was gerrymandered, the security services murdered civilians and were never made accountable for it, the police service colluded with loyalist terrorists and bullied and harassed the nationalist population. Innocent people were thrown in prison without ever receiving a trial, families were torn apart.

Trying to liberate a people through armed force is nothing new, and will continue for times to come.

The IRA campaign against loyalists paramilitaries, the RUC and the British security services was absolutely justified. I just don't see how anyone could support the role that Britain played post-partition in the north of this country, and couldn't empathise with those who felt that they had no other choice but to take up arms in the pursuit of freedom.

criticalcritic

walrusgumble wrote: »

criticalcritic wrote: »

Im agreeing with you,

In the eyes of the revisionists, the war, all the lives lost, all those who rotted in prisons for years, all was pointless when they could could have just sold out in 69 and bought into Watered down Brit administration in Stormont

Was it all to put likes of Gerry Adams, Gerry Kelly and Mary Lou McDonald into comfy partitionist positions so they can live in mansions?

Eh, they take industrial salaries. Adams makes additional money from writing. He clearly came down South to improve the rates in the Dail. Jesus you would be complaining if the Southern movement were stagnant.

Mary Lou is from the South, why would she run in the north were she probably would not get in? Were has Mary Lou spouted partitionist attitudes?

Your living in cloud cuckoo land if you really taught that militant means and militant means alone were ever going to win the day

Did you ever use a gun for the cause, by the way?. You seem very bitter

Gerry Kelly, what is your problem with him?

Mary Lou is a careerist with no knowledge of Irish history nor republican ideals who jumped on the bandwagon of Sinn Feins revisionism, all to forge a career for herself
Hardly what the likes of Bobby Sands perished for straving in **** covered cell?

Gerry Kelly is reformist who used his republican past to garner votes in Belfast.
When he got elected he bought good few houses in West Belfast and now profits off backs of people he claims represent
His former comrade and prison mate Marian Price is currently locked up for speaking at a rally and he is doing nothing for her

The lie that Sinn Fein reps live off industrial wage is farce

And if I was ever involved in militant republicanism, would I admit it here on public forum?

AhSureTisGrand

Bringing socialism into the mix seems a bit pointless to me. If a united Ireland is your main aim, then murder in the name of a united Ireland and nothing else. Don't confuse things by introducing other ideologies

walrusgumble

criticalcritic wrote: »

Can assure you Im no barstooler as you put it and Im by no means part of your 'movement'
Just today I was at picket supporting republican POWs, who your 'movment now condemn'

Sinn Fein is not a movement anymore it is a populist collection of opportunists who shame republicanism by still claiming be its bastion

But its folk like your yourself with your watered down psuedo republicanism we need rid of

Because I hate to break it to you, you aint republican, supporting Sinn Fein your a moderate nationalist at best

Supporting British police who continually repress the republican/nationalist community

Destroying thousands of arms at behest of British government

Watering down every ebb of revolutionary tendency your party had

Abandoning POWS who served decades for Provo leadership

What will be end result?


Hang your head lad and cope on

I am in no movement, but I am not one who is quick to be critical on everything that has happened in the North. If you are unable to read, that is your problem

Your a bar stooler. Picketing is not the same thing. So, when the new dawn rises as you suggest, you will be in the dug outs with hand on gun so?

What is the alternative to Sinn Féin? SDLP, Éirgi, IRSP, Republican Sinn Féin?

Your chip on the shoulder Northern pissing and moaning is the perfect example of why Southerners don't tolerate people like you trying to speak on behalf of the country. Our grandparents and great grandparents actually fought for their freedom, Northerns did not even try to put up much of an effort during the Tan War, (in with the same energy as the Provos in the 1960's) And before you start point out the natural difficulties compared to the South, Cork men got sfa in the way of guns and ammo (they got their own) and Cork was not exactly the bastion of republicans in those days either.


Are you really saying that armed rebellion is the way to go? Or, are you seeking a Constitutional method?

I never said I was Republican, I said that I was sympathetic to it. You really are an embarrassment.

Where is the evidence of "repression " in 2011?

Don't go assuming that you are talking to a member of Sinn Féin. I never put myself out as one. Sympathetic and being a member or claiming to be a member are too different things

FeckinUsername

dlofnep wrote: »

It was absolutely justified. The partition of this country had no merit, and was wholly against the will of the majority of the people. Compare and contrast how the British state treated the nationalist population post-partition. The state was gerrymandered, the security services murdered civilians and were never made accountable for it, the police service colluded with loyalist terrorists and bullied and harassed the nationalist population. Innocent people were thrown in prison without ever receiving a trial, families were torn apart.

Trying to liberate a people through armed force is nothing new, and will continue for times to come.

The IRA campaign against loyalists paramilitaries, the RUC and the British security services was absolutely justified. I just don't see how anyone could support the role that Britain played post-partition in the north of this country, and couldn't empathise with those who felt that they had no other choice but to take up arms in the pursuit of freedom.

Here here, well said.

Historically I would find further justification for the campaign in the fact that the British completely ignored the democratic will of the Irish people when they called for a united independent Ireland in 1918. Also it should always be remembered that it was the Unionist community who re-introduced the gun to Irish political life, not Republicans. This action, and its unreserved support from the British Tories totally legitimised future Republican armed action.

FeckinUsername

walrusgumble wrote: »

I am in no movement, but I am not one who is quick to be critical on everything that has happened in the North. If you are unable to read, that is your problem

Your a bar stooler. Picketing is not the same thing. So, when the new dawn rises as you suggest, you will be in the dug outs with hand on gun so?

What is the alternative to Sinn Féin? SDLP, Éirgi, IRSP, Republican Sinn Féin?

Your chip on the shoulder Northern pissing and moaning is the perfect example of why Southerners don't tolerate people like you trying to speak on behalf of the country. Our grandparents and great grandparents actually fought for their freedom, Northerns did not even try to put up much of an effort during the Tan War, (in with the same energy as the Provos in the 1960's) And before you start point out the natural difficulties compared to the South, Cork men got sfa in the way of guns and ammo (they got their own) and Cork was not exactly the bastion of republicans in those days either.

I never said I was Republican, I said that I was sympathetic to it. You really are an embarrassment.

Where is the evidence of "repression"?

Learn to read you muppet before assuming that you are talking to a member of Sinn Féin. Sympathetic and being a member or claiming to be a member are too different things

You are sympathetic to Republicanism and yet you speak in terms of 'Northerners and Southerners'? That is the type of partitionist mentality that Republicans strive to combat every day. Obviously not that sympathetic then.....

criticalcritic

The fact that British paratroopers roamed the streets of Derry randomingly gunning down unarmed civilian protesters

And all the while the cowards in charge in Leinster house sat and watched refusing to budge

Reason enough for the IRA to come to the fore and defend the nationalist community while carrying out offensive operations to drive home to Britain the strong desire for sovereignty

criticalcritic

FeckinUsername wrote: »

walrusgumble wrote: »

I am in no movement, but I am not one who is quick to be critical on everything that has happened in the North. If you are unable to read, that is your problem

Your a bar stooler. Picketing is not the same thing. So, when the new dawn rises as you suggest, you will be in the dug outs with hand on gun so?

What is the alternative to Sinn Féin? SDLP, Éirgi, IRSP, Republican Sinn Féin?

Your chip on the shoulder Northern pissing and moaning is the perfect example of why Southerners don't tolerate people like you trying to speak on behalf of the country. Our grandparents and great grandparents actually fought for their freedom, Northerns did not even try to put up much of an effort during the Tan War, (in with the same energy as the Provos in the 1960's) And before you start point out the natural difficulties compared to the South, Cork men got sfa in the way of guns and ammo (they got their own) and Cork was not exactly the bastion of republicans in those days either.

I never said I was Republican, I said that I was sympathetic to it. You really are an embarrassment.

Where is the evidence of "repression"?

Learn to read you muppet before assuming that you are talking to a member of Sinn Féin. Sympathetic and being a member or claiming to be a member are too different things

You are sympathetic to Republicanism and yet you speak in terms of 'Northerners and Southerners'? That is the type of partitionist mentality that Republicans strive to combat every day. Obviously not that sympathetic then.....

This type of 'new republican' seems be springing up all over place

Its now cool to be republican didnt ya hear?

hatrickpatrick

Some of it was justifiable and some of it wasn't.

What I'm positive all of us, even the most die hard Republican supporters, will agree is that the particular aspect of it which involved bombing civilian centres in England, blowing up pubs and shopping centres, bombing remembrance day parades, etc was 100% completely and utterly despicable. There is no excuse for killing random, innocent people. Ever.

walrusgumble

FeckinUsername wrote: »

You are sympathetic to Republicanism and yet you speak in terms of 'Northerners and Southerners'? That is the type of partitionist mentality that Republicans strive to combat every day. Obviously not that sympathetic then.....

Hey, go back and read what you pal said, It was him that shouted the odds and criticizer Southerners. Commenting on how Southerners have some how devoid of all culture and coming out with this laughable notion that Northerners are carrying the flag. You get lippy with that ****e, inconvenient truths will be thrown back at ye. All I did was point out the views expressed by many on this thread and elsewhere, and you know what Southerners have said in the past.

Your pal seeks for a United Ireland, yet in a single swop he attempts to alienate anyone down south. Who was the partitionist there. You can always count on the Northerner to use Partitionism when it suits.

Trying to combat it? Well **** me pink, your pal started it

criticalcritic

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Some of it was justifiable and some of it wasn't.

What I'm positive all of us, even the most die hard Republican supporters, will agree is that the particular aspect of it which involved bombing civilian centres in England, blowing up pubs and shopping centres, bombing remembrance day parades, etc was 100% completely and utterly despicable. There is no excuse for killing random, innocent people. Ever.

100%

The most tragic aspect of the struggle was the deaths of innocent civilians

But in war especially Guerilla warfare it is inivatable civilians will perish

Its regretable but unfortunate reality

AhSureTisGrand

Jaysus lads ye couldn't unite an empty room let alone a whole island

walrusgumble

criticalcritic wrote: »

This type of 'new republican' seems be springing up all over place

Its now cool to be republican didnt ya hear?

Are you trying to seek support or are you trying to alienate everyone? Your support base needs to expand out from the 500 or so small circle who seem to wish it was the 1970's again.

Ah your just raging that your not talking to people who are coming out and say it was all wrong and the campaign was entirely unjustifiable. Even the old Stickies don't buy the guff your going on about, I suppose they were West Brits too?

I will ask again, you believe that your movement, which you do perceive yourself to be involved in, in some form, should go back to war? Or do politics?

walrusgumble

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Jaysud lads ye couldn't unite an empty room let alone a whole island

The curse of the Republican movement through its history. Sure Britain had never need to have worried.

criticalcritic

walrusgumble wrote: »

FeckinUsername wrote: »

You are sympathetic to Republicanism and yet you speak in terms of 'Northerners and Southerners'? That is the type of partitionist mentality that Republicans strive to combat every day. Obviously not that sympathetic then.....

Hey, go back and read what you pal said, It was him that shouted the odds and criticizer Southerners. Commenting on how Southerners have some how devoid of all culture and coming out with this laughable notion that Northerners are carrying the flag. You get lippy with that ****e, inconvenient truths will be thrown back at ye. All I did was point out the views expressed by many on this thread and elsewhere, and you know what Southerners have said in the past.

Your pal seeks for a United Ireland, yet in a single swop he attempts to alienate anyone down south. Who was the partitionist there. You can always count on the Northerner to use Partitionism when it suits.

Trying to combat it? Well **** me pink, your pal started it

Im from the South and was refering to this sh*t state we live in, not its inhabitants

And the Northerners as you call them do carry the flag better then we do

If you had the Brit army out your backgarden youd certainly fly your flag higher

Liam Byrne

Was A campaign justified ? Yes

Was the bastardised one where they murdered civilians justified ? Absolutely not.

But that's the past - nothing will bring those they chose to murder back.

The biggest issue nowadays is the double-standards, whereby everything despicable that the British did is - rightly - highlighted and complained about, while the IRA atrocities are excused and dismissed as "casualties of war".

And, of course, the fact that anyone who points the above out is accused of being "less Irish" or "west Brit".

A true republic involves treating everyone equally, not leaving bombs around to blow some of them up.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Some of it was justifiable and some of it wasn't.

What I'm positive all of us, even the most die hard Republican supporters, will agree is that the particular aspect of it which involved bombing civilian centres in England, blowing up pubs and shopping centres, bombing remembrance day parades, etc was 100% completely and utterly despicable. There is no excuse for killing random, innocent people. Ever.

That's the part that creates difficulty in defining a timeline were it was acceptable. I think definitely from Enniskillen on it became increasingly futile and only intransigence and hatred on both sides stopped the realisation that it was self defeating, the more they bombed, the more they met resistance.

Many Republicans will argue that brought them to the table. I'd say a recognition that democracy and compromise had to be part of the solution, brought them to the table.

Previous to Enniskillen there were many despicable acts as well, Bloody Friday eg. and it can be hard to differentiate between them and things like Warrenpoint.

FeckinUsername

walrusgumble wrote: »

Hey, go back and read what you pal said, It was him that shouted the odds and criticizer Southerners. Commenting on how Southerners have some how devoid of all culture and coming out with this laughable notion that Northerners are carrying the flag. You get lippy with that ****e, inconvenient truths will be thrown back at ye. All I did was point out the views expressed by many on this thread and elsewhere, and you know what Southerners have said in the past.

Your pal seeks for a United Ireland, yet in a single swop he attempts to alienate anyone down south. Who was the partitionist there. You can always count on the Northerner to use Partitionism when it suits.

Trying to combat it? Well **** me pink, your pal started it

I just noted your comment, maybe in isolation. If the northern/ southern issue was raised prior to that then I apologise. I will stand by the statement that we should not be engaging in this partitionist line of thought though.

walrusgumble

criticalcritic wrote: »

The fact that British paratroopers roamed the streets of Derry randomingly gunning down unarmed civilian protesters

And all the while the cowards in charge in Leinster house sat and watched refusing to budge

Reason enough for the IRA to come to the fore and defend the nationalist community while carrying out offensive operations to drive home to Britain the strong desire for sovereignty

if those "cowards" in Leinster House had made a move, there would have been massacre and you know damn well, Ireland would have been alone. Paddy Hillery tried to get UN backing for peace keepers and was shot down to simple "oh, tis awful , there must be something we could do" (another word for putting things on the long finger)

Jesus, we had lads in Lebanon and Cyprus in crap equipment, and feck all planes, and Scotland Yard keeping tabs on the South , and you think Ireland would have been able for all out war?

criticalcritic

walrusgumble wrote: »

criticalcritic wrote: »

This type of 'new republican' seems be springing up all over place

Its now cool to be republican didnt ya hear?

Are you trying to seek support or are you trying to alienate everyone? Your support base needs to expand out from the 500 or so small circle who seem to wish it was the 1970's again.

Ah your just raging that your not talking to people who are coming out and say it was all wrong and the campaign was entirely unjustifiable. Even the old Stickies don't buy the guff your going on about, I suppose they were West Brits too?

I will ask again, you believe that your movement, which you do perceive yourself to be involved in, in some form, should go back to war? Or do politics?

War is just a tactic, doesnt have be only way

But total abandonment of all principles for a reformed internal settlement and seat in Stormont is no alternative

walrusgumble

FeckinUsername wrote: »

I just noted your comment, maybe in isolation. If the northern/ southern issue was raised prior to that then I apologise. I will stand by the statement that we should not be engaging in this partitionist line of thought though.

I completely agree that partitionist line of thought should be stamped out

FeckinUsername

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Was A campaign justified ? Yes

Was the bastardised one where they murdered civilians justified ? Absolutely not.

But that's the past - nothing will bring those they chose to murder back.

The biggest issue nowadays is the double-standards, whereby everything despicable that the British did is - rightly - highlighted and complained about, while the IRA atrocities are excused and dismissed as "casualties of war".

And, of course, the fact that anyone who points the above out is accused of being "less Irish" or "west Brit".

A true republic involves treating everyone equally, not leaving bombs around to blow some of them up.

Hold on now, I will have to take you up on one of your points. You mention double standards, you are dead right. There are major double standards in play. When we have the commander of the British army over here on a visit, coinciding with the anniversary of the Dublin - Monaghan bombings, all 'of that' should be in the past. In fact her visit is feted as a sign of great progress and 'maturity'. Yet when a one time member of the IRA runs for the Free State Presidency we are treated to daily updates on every 'atrocity' that the organisation carried out. We are told that such a person should not be anywhere near a high political office. And he is one of the ones that has embraced normal constitutional politics. You are damn right that there is a double standard in play.

criticalcritic

walrusgumble wrote: »

criticalcritic wrote: »

The fact that British paratroopers roamed the streets of Derry randomingly gunning down unarmed civilian protesters

And all the while the cowards in charge in Leinster house sat and watched refusing to budge

Reason enough for the IRA to come to the fore and defend the nationalist community while carrying out offensive operations to drive home to Britain the strong desire for sovereignty

if those "cowards" in Leinster House had made a move, there would have been massacre and you know damn well, Ireland would have been alone. Paddy Hillery tried to get UN backing for peace keepers and was shot down to simple "oh, tis awful , there must be something we could do" (another word for putting things on the long finger)

Jesus, we had lads in Lebanon and Cyprus in crap equipment, and feck all planes, and Scotland Yard keeping tabs on the South , and you think Ireland would have been able for all out war?

Ah sure let the Northerners get slaughtered aslong as we're safe

Thats kind attitude that fuels my republican tendencies

The fact the states joke army went to babysit poor people in the Middle East but refused defend the besieged citizens of their own country

walrusgumble

criticalcritic wrote: »

War is just a tactic, doesnt have be only way

But total abandonment of all principles for a reformed internal settlement and seat in Stormont is no alternative

But the latter is the only way hostility (well, most of it) from Unionist may cease. Its for the people who feel left behind to keep reminding Sinn Féin of their principles and hurt them in the ballot box if need be.

Whether you like it or not, United Ireland will not happen over night. And even if it did happen, Unionist voice or former will never go away. Any United Ireland will not be the one of Soldier's Song and all things symbolically Republican.

You see in the Unionist section, even guys like hardman Traditional Unionist headbanger Jim McAllister are not being considered by the Unionists.

You have to admit, things are getting better up there, and I say that with the knowledge of political stalemate at the moment and the economic problems.

walrusgumble

criticalcritic wrote: »

Ah sure let the Northerners get slaughtered aslong as we're safe

Thats kind attitude that fuels my republican tendencies

The fact the states joke army went to babysit poor people in the Middle East but refused defend the besieged citizens of their own country

eh, more northerners would have been slaughtered. Sweet jesus. I was not even considering the others

Irish Army have been sitting on the boarder for years as well. It's told by the UN were to go. Hillary sought UN intervention, Britain butted in. You know this