Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

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

The Scientician

criticalcritic wrote: »

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

When you plant bombs in public places, where people are shopping, or eating, or sleeping, or kids are playing, then yeah deaths are inevitable. How many murdered kids or OAPs would it take to get us a United Ireland?
We haven't got it yet, so maybe enough people weren't blown to smithereens or maimed. What do ya think? The unfortunate reality is that murderers in the north hid behind their flags and their history and their pomposity to visit death and destruction upon their neighbours.

NICRA was of course justified, even the early actions of the PIRA and other groups around 1969/70/71 are probably justified, most later actions taken by them were just butchery with a nice political dressing up.

FeckinUsername

The Scientician wrote: »

When you plant bombs in public places, where people are shopping, or eating, or sleeping, or kids are playing, then yeah deaths are inevitable. How many murdered kids or OAPs would it take to get us a United Ireland?
We haven't got it yet, so maybe enough people weren't blown to smithereens or maimed. What do ya think? The unfortunate reality is that murderers in the north hid behind their flags and their history and their pomposity to visit death and destruction upon their neighbours.

NICRA was of course justified, even the early actions of the PIRA and other groups around 1969/70/71 are probably justified, most later actions taken by them were just butchery with a nice political dressing up.

Would you describe British atrocities in the same fashion?

Chuck Stone

dlofnep wrote: »

It was absolutely justified.

Some of what they done hurt civilians who never wanted a part in the conflict so I, personally, wouldn't subscribe to the 'absolutely' stance. I'm horrified by the death of people who didn't sign up to be on one side or the other.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

This is where I stand. Some of what they did was brave. Some of what they did was just wrong by anyone's standards.

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,

Unfortunately for us all this isn't true. It was the Canary Wharf bomb and the Bombing of the Manchester CBD that ended the conflict in NI.

Right in the middle of the peace process the IRA hit the economic heart of the UK and threatened to hurt the economy.

Game over.

Zombrex

hoorsmelt wrote: »

They were responsible for the deaths of about 1,800 people, mostly security service personnel

Out of the 2060 people Republican paramilitary groups (mostly the IRA) killed, 727 of them were civilians. That is just less than the number of civilians the Loyalist paramilitary groups murdered.

hoorsmelt wrote: »

, 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?

No.

Firstly they did not have any legitimate mandate to act as a military force for the people of Ireland or even the people of Northern Ireland.

Secondly they conducted themselves in a manner unbecoming a legitimate military force, resorting to terrorism and murder.

So no, they weren't justified.

Zombrex

criticalcritic wrote: »

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

Its regretable but unfortunate reality

Pretty good reasons not to use guerilla warfare, don't you think?

I mean in war especially mass genocide/chemical warfare/atomic bombs/suicide bombers/human sheilds etc etc it is inevitable civilians will perish, its regrettable but unfortunate reality.

Oh no way, it is immoral and illegal.

Since when does "Oh it was war, its inevitable" get used as an excuse for any and every atrocity anyone wants to carry out?

hatrickpatrick

criticalcritic wrote: »

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

I have to take issue with this statement, and bear in mind I take issue when someone posts this with regard to ANY conflict:
"Collateral damage" is only ever even remotely valid when the civilian deaths are a "side effect" of whatever the attack was actually intended to do.

Attacks which bear the sole intended outcome of killing innocent people can never, ever be justified or excused.

The Scientician

FeckinUsername wrote: »

Would you describe British atrocities in the same fashion?

Of course. Your point?

hoorsmelt

Zombrex wrote: »

No.

Firstly they did not have any legitimate mandate to act as a military force for the people of Ireland or even the people of Northern Ireland.

Secondly they conducted themselves in a manner unbecoming a legitimate military force, resorting to terrorism and murder.

So no, they weren't justified.

The Irish Parliament which signed the Act of Union merging Ireland with Great Britain in the UK was elected elected by Anglican suffrage only, with the added caveat that electors be landowners and male. They had no mandate to sign over Ireland to the United Kingdom, yet it was done. An historic injustice was done to this country, so those who resorted to arms to correct that injustice had the moral right to do so, the same as Afghan, Iraqi and Palestinian guerrillas do today in their struggles. Secondly, the laws of war are never applied fairly, mainly because the main powers exempt themselves from their responsibility, so as it stands there is no set manner for distinguishing between a legitimate and illegitimate military force- I would contend that the sole distinction is the cause that they are fighting for, there are plenty of worthwhile anti-imperialist forces like the Zapatistas, who are formally illegal, who have a solid claim to legitimacy as armies. The PIRA had a similar mandate.

LordSutch

FeckinUsername wrote: »

It was a fight for Irish freedom,

That is such a crock of . . .

Think of the victims of the Troubles matey :mad:

KeithAFC

The war of Republican aggression on Ulster didn't start in 1969. "30" (more really) years of trying to force the PUL people into a United Ireland and they failed. They should have looked at our history and they would have known it would have failed.