Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

FUNKY LOVER

KeithAFC wrote: »

realies wrote: »

We cant what keith ?
Tell us about your great apartheid type state that was and still is a embarrassment to your queen.A state where they wouldn't even give there catholic neighbours the time of day,who treated us like muck,Your days are well gone and you just live in a bubble which keeps getting smaller and smaller every year.

What are you on about? We live in 2011, not 1969.

Something your favourite sectarian bigot group the orange order haven't grasped quite yet!

KeithAFC

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

And what about how his great state was founded,through violence murder,and enforcing beliefs on the majority who rejected it.

But of course that's in the past so its ok to talk of republicans been the blame for all the bother in the north.

Northern Ireland was created because a large minority (in terms of the island) rejected the notion of a United Ireland. It is that simple. Northern Ireland was created and that is all there is to it. Republicans can say it was wrong to the cows come home. Won't change history.

A large amount of people refused to join a 32 county Republic. So Northern Ireland was drawn up for them and they had a country to call their own.

KeithAFC

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

Something your favourite sectarian bigot group the orange order haven't grasped quite yet!

Why bring up the Orange Order?

FUNKY LOVER

KeithAFC wrote: »

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

Something your favourite sectarian bigot group the orange order haven't grasped quite yet!

Why bring up the Orange Order?

Irony.

KeithAFC

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

Irony.

Irony in that you bring up the Orange Order? If you tried to use the Orange Order to have a pop at me, it didn't work. I ain't in the Orange Order.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

Irony in that you bring up the Orange Order? If you tried to use the Orange Order to have a pop at me, it didn't work. I ain't in the Orange Order.

What are you in ?

KeithAFC

realies wrote: »

What are you in ?

What has that got to do with this thread? Can we not get this thread back on topic?

FUNKY LOVER

KeithAFC wrote: »

realies wrote: »

What are you in ?

What has that got to do with this thread? Can we not get this thread back on topic?

We were talking about a campaign which started in 69 but you said its 2011 now not 69.you kind of derailed it yourself.

KeithAFC

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

We were talking about a campaign which started in 69 but you said its 2011 now not 69.you kind of derailed it yourself.

Yes but you put it across as if that was my state as if I lived in 1969. I didn't.

R P McMurphy

trendyvicar wrote: »

Dotsey wrote: »

The simple answer to the OP is that yes the republican campaign was justifiable.

The IRA had no alternative but to enter into a military campaign in 1969, nothing else would have got us to where we are today without it. That's not to say that every thing the IRA done during this campaign was right because somethings were completely wrong. You have to remember that they were fighting one of the best equipped, trained and heavily armed armies in the world and still brought them to a stalemate in a military sense.

What happened on the political side had nothing to do with the IRA but their campaign did open up many avenues and give republicans leverage in negotiations with the British government.

No they didn't. That's hilarious. The two combatant groups in Northern Ireland were Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries. The role of the security forces was to maintain law and order, minimise the number of dead and injured and 'hold the ring' until a political solution could lead to a normalised and peaceful Northern Ireland.

Do most young people in Ireland believe your ridiculous claim about 'military stalemates'? LOL

So the FRU and the DET were not engaged in a conflict and were simply enforcing law and order? I will take a wild guess and say your knowledge of what went on in the north particularly from the 80s on is extremely limited. Doubt you ever set foot in the place to come out with ignorant guff like that. There would be very few BA personnel that served in the north that would agree with your uneducated assessment

Zombrex

Well this thread is turning into the usual car crash these threads tend to turn into.

Question for anyone who supports the IRA. Do you believe that a military power, of any capacity, needs to be answerable to civilian oversight.

A lot of fuss is made (rightly so) about cells in British Intelligence and British Army (such as the SAS) acting as judge jury and executor in Northern Ireland, basically acting as an agency un to themselves.

This is seen as bad precisely because we are used in Western society to the idea that all police and military units of the State should be answerable and governed by civilian democratic bodies.

The notion of a military body acting independently to any oversight by civilian authorities (something common hundreds of years ago but no so any more) is so alien to us that when we see it we are automatically concerned by such a notion.

trendyvicar

R P McMurphy wrote: »

So the FRU and the DET were not engaged in a conflict and were simply enforcing law and order? I will take a wild guess and say your knowledge of what went on in the north particularly from the 80s on is extremely limited. Doubt you ever set foot in the place to come out with ignorant guff like that. There would be very few BA personnel that served in the north that would agree with your uneducated assessment

I suspect that most ex-'BA' personnel talk out of their a*ses - something they share in common with Irish Nationalists.

As for not knowing what went on in 'da north', I know in enough to look at the relative kill rates of Republican murder gangs and the security forces to see that the security forces were NOT fighting a war.

Take a look around the world old bean, there are plenty of examples of state forces using war like methods against small truculent minorities. They just tend to fill mass graves with 'da rebels'. Check out Argentina and Chile in the seventies, or what happened to The Kurds and Marsh Arabs in Iraq. The list is endless.

Irish Nationalists in Northern Ireland were treated with kid gloves and still are. Your squalid bunch of mass murdering thugs just happened to be in conflict with a liberal democracy that saw pacification and normalisation as preferable to expulsion or elimination.

So carry on with your little fantasies about the bold IRA taking on The British Empire whilst the rest of the world sits back and laughs it's collective head off.

K-9

Zombrex wrote: »

Well this thread is turning into the usual car crash these threads tend to turn into.

Question for anyone who supports the IRA. Do you believe that a military power, of any capacity, needs to be answerable to civilian oversight.

A lot of fuss is made (rightly so) about cells in British Intelligence and British Army (such as the SAS) acting as judge jury and executor in Northern Ireland, basically acting as an agency un to themselves.

This is seen as bad precisely because we are used in Western society to the idea that all police and military units of the State should be answerable and governed by civilian democratic bodies.

The notion of a military body acting independently to any oversight by civilian authorities (something common hundreds of years ago but no so any more) is so alien to us that when we see it we are automatically concerned by such a notion.

I don't support the IRA, would have supported Hume always.

I'd agree that any military power should be accountable to civilian oversight, in principle, but how does that work in a guerilla style warfare situation? In NI or say Libya?

I suppose a peace and reconciliation type body might address it, with victims of say Enniskillen meeting the bombers there and trying to reach some type of reconciliation.

It's very idealistic though and Black and White.

As for democratic mandate, the 1916 Rising had no majority support but the War of Independence did through the 1918 election and the first Dail, yet it wasn't recognised internationally. Was the War of Independence acceptable to you?

Chuck Stone

trendyvicar wrote: »

As for not knowing what went on in 'da north', I know in enough to look at the relative kill rates of Republican murder gangs and the security forces to see that the security forces were NOT fighting a war.

You speak of the security forces as if they were analogous to UN peacekeepers or impartial players trying to keep warring factions apart which is utter rubbish and betrays your dogmatic ignorance on the subject.

It's a fact that 'security forces' colluded with their bedfellows the 'Loyalist' murder squads.

Indeed the British Government knew and ignored the fact that NI 'security force' weapons were being used by loyalist paramilitaries for the killing of Catholic civilians.

Subversion in the UDR (Declassified Document)

Sunnyisland

trendy vicar wrote: »

I suspect that most ex-'BA' personnel talk out of their a*ses - something they share in common with Irish Nationalists.

As for not knowing what went on in 'da north', I know in enough to look at the relative kill rates of Republican murder gangs and the security forces to see that the security forces were NOT fighting a war.

Take a look around the world old bean, there are plenty of examples of state forces using war like methods against small truculent minorities. They just tend to fill mass graves with 'da rebels'. Check out Argentina and Chile in the seventies, or what happened to The Kurds and Marsh Arabs in Iraq. The list is endless.

Irish Nationalists in Northern Ireland were treated with kid gloves and still are. Your squalid bunch of mass murdering thugs just happened to be in conflict with a liberal democracy that saw pacification and normalisation as preferable to expulsion or elimination.

So carry on with your little fantasies about the bold IRA taking on The British Empire whilst the rest of the world sits back and laughs it's collective head off.

So you need a certain amount of dead bodies to make it a war ? I supose the cold war had no victims unless they got the flu .

The British army and RUC strategy employed shoot-to-kill operations, plastic bullets, mass raids on homes, torture, curfews and intimidation, and collusion between state forces and unionist death squads to kill many hundreds of citizens. And they tried to intimidate a whole community.
The full resources of the British state – including legal, judicial, and propaganda – were brought to bear. War comes in all sets of disguises.

maccored

well said

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You speak of the security forces as if they were analogous to UN peacekeepers or impartial players trying to keep warring factions apart which is utter rubbish and betrays your dogmatic ignorance on the subject.

It's a fact that 'security forces' colluded with their bedfellows the 'Loyalist' murder squads.

Indeed the British Government knew and ignored the fact that NI 'security force' weapons were being used by loyalist paramilitaries for the killing of Catholic civilians.

Subversion in the UDR (Declassified Document)

Fratton Fred

No one mentioned the Smithwick Tribunal yet?

JustinDee

realies wrote: »

The British army and RUC strategy employed shoot-to-kill operations, plastic bullets, mass raids on homes, torture, curfews and intimidation, and collusion between state forces and unionist death squads to kill many hundreds of citizens. And they tried to intimidate a whole community

That jusitifies the PIRA and INLA as okay does it?
Its not like either of them was ever involved with assassinations, shoot-to-kill operations, raids, torture, curfews, intimidation . . . not forgetting the organised criminal network maintained.
What they transpired to do and become had sweet eff all to do with Civil Rights and liberties. They hijacked a civil rights cause.

Unjustifiable but lauded as heroes by those too hardline or too young to stand back and actually look at the catastrophe they contributed to.

trendyvicar

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You speak of the security forces as if they were analogous to UN peacekeepers or impartial players trying to keep warring factions apart which is utter rubbish and betrays your dogmatic ignorance on the subject.

It's a fact that 'security forces' colluded with their bedfellows the 'Loyalist' murder squads.

Indeed the British Government knew and ignored the fact that NI 'security force' weapons were being used by loyalist paramilitaries for the killing of Catholic civilians.

Subversion in the UDR (Declassified Document)

Some members of the security forces colluded with Loyalist Volunteers.

The linked report, I think I've already read in full and shows absolutely nothing of relevance. Is it the one produced by a British Army Brigadier. LOL

trendyvicar

realies wrote: »

So you need a certain amount of dead bodies to make it a war ? I supose the cold war had no victims unless they got the flu .

As for not knowing what went on in 'da north', I know in enough to look at the relative kill rates of Republican murder gangs and the security forces to see that the security forces were NOT fighting a war

You do know what the words RELATIVE KILL RATES mean, don't you?

KeithAFC

Some one said there was little Republican violence before 1972 and I posted a link which proved otherwise. I got no answer to it.

trendyvicar

KeithAFC wrote: »

Some one said there was little Republican violence before 1972 and I posted a link which proved otherwise. I got no answer to it.

There was almost 250 killings prior to Bloody Sunday (Jan 72). The majority were carried out by Republicans.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

Some one said there was little Republican violence before 1972 and I posted a link which proved otherwise. I got no answer to it.

This would be after the 21 May 1966,when the UVF issued a statement:

From this day, we declare war against the IRA and its splinter groups. Known IRA men will be executed mercilessly and without hesitation. Less extreme measures will be taken against anyone sheltering or helping them, but if they persist in giving them aid, then more extreme methods will be adopted . . . we solemnly warn the authorities to make no more speeches of appeasement. We are heavily armed Protestants dedicated to this cause.

On 11 June 1966, the UVF shot and killed Catholic store owner John Patrick Scullion in west Belfast. On 26 June 1966, another UVF gun attack in west Belfast killed Catholic barman Peter Ward and seriously injured three others. On 30 March 1969 a UVF bomb exploded at an electricity station in castlereagh, resulting in widespread black-outs. A further five bombs were exploded at electricity stations and water pipelines throughout April.It was hoped that these attacks would be blamed on the IRA, forcing moderate unionists to increase their opposition to the reforms of terence o neills government etc etc

You also said this keithAFC

Its an interesting discussion. I think neither side will fully agree on the Troubles and the context of it.

And with that I am out of this one

KeithAFC

realies wrote: »

This would be after the 21 May 1966,when the UVF issued a statement:

From this day, we declare war against the IRA and its splinter groups. Known IRA men will be executed mercilessly and without hesitation. Less extreme measures will be taken against anyone sheltering or helping them, but if they persist in giving them aid, then more extreme methods will be adopted . . . we solemnly warn the authorities to make no more speeches of appeasement. We are heavily armed Protestants dedicated to this cause.

On 11 June 1966, the UVF shot and killed Catholic store owner John Patrick Scullion in west Belfast. On 26 June 1966, another UVF gun attack in west Belfast killed Catholic barman Peter Ward and seriously injured three others. On 30 March 1969 a UVF bomb exploded at an electricity station in castlereagh, resulting in widespread black-outs. A further five bombs were exploded at electricity stations and water pipelines throughout April.It was hoped that these attacks would be blamed on the IRA, forcing moderate unionists to increase their opposition to the reforms of terence o neills government etc etc

You also said this keithAFC

Its an interesting discussion. I think neither side will fully agree on the Troubles and the context of it.

And with that I am out of this one

I think you missed my point in regards to the Republican killings before 72.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think you missed my point in regards to the Republican killings before 72.

Ok you explain to me what you mean.

trendyvicar

realies wrote: »

This would be after the 21 May 1966,when the UVF issued a statement:

From this day, we declare war against the IRA and its splinter groups. Known IRA men will be executed mercilessly and without hesitation. Less extreme measures will be taken against anyone sheltering or helping them, but if they persist in giving them aid, then more extreme methods will be adopted . . . we solemnly warn the authorities to make no more speeches of appeasement. We are heavily armed Protestants dedicated to this cause.

On 11 June 1966, the UVF shot and killed Catholic store owner John Patrick Scullion in west Belfast. On 26 June 1966, another UVF gun attack in west Belfast killed Catholic barman Peter Ward and seriously injured three others. On 30 March 1969 a UVF bomb exploded at an electricity station in castlereagh, resulting in widespread black-outs. A further five bombs were exploded at electricity stations and water pipelines throughout April.It was hoped that these attacks would be blamed on the IRA, forcing moderate unionists to increase their opposition to the reforms of terence o neillsgovernment etc etc

You also said this keithAFC

Its an interesting discussion. I think neither side will fully agree on the Troubles and the context of it.

And with that I am out of this one

Wasn't there Republican violence in every decade of NI's existence? Including the 'border campaign' which preceded The UVF campaign of '66?

Sunnyisland

trendyvicar wrote: »

Wasn't there Republican violence in every decade of NI's existence? Including the 'border campaign' which preceded The UVF campaign of '66?

There were IRA campaigns in the 1920s, 1940s and 1950s But Throughout the centuries, insurrections and rebellions by the native Irish against British rule have been common .

irishh_bob

realies wrote: »

There were IRA campaigns in the 1920s, 1940s and 1950s But Throughout the centuries, insurrections and rebellions by the native Irish against British rule have been common .

yet the vicar claims the irish were handled ( in his words ) with kid gloves by the empire , no mass graves like featured in other countries where the natives and lower orders caused trouble , what could possibley make the peasants want to revolt :rolleyes:

trendyvicar

irishh_bob wrote: »

yet the vicar claims the irish were handled ( in his words ) with kid gloves by the empire , no mass graves like featured in other countries where the natives and lower orders caused trouble , what could possibley make the peasants want to revolt :rolleyes:

I was talking about during 'the troubles', not the twelfth century.

Chuck Stone

realies wrote: »

This would be after the 21 May 1966,when the UVF issued a statement:

From this day, we declare war against the IRA and its splinter groups. Known IRA men will be executed mercilessly and without hesitation. Less extreme measures will be taken against anyone sheltering or helping them, but if they persist in giving them aid, then more extreme methods will be adopted . . . we solemnly warn the authorities to make no more speeches of appeasement. We are heavily armed Protestants dedicated to this cause.

On 11 June 1966, the UVF shot and killed Catholic store owner John Patrick Scullion in west Belfast. On 26 June 1966, another UVF gun attack in west Belfast killed Catholic barman Peter Ward and seriously injured three others. On 30 March 1969 a UVF bomb exploded at an electricity station in castlereagh, resulting in widespread black-outs. A further five bombs were exploded at electricity stations and water pipelines throughout April.It was hoped that these attacks would be blamed on the IRA, forcing moderate unionists to increase their opposition to the reforms of terence o neills government etc etc

You also said this keithAFC

Its an interesting discussion. I think neither side will fully agree on the Troubles and the context of it.

And with that I am out of this one

Then the first year of the CAIN stats paints this picture.

14 July 1969 Francis McCloskey (67) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Died one day after being hit on head with batons during street disturbances, Dungiven, County Derry.

17 July 1969 Samuel Devenny (42) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Died three months after being badly beaten in his home, William Street, Bogside, Derry. He was injured on 19 April 1969.

14 August 1969 John Gallagher (30) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Ulster Special Constabulary (USC)
Shot during street disturbances, Cathedral Road, Armagh.

14 August 1969 Patrick Rooney (9) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Shot at his home, during nearby street disturbances, St Brendan's Path, Divis Flats, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Herbert Roy (26) Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: non-specific Republican group (REP)
Shot while part of Loyalist crowd, during street disturbances, corner of Divis Street and Dover Street, Lower Falls, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Hugh McCabe (20) Catholic
Status: British Army (BA), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
On leave. Shot during street disturbances while on the roof of Whitehall Block, Divis Flats, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Samuel McLarnon (27) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Shot at his home during nearby street disturbances, Herbert Street, Ardoyne, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Michael Lynch (28) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Shot during street disturbances, Butler Street, Ardoyne, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Gerald McAuley (15) Catholic
Status: Irish Republican Army Youth Section (IRAF), Killed by: non-specific Loyalist group (LOY)
Shot during street disturbances, Bombay Street, Falls, Belfast.

15 August 1969 David Linton (48) Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: non-specific Republican group (REP)
Shot during street disturbances at the junction of Palmer Street and Crumlin Road, Belfast.

08 September 1969 John Todd (29) Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: non-specific Republican group (REP)
Shot during street disturbances, Alloa Street, Lower Oldpark, Belfast.

11 October 1969 Herbert Hawe (32) Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: British Army (BA)
Shot during street disturbances, Hopeton Street, Shankill, Belfast.

01 December 1969 Patrick Corry (61) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Died four months after being hit on the head with batons, during altercation between local people and Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) patrol, Unity Flats, off Upper Library Street, Belfast. Injured on 2nd August 1969.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1969.html

But of course these deaths were just the 'security forces' trying to keep the two sides apart.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.