Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

irishh_bob

trendyvicar wrote: »

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

you referenced other parts of the empire where rebellions were put down using much greater force , presumabley india , , parts of africa etc , its interesting to read posts from people like yourself on boards , racial supremacists and imperilists are rare nowadays and you wear your disdain for percieved inferior ( tribes as you put it ) peoples with such pride , your not a phoney , your the real deal in terms of haters

trendyvicar

irishh_bob wrote: »

you referenced other parts of the empire where rebellions were put down using much greater force , presumabley india , , parts of africa etc , its interesting to read posts from people like yourself on boards , racial supremacists and imperilists are rare nowadays and you wear your disdain for percieved inferior ( tribes as you put it ) peoples with such pride , your not a phoney , your the real deal in terms of haters

Show me where I referenced The British Empire regarding rebellions etc. I only recall referencing assorted nations in recent years dealing with insurgencies.

As for imperialists being rare - I guess it depends on what you mean by imperialist.

irishh_bob

trendyvicar wrote: »

Show me where I referenced The British Empire regarding rebellions etc. I only recall referencing assorted nations in recent years dealing with insurgencies.

As for imperialists being rare - I guess it depends on what you mean by imperialist.

page 23

post 343

trendyvicar

irishh_bob wrote: »

page 23

post 343

Nope. Quote the exact bit concerned.

Zombrex

K-9 wrote: »

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?

With difficulty I would say, depending on the circumstances.

Libya recognised the need for civilian over sight from the start, forming the NTC very early on in the civil war. While the rebel forces did seem to carry out war crimes (such as mass executions) I think the NTC provided a high level of control on the excesses of the rebel forces, and provided an international political face to the rebels.

K-9 wrote: »

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?

Yes (the war of independence not the rising). Being recognized internationally, while good, is not as necessary as being recognized in the country you claim to represent.

trendyvicar

A democratic mandate for military action can be seen as desirable, but what is more important is that any military action follows the recognised rules of war such as wearing uniforms, openly displaying weapons, taking prisoners and treating them well, being careful to avoid civilian casualties, not using civilians as cover for operations, not co-opting civilians into military support roles, etc, etc, etc.

Democracy is a relatively new phenomena.

Zombrex

trendyvicar wrote: »

A democratic mandate for military action can be seen as desirable, but what is more important is that any military action follows the recognised rules of war such as wearing uniforms, openly displaying weapons, taking prisoners and treating them well, being careful to avoid civilian casualties, not using civilians as cover for operations, not co-opting civilians into military support roles, etc, etc, etc.

Democracy is a relatively new phenomena.

I would disagree. I think those things are important, but ultimately the biggest question is what mandate does any act of violence have.

You can dress up in a uniform, call yourself an army, follow all the rules of war etc, but unless you have legitimate authority to act in the manner you are acting it is all for naught

K-9

Zombrex wrote: »

With difficulty I would say, depending on the circumstances.

Libya recognised the need for civilian over sight from the start, forming the NTC very early on in the civil war. While the rebel forces did seem to carry out war crimes (such as mass executions) I think the NTC provided a high level of control on the excesses of the rebel forces, and provided an international political face to the rebels.

It'll be interesting to see if any charges are brought against the rebels. I suppose the other side is that it seems rare that a conviction is brought against British Army or police forces involved in say, Bloody Sunday, so much for accountability there. I don't like Adams or whoever calling for some investigations when they really have immunity from investigations into some of their activities. So I suppose, people either accept terrible things happened and get on with it or have investigations on all sides, not an a la carte approach.

Yes (the war of independence not the rising). Being recognized internationally, while good, is not as necessary as being recognized in the country you claim to represent.

Which means that you are condoning 1916 to an extent as it eventually led to the War of Independence and democratic improvement. IIRC elections were delayed because of the war and large sections of society who couldn't vote now could, over 21 males and over 30 women.

laoch na mona

Zombrex wrote: »

I would disagree. I think those things are important, but ultimately the biggest question is what mandate does any act of violence have.

You can dress up in a uniform, call yourself an army, follow all the rules of war etc, but unless you have legitimate authority to act in the manner you are acting it is all for naught

self defense is a strong mandate

trendyvicar

Zombrex wrote: »

I would disagree. I think those things are important, but ultimately the biggest question is what mandate does any act of violence have.

You can dress up in a uniform, call yourself an army, follow all the rules of war etc, but unless you have legitimate authority to act in the manner you are acting it is all for naught

I see what you mean.

Of course PIRA had no democratic mandate, as the vast majority of those living in NI opposed their campaign. They also spat on the recognised rules of war.

Oh dear.

trendyvicar

laoch na mona wrote: »

self defense is a strong mandate

It is indeed and Loyalist paramilitaries offered it as one of the reasons for their existence.

Of course, most people see self defence as an immediate and reactive thing - but then again states take pre-emptive action and claim self defence, so...

laoch na mona

loyalists were never attacked by the police

irishh_bob

trendyvicar wrote: »

I see what you mean.

Of course PIRA had no democratic mandate, as the vast majority of those living in NI opposed their campaign. They also spat on the recognised rules of war.

Oh dear.

most people ( even opressed peoples ) dont have the stomach for violent conflict , the rebels of 1916 didnt have the support of the irish people at first or at least not the majority of them yet in time most people came to realise that someone had to strike a blow for the downtrodden , movements always start off being dismissed as a rag tag bunch of troublemakers by the apathetic majority , same the world over

trendyvicar

laoch na mona wrote: »

loyalists were never attacked by the police

I'm not sure about that. In any case 10 000+ of them ended up in prison. What about that for a kick in the teeth? LOL

trendyvicar

irishh_bob wrote: »

most people ( even opressed peoples ) dont have the stomach for violent conflict , the rebels of 1916 didnt have the support of the irish people at first or at least not the majority of them yet in time most people came to realise that someone had to strike a blow for the downtrodden , movements always start off being dismissed as a rag tag bunch of troublemakers by the apathetic majority , same the world over

Oh, I agree. History shows that majorities don't generally change history, minorities (particularly violent ones) do. Doesn't make it right though and shows how inadequate and imperfect democracy is.

A common technique is for those with a minority political view to hijack a political party that has popular support and get their cause promoted that way.

Bottle_of_Smoke

trendyvicar wrote: »

A democratic mandate for military action can be seen as desirable, but what is more important is that any military action follows the recognised rules of war such as wearing uniforms, openly displaying weapons, taking prisoners and treating them well, being careful to avoid civilian casualties, not using civilians as cover for operations, not co-opting civilians into military support roles, etc, etc, etc.

Democracy is a relatively new phenomena.

That essentially means the ones with the bigger guns/army will always stay in power no matter how rotten the regime is.

Were it not for nato Gaddafi would still be in power in Libya. They were the only reason the ntc could somewhat adhere to those rules. Had nato not supported them their only option would have been a similar campaign to the IRA.

Would that have made the uprising less legitimate? Seems illogical to me.

KeithAFC

laoch na mona wrote: »

loyalists were never attacked by the police

Loyalist communities got bombed by the PIRA and the UDA got set up and so on.

trendyvicar

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That essentially means the ones with the bigger guns/army will always stay in power no matter how rotten the regime is.

Were it not for nato Gaddafi would still be in power in Libya. They were the only reason the ntc could somewhat adhere to those rules. Had nato not supported them their only option would have been a similar campaign to the IRA.

Would that have made the uprising less legitimate? Seems illogical to me.

Of course, in some ways you are right. The option of clandestine insurrectionary violence is always an alternative. But remember, if you follow that path, as The IRA did, then there is always a price to pay. Unfortunately, the price is paid by the revolutionary's host community. The state may find it too difficult to kill the terrorist fish, so instead they may decide to poison the water in which said fish swim - the terrorist's host community. The responsibility lies with the revolutionary who rejected the rules of war.

In the case of NI, The UK State was very fortunate in having available Loyalist paramilitaries prepared to operate independently of The State. This has, of course, happened elsewhere, as in Iraq, with the Shiite death squads. Generally though, The State must provide it's own counter-revolutionary forces, as in central and south America in years past.

The IRA did not so much die for the nationalist community, as insure the nationalist community died for them. Strangely, said community still votes for them.

irishh_bob

trendyvicar wrote: »

Of course, in some ways you are right. The option of clandestine insurrectionary violence is always an alternative. But remember, if you follow that path, as The IRA did, then there is always a price to pay. Unfortunately, the price is paid by the revolutionary's host community. The state may find it too difficult to kill the terrorist fish, so instead they may decide to poison the water in which said fish swim - the terrorist's host community. The responsibility lies with the revolutionary who rejected the rules of war.

In the case of NI, The UK State was very fortunate in having available Loyalist paramilitaries prepared to operate independently of The State. This has, of course, happened elsewhere, as in Iraq, with the Shiite death squads. Generally though, The State must provide it's own counter-revolutionary forces, as in central and south America in years past.

The IRA did not so much die for the nationalist community, as insure the nationalist community died for them. Strangely, said community still votes for them.

you have it arseways , you seem to believe the nationalist community suffered as a result of the IRA movement when in fact the IRA movement was a result of nationalist suffering

trendyvicar

irishh_bob wrote: »

you have it arseways , you seem to believe the nationalist community suffered as a result of the IRA movement when in fact the IRA movement was a result of nationalist suffering

The IRA movement (as you call it) may or may not have been as a result of Nationalist suffering, but that's not the point. The actual widespread slaughter of Nationalists was as a result of The IRA campaign.

Exile 1798

It’s good to have you back futurehope/historybuff.

KeithAFC

trendyvicar wrote: »

The IRA movement (as you call it) may or may not have been as a result of Nationalist suffering, but that's not the point. The actual widespread slaughter of Nationalists was as a result of The IRA campaign.

Good point. That is exactly what the PIRA did. They made the nationalist people suffer.

trendyvicar

The IRA made a fundamental strategic mistake in that they failed to distinguish between an operating environment in which they had at least the passive support of the majority of the population (as in The Irish War of Independence) and one in which they had only (at least) the passive support of a third of the population, as in Northern Ireland. Worse than that, within Northern Ireland they were aggressively opposed by two thirds of the population, who not only hated their methods, but also despised their goals. This was a recipe for disaster.

Fundamentally, of course, it came down to The IRA not having a majority mandate within Northern Ireland - in other words they failed the democratic test.

Tragically for Irish Nationalism, The IRA's campaign solidified Unionist opposition to any form of United Ireland, something that is unlikely to disappear anytime soon, if ever. Not only did The IRA fail to deliver Irish Unity, but they completely queered the pitch for moderate, non-violent Nationalism. No amount of votes on The Falls Road, or limited electoral success in The Irish Republic will change this reality.

Even better, from a Unionist point of view, is that SF continues to celebrate PIRA 'martyrs' and engages in other 'tribalistic' behaviour, continuously reminding Unionists of what they believe and why. This process is aided by rejectionist Republicans continuing to engage in violence.

Zombrex

K-9 wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see if any charges are brought against the rebels.

It will be, but we also shouldn't under-estimate how much didn't happen because of the existence of the NTC. It is not just punishing war crimes after the fact, civilian oversight of armies also stop them from happening in the first place.

K-9 wrote: »

Which means that you are condoning 1916 to an extent as it eventually led to the War of Independence and democratic improvement.

Not sure what you mean. Historical events lead to other historical events, that is just the nature of human interactions. You don't condone all events leading up to something by supporting that something.

If you did you would be condoning Gaddafi's brutal oppression for 40 years by supporting the Libyan rebels.

I don't condone the 1916 rebels (who had no democratic mandate for the rising, nor even popular support), nor the British response which was disproportionate and inconsiderate with view of civilians.

Zombrex

laoch na mona wrote: »

self defense is a strong mandate

Self defense is a justification for giving someone a mandate. So a group of people might give a mandate to a milita to protect them from outside raiders (say in 19th century America).

The Irish Army is largely only has a self defense mandate from the Irish people, who have traditionally rejected the notion of offensive action by the Irish Army.

So yes self defense can produce a very strong mandate. But you still require the actual mandate.

Do you understand what mandate means? It is power granted to a body to act in a particular fashion by the people. It can be granted for any reasons including self defense. But it has to be granted.

Zombrex

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That essentially means the ones with the bigger guns/army will always stay in power no matter how rotten the regime is.

Were it not for nato Gaddafi would still be in power in Libya. They were the only reason the ntc could somewhat adhere to those rules. Had nato not supported them their only option would have been a similar campaign to the IRA.

Would that have made the uprising less legitimate? Seems illogical to me.

The NTC didn't adhere to those rules because NATO allowed them to. They adhere to the rules because they believed they were the right thing to do, they recognized that legitimacy was the only way they could justify military action and provide democracy for Libya.

We will never know but I suspect they would have continued to adhere to those rules even if NATO had pulled out support for them and they had lost. They certainly continued to adhere to them (by and large, exceptions are to be expected in any rebel army) before NATO support and when things were not going their way.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Zombrex wrote: »

The NTC didn't adhere to those rules because NATO allowed them to. They adhere to the rules because they believed they were the right thing to do, they recognized that legitimacy was the only way they could justify military action and provide democracy for Libya.

We will never know but I suspect they would have continued to adhere to those rules even if NATO had pulled out support for them and they had lost. They certainly continued to adhere to them (by and large, exceptions are to be expected in any rebel army) before NATO support and when things were not going their way.

They didn't even adhere to them properly. Loads of black civillians were slaughtered because it was assumed they were pro-gaddafi.

You're missing the point though. Without nato support they would have been wiped out by Gaddafi forces if they'd adhered to the rules of war. They were using AKs with sellotape holding them together like. Even with nato support it dragged out a lot longer than expected.

Zombrex

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

You're missing the point though. Without nato support they would have been wiped out by Gaddafi forces if they'd adhered to the rules of war. They were using AKs with sellotape holding them together like. Even with nato support it dragged out a lot longer than expected.

They would have been wiped out anyway, adhering or not adhering. Without NATO support the rebels would have found it very difficult to win unless there was mass defections from the army, which seemed unlikely.

Again they didn't adhere to these things as a way of winning, they adhered to them (imperfectly as you point out) as a statement of legitimacy. They won because of NATO air support (something they probably wouldn't have gotten without legitimacy).

trendyvicar

Revolutionaries adhere to the rules of war because they wish to protect their civilian population from enemy reprisals. The Provos didn't give a monkeys about the Nationalist population, they only cared about winning.

irishh_bob

trendyvicar wrote: »

Revolutionaries adhere to the rules of war because they wish to protect their civilian population from enemy reprisals. The Provos didn't give a monkeys about the Nationalist population, they only cared about winning.

thats one thing they had in common with you so