Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

karma_

LordSutch wrote: »

No matter powerful & well equipt an Army is, it would be very hard to defeat a very small guerilla outfit like the PIRA who just anonymously fade back into the populace. The only way to defeat a terrorist group like that (imbedded in the population) would be to bring on the heavy weaponry with air support & raize the place to the ground (after having declared war on that country)!!! lucky for the PIRA then, who would have been mince meat after about three days, had it been a proper Army V Army war . . . . . .

This makes no sense. Just because you declare war on a country does not mean you have the right to obliterate all and everyone in your path, that in itself would be unlawful conduct.

Fratton Fred

karma_ wrote: »

This makes no sense. Just because you declare war on a country does not mean you have the right to obliterate all and everyone in your path, that in itself would be unlawful conduct.

So even if it was a war, the targeting of civilians is a crime?

So the PIRA were in fact a criminal organisation.

LordSutch

karma_ wrote: »

This makes no sense. Just because you declare war on a country does not mean you have the right to obliterate all and everyone in your path, that in itself would be unlawful conduct.

A previous poster suggested that the PIRA was more than up to defeating the British Army & destroying London in the process! My post suggests that if it came down to a 'proper' war, (Army against army) and with the British Army running on full power, then the PIRA would have been wiped out very quickly indeed, but the PIRA were not a proper army, and neither was it a proper war.

karma_

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So even if it was a war, the targeting of civilians is a crime?

So the PIRA were in fact a criminal organisation.

Fred, I'm attacking a stupid post. My views on the matter were posted earlier when I said the Republican campaign was not justified.

Hannibal

LordSutch wrote: »

No matter powerful & well equipt an Army is, it would be very hard to defeat a very small guerilla outfit like the IRA who just anonymously fade back into the populace. The only way to defeat a terrorist group like that (imbedded in the population) would be to bring on the heavy weaponry with air support & raize the place to the ground (after having declared war on that country)!!! lucky for the IRA then, who would have been mince meat after about three days, had it been a proper Army V Army war . . . . . .

it is the right of the guerillas to fade into the population much like the what the IRA done. The IRA practically invented urban guerrilla tactics in the War of Independence. Look at the Cuban revolution for example where albeit in a vastly different rural terrain Castro had a very small group of at first 80 men but mostly in around 200 men successfully overthrew an army of 50,000. Although Castro's rebels weren't well numbered they had widespread support in what they were trying to achieve. In proper army on army as you put it then the strongest would always win. The Germans would have probably steam rolled through both Stalingrad and Moscow aswell thus maybe making D-day irrelevent, it's about using brain over muscle.
The IRA fought the British in various campaigns for roughly 80 years and whether you like it or not for all the British might they couldn't defeat a well organised and well motivated guerilla army. In the course of them 80 years the Irish gained more than the British did.
With demographs changing the way they are in the north of Ireland and the swing towards independence in Scotland and away from Westminster it's feasible that in 10 to 15 years the "British empire" will be made up of just England, Wales, Gibraltar and the Malvinas.

junder

Some food for thought for the ira apolgists on this thread

The Belfast Telegraph's revelations about the Enniskillen bomb and Loughgall shootings contradict the republican narrative of the 'armed struggle', argues Henry McDonald

Liam Clarke's illuminating revelations in this newspaper about the IRA's actions in two seminal incidents in 1987 that arguably marked major turning-points in the Troubles prove an old trope - the one that advises you to be careful what you wish for.

When the Provisionals and loyalists' armed campaigns effectively ended in 1994, the 'war' switched from being a conflict waged with bullets and bombs to a battle of history.

The Provisionals, in particular, attempted to re-shape their 'armed struggle', not so much as total war to drive the British out, but, perversely, as some kind of logical extension of the civil rights struggle.

This shift was presaged on the day of the IRA cessation, August 31, 1994, when Gerry Adams addressed the faithful on the Andersonstown Road. Adams told a crowd gathered to celebrate the IRA announcement that we had been "on our knees" before the Provisionals' offensive started.

The innuendo being that somehow the 'armed struggle' was purely reactive, a response to the repressive measures of the British Army and the structural discrimination of the unionists.

Since the ceasefires that changing narrative has become mainstream republican orthodoxy. Of course, it is blindingly obvious to state that thousands of young nationalists embraced the IRA campaign due to humiliating treatment by the security forces and the hostility of the unionist establishment that made them feel excluded from society.

However, it is a perversion of history to ignore that there were those who made free choices; who wanted a united Ireland and were prepared to kill (and die) for it.

Part of this 'battle of history' was to demand a South African-style truth and reconciliation commission. The focus for mainstream republicans was trained on killings directly carried out by members of the security forces, or loyalist murders in which there were suspicions of collusion.

The problem with the Northern Ireland conflict, unlike South Africa, is that the former was not quite literally black and white.

The violence and pain inflicted in the Troubles came from a multiplicity of quarters, rather than the grand narrative of the Apartheid struggle, where a privileged white minority cruelly oppressed the black majority.

Liam Clarke's (pictured right) exclusive reports on two Historical Enquiries Team (HET) investigations - into the 1987 Enniskillen massacre and the wiping out of the east Tyrone IRA brigade's most active unit the same year - have, in their different ways, disturbed the narrative the Provisionals have sought to create a mythos from regarding the Troubles.

On the Enniskillen bomb, it appears the HET has concluded the IRA unit deliberately targeted civilians at the town's war memorial. The HET report found that the bomb had been placed at the side of the cenotaph, where civilians and members of the Royal British Legion were gathered.

In addition, the HET also uncovered a parallel plot to explode a bomb in Tullyhomin, 20 miles away, which, if it had detonated, would have killed members of the Boys' and Girls' Brigade.

Shortly after the atrocity, the IRA insisted the carnage had been the result of a mistake and the unit responsible was stood down. Yet it now appears the plot factored in the loss of civilian lives.

Clarke's second revelation concerned the SAS ambush seven months earlier in which eight IRA members and one civilian were killed. The Loughgall shooting was the biggest blow to the IRA since the War of Independence.

The HET report into Loughgall has found that the IRA team attacking the town's police station fired first. The conclusion caused political furore among the families of the dead IRA men, who have always insisted their relatives were victims of a 'shoot-to-kill' policy.

Because the investigation seems to be suggesting that there may have been grounds for the SAS firing back (whether the families like it or not), the HET has provided the SAS with some moral cover.

Republicans and unionists will never agree over the truth behind the latter incident, which, it could be argued, started to convince a number of top figures in the Provisional movement that the 'armed struggle' was a futile, counter-productive cul de sac.

The loss of IRA activists, like the notorious Jim Lynagh, also removed a potential source of serious armed opposition to the 'peace camp' within the Provisionals.

But one thing is clear: the inquiry culture that has become so prevalent in post-Troubles Northern Ireland can take even its greatest enthusiasts all kinds of directions they didn't expect to travel in.

The HET's conclusions over the Enniskillen massacre paints those responsible as, at the very least, guilty of callous disregard for civilian life and, at the worst, as viscerally sectarian.

In relation to Loughgall, the HET line is quite stunning, because it actually aids the SAS story, rather than those on the receiving end of their firepower.

For political actors on either side who would seek to use inquiries to re-write history, these bit-by-bit explorations into the past have a double-edged quality: they can inflict as much damage on them as on their opponents.

Unless there is some kind of overarching truth commission that allows for a full excavation of what actually happened over the last four decades, then this will continue.

But does anyone really think that some of the new vested political interests in Northern Ireland are genuinely ready to open up all the files - given that they could be cause for major embarrassment, or further controversy?

Chuck Stone

I think that if people signed up to be on one side or the other and then got killed it's kinda tough ****.

The Enniskillen bomb was savagery. The IRA lost a lot of support after that I believe.

Fratton Fred

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I think that if people signed up to be on one side or the other and then got killed it's kinda tough ****.

The Enniskillen bomb was savagery. The IRA lost a lot of support after that I believe.

It was the beginning of the end for them. Their support steadily declined from that point on, up to the Warrington atrocity which pretty much killed off their remaining support.

trendyvicar

Dotsey wrote: »

it is the right of the guerillas to fade into the population much like the what the IRA done. The IRA practically invented urban guerrilla tactics in the War of Independence. Look at the Cuban revolution for example where albeit in a vastly different rural terrain Castro had a very small group of at first 80 men but mostly in around 200 men successfully overthrew an army of 50,000. Although Castro's rebels weren't well numbered they had widespread support in what they were trying to achieve. In proper army on army as you put it then the strongest would always win. The Germans would have probably steam rolled through both Stalingrad and Moscow aswell thus maybe making D-day irrelevent, it's about using brain over muscle.
The IRA fought the British in various campaigns for roughly 80 years and whether you like it or not for all the British might they couldn't defeat a well organised and well motivated guerilla army. In the course of them 80 years the Irish gained more than the British did.
With demographs changing the way they are in the north of Ireland and the swing towards independence in Scotland and away from Westminster it's feasible that in 10 to 15 years the "British empire" will be made up of just England, Wales, Gibraltar and the Malvinas.

I'd bet against your analysis above. LOL. Why is it always 10+ years in the future with you guys? Have you never heard the expression 'seize the day'? LOL

By the way, if guerrilla/terrorist violence is always so successful, what are you going to day if Loyalists turn the tables in any United Ireland? Especially with Ireland's sh*t army and traffic warden police force?

:eek:

LordSutch

Dotsey wrote: »

With demographs changing the way they are in the north of Ireland and the swing towards independence in Scotland and away from Westminster it's feasible that in 10 to 15 years the "British empire" will be made up of just England, Wales, Gibraltar and the Malvinas.

Dotsey; Please explain what this means . . . .

Chuck Stone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It was the beginning of the end for them. Their support steadily declined from that point on, up to the Warrington atrocity which pretty much killed off their remaining support.

The thing was though that it doesn't take a huge amount of money and men to make and deliver a truck bomb. The most effective weapon the IRA ever used imo.

I think the British had had enough after these two events. As soon as the IRA started to focus on hurting the UK economy the game was up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_bombing

laoch na mona

LordSutch wrote: »

No matter powerful & well equipt an Army is, it would be very hard to defeat a very small guerilla outfit like the PIRA who just anonymously fade back into the populace. The only way to defeat a terrorist group like that (imbedded in the population) would be to bring on the heavy weaponry with air support & raize the place to the ground (after having declared war on that country)!!! lucky for the PIRA then, who would have been mince meat after about three days, had it been a proper Army V Army war . . . . . .

or treat people as equal and therefore remove the need for armed freedom fighters

trendyvicar

laoch na mona wrote: »

or treat people as equal and therefore remove the need for armed freedom fighters

Just for future reference old boy, how unequal would I have to be treated by someone before I can (with a clear conscience) blow the limbs of his wife and children?

Hannibal

trendyvicar wrote: »

I'd bet against your analysis above. LOL. Why is it always 10+ years in the future with you guys? Have you never heard the expression 'seize the day'? LOL

By the way, if guerrilla/terrorist violence is always so successful, what are you going to day if Loyalists turn the tables in any United Ireland? Especially with Ireland's sh*t army and traffic warden police force?

:eek:

Its called having forward perspective.

If loyalists done that what would they be fighting for? the constitution would have by then been amended to break the norths ties to England, so they could hardly be fighting for England to take them back when they havent wanted them in a long time. Plus loyalists wouldnt have the numbers to turn the tables in a unified Ireland. They have a majority in 3 out of 32 counties, the two biggest cities in Derry and Belfast have large nationalist majorities.

In the event of an independent Scotland considering loyalists are Ulster-Scots where does their allegience go? Edinburgh or London?

Liam Byrne

trendyvicar wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Did he not know the difference between English and British on there either?

Ah, but you see FF, Scotland and Wales are also occupied nations straining under The English yolk. Britishness is an artificial construct used to justify English oppression...

:eek:

And yet Scotland and Wales manage to avoid murdering people - go figure!

laoch na mona

trendyvicar wrote: »

Just for future reference old boy, how unequal would I have to be treated by someone before I can (with a clear conscience) blow the limbs of his wife and children?

i don't agree with the PIRA bombing campaign but you can see how the unionist government caused the problem

KeithAFC

Dotsey wrote: »

Its called having forward perspective.

If loyalists done that what would they be fighting for? the constitution would have by then been amended to break the norths ties to England, so they could hardly be fighting for England to take them back when they havent wanted them in a long time. Plus loyalists wouldnt have the numbers to turn the tables in a unified Ireland. They have a majority in 3 out of 32 counties, the two biggest cities in Derry and Belfast have large nationalist majorities.

In the event of an independent Scotland considering loyalists are Ulster-Scots where does their allegience go? Edinburgh or London?

Actually I don't think that is true. I think Belfast is actually equal. Which is why it is such a hot spot for a lot of rioting and fighting.

Ulster.

trendyvicar

Dotsey said:

If loyalists done that what would they be fighting for?

Hmmmm. An independent British Ulster?

the constitution would have by then been amended to break the norths ties to England,

Perhaps they'll kick off before then? You know, get their message across to all those 'sure I'll take a United Ireland, but not if it costs me' brigade in The Republic...

so they could hardly be fighting for England to take them back when they havent wanted them in a long time.

You really believe your own propaganda don't you? If England (LOL) wanted out, they'd have gone years ago - what would have stopped them? They'd hardly have waited until PIRA surrendered and Republicans urged people to betray IRA men to the police. LOL

Plus loyalists wouldnt have the numbers to turn the tables in a unified Ireland. They have a majority in 3 out of 32 counties, the two biggest cities in Derry and Belfast have large nationalist majorities.

They'd number about a million and a new map could be drawn tomorrow excluding the majority of Nationalists. Actually, I assume it's already been drawn. LOL

In the event of an independent Scotland considering loyalists are Ulster-Scots where does their allegience go? Edinburgh or London?

I'd assume they'd stay with the remaining UK. In fact, I'm certain of it.

trendyvicar

laoch na mona wrote: »

i don't agree with the PIRA bombing campaign but you can see how the unionist government caused the problem

I can see how historical events caused the problem amongst other factors.

Fiatach

Any attempts to clear Irish territory of occupying British troops and their domestic armed allies is totally justifiable.

Liam Byrne

Fiatach wrote: »

Any attempts to clear Irish territory of occupying British troops and their domestic armed allies is totally justifiable.

But the campaign included (many successful) attempts to clear Irish territory of Irish men, women & children too.

KeithAFC

Fiatach wrote: »

Any attempts to clear Irish territory of occupying British troops and their domestic armed allies is totally justifiable.

But when will Republicans learn though?

800 years and all that. The British presence in Ulster is the people. Republicans for generations have talked about resistance and getting rid of the "Brits" and yet it has never worked. The Republican ideal is a 32 county Republic (Socialist for many).

Has there ever been a genuine victory for Republicanism? I don't think there has been. And the reason for that is the people who come from an Ulster Scots background in Ulster who reject the notion of a United Ireland and that all of Ulster should be in a Republic.

Republicans can talk about resistance as much as they want, as far as people from my community are concerned, we have resisted for 350-400 years and won't just be moved like some Republicans wish.

Fiatach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But the campaign included (many successful) attempts to clear Irish territory of Irish men, women & children too.

Well regrettably civilians did die and they died in the Easter Rising, Tan war etc. That didn't make those campaigns unjustifiable and I think Republicans in this new generation try to limit the risk of civilian casulties as much as possible. You dont see bombs in town centres anymore. Its concentrated on crown forces.

jiffybag

Not a clue do you have OP .

I can still smell the burning flesh , still hear the screams and still taste the horror that was the Omagh bomb . If you ever get that close to such horror and can still be proud to be a Republican or what ever then you have no morals or no soul!

All this done at 3pm on a busy Saturday afternoon in the name of a free Ireland . Balls!! Murders and nothing more !

Liam Byrne

Fiatach wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But the campaign included (many successful) attempts to clear Irish territory of Irish men, women & children too.

Well regrettably civilians did die

No, they didn't "die"......they were killed; murdered. By people pretending to want freedom, but who chose to rule out some from that freedom by ensuring that they were dead.

It's not the token "regrettable" weasel-words - it's despicable.

Fiatach

jiffybag wrote: »

Not a clue do you have OP .

I can still smell the burning flesh , still hear the screams and still taste the horror that was the Omagh bomb . If you ever get that close to such horror and can still be proud to be a Republican or what ever then you have no morals or no soul!

All this done at 3pm on a busy Saturday afternoon in the name of a free Ireland . Balls!! Murders and nothing more !

Do you think Irish Republicans set out to kill people in a mainly nationalist town like Omagh? As I said lessons of mistakes like Omagh seem to be learned, bombs in town centres are thankfully a thing of the past.

Fiatach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No, they didn't "die"......they were killed; murdered. By people pretending to want freedom, but who chose to rule out some from that freedom by ensuring that they were dead.

It's not the token "regrettable" weasel-words - it's despicable.

I think weasels are people like you. People who wet themselves at the thought of Irishmen and women taking on British forces fighting for Irish freedom on the streets and in the fields in Ireland. Can you name me a war were zero civilians died?

Fiatach

KeithAFC wrote: »

But when will Republicans learn though?

800 years and all that. The British presence in Ulster is the people. Republicans for generations have talked about resistance and getting rid of the "Brits" and yet it has never worked. The Republican ideal is a 32 county Republic (Socialist for many).

Has there ever been a genuine victory for Republicanism? I don't think there has been. And the reason for that is the people who come from an Ulster Scots background in Ulster who reject the notion of a United Ireland and that all of Ulster should be in a Republic.

Republicans can talk about resistance as much as they want, as far as people from my community are concerned, we have resisted for 350-400 years and won't just be moved like some Republicans wish.

It was people from the Ulster-Scots tradition who helped found Irish Republicanism and resistance to British rule in Ireland by use of force.

K-9

Zombrex wrote: »

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.

So supporting the IRA in the War of Independence would condone the British presence? I don't really get that. Supporting the Libyan rebels could mean condoning Ghadaffi? That seems odd logic!

Supporting the IRA after 1918 and not 1916 is hard to justify logically really. It leaves a strange situation that the armed campaign suddenly is morally justified the day it gets majority support, and anything that happened the day before morally wrong.

Liam Byrne

Fiatach wrote: »

I think weasels are people like you.

:rolleyes:

Fiatach wrote: »

People who wet themselves at the thought of Irishmen and women taking on British forces fighting for Irish freedom on the streets and in the fields in Ireland.

Where did I even suggest that I objected to "taking on" or "fighting back" ?

You're making up stuff now.

What I object to is the direct murder of fellow countrymen and the pretence that that's "for Ireland"......forgive me if I'd puke at the thought of an Ireland where people who disagree with me feel entitled to randomly blow up myself or other adults and kids.

Come back to me when you want to debate without petty insults and fiction.