Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

junder

Chuck Stone wrote: »

junder wrote: »

As hard as it is to understand the 'other side' you would find that the very dame reasons that led young republicans to join the ira led young loyalists to join similar armed groups be they udr or uvf moreover having members of your familys murdered and in many cases witnessing them being murdered could lead somebody to cross the line.

Well maybe they should have asked their leaders why they found themselves in that situation. Not that your painting of Loyalist paramilitaries as a reactionary force has any credibility.

The UVF and affiliates were up to mischief well before the IRA campaign developed momentum and at that time it wasn't due to any killing of their family members as you suggest.

In March and April 1969, there were six bomb attacks on electricity and water infastructure targets, causing blackouts and water shortages. At first the attacks were blamed on the Irish Republican Army (IRA). In fact, it later emerged that members of the loyalist Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV) and Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) had carried out the bombings in an attempt to implicate the IRA, destabilise the Government and halt the reforms demanded by the Civil Rights movement and promised by Terence O'Neill

[SIZE="1"]Chronology of the conflict: 1969. Conflict Archive on the Internet.[/SIZE]

Also, it was anti-Catholic rioters who were trying to burn Catholics out of their homes, during calls for equality/civil rights, and did a fairly good job of it while being allowed to by the RUC.

The most bloody rioting was in Belfast, where seven people were killed and hundreds more wounded. Scores of houses and businesses were burned-out, most of them owned by Catholics. In addition, thousands of families were driven from their homes. The RUC was accused of helping the loyalists and of failing to protect Catholic areas. Events in Belfast have been viewed by some as a pogrom against the minority Catholic and nationalist community.

[SIZE="1"]Fields, Rona M. Northern Ireland: Society Under Siege. Transaction Publishers, 1977. p.19[/SIZE]

Clearly it was the Catholic community in the North who were under siege.

Moreover, unlike Protestants, Catholics couldn't join the RUC, UDR and BA to protect their community.

You really don't have a clue do you, just another broken record

Chuck Stone

junder wrote: »

You really don't have a clue do you, just another broken record

Why don't you address my post instead instead of having a go at me?

KeithAFC

junder wrote: »

You really don't have a clue do you, just another broken record

I agree. This talk of burning catholics out of homes could be said about the thousands of Protestants intimated and bombed out of their homes in Londonderry.

Cases of Protestants being attacked out of their homes and Catholics moving in. It happened on both sides. I wish there was more balance on this.

junder

Chuck Stone wrote: »

junder wrote: »

You really don't have a clue do you, just another broken record

Why don't you address my post instead instead of having a go at me?

Why not read what I had originally posted instead or resorting to your typical default reply

Chuck Stone

junder wrote: »

Why not read what I had originally posted

I did read what you originally posted and replied to it with my view.

instead or resorting to your typical default reply

I don't have a default reply.

The Westerner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

the discussion twists from ousting Saddam to ousting someone like Hitler.....

..........the discussion went on to show, I believe, you'd do absolutely nothing to stop Saddam and Hitler etc. unless you could fight the perfect war. Many more innocents would have probably died, not less, if they weren't stopped at some point.

How can more of them dying, not less, fit in any way comfortably with your core argument re innocents?

Noreen1

KeithAFC wrote: »

Agree with this Junder. If people condone the PIRA, then they can't moan about Michael Stone or other Loyalists.

So does that mean that if people condone Loyalist Paramilitary gangs, they can't moan about the PIRA?

Liam Byrne

The Westerner wrote: »

..........the discussion went on to show, I believe, you'd do absolutely nothing to stop Saddam and Hitler etc. unless you could fight the perfect war. Many more innocents would have probably died, not less, if they weren't stopped at some point.

I love the way your phrasing emphasises the "do nothing" in an effort to dismiss the concept, while putting the "unless" as an aside.

It was possible - had the proper view been taken re human lives - to take out Saddam Hussein, but no.....the powers that be decided that shelling an entire city was the option that they would choose. That was 100% wrong.

So enough with trying to imply that I would have "done nothing". There is a MASSIVE difference between targetting civilians and any genuine accidents.

I'm not - despite your assertions - looking for a "perfect world"; what I am looking for is a 100% genuine attempt to ensure that innocent people aren't maimed or murdered.

How can more of them dying, not less, fit in any way comfortably with your core argument re innocents?

That pointless question and assertion is based on the false premise of "doing nothing". Yet again, there would be a huge difference in a tactical team taking out Hussein (even though that COULD have resulted in a some unacceptable deaths) vs bombing an entire city which any sane individual would know WOULD result in unacceptable deaths.

The key difference is in the "COULD" vs the "WOULD". Ignore that, and you lose my support. In fact, in civilised society you can be sued based on that intent, and rightly so.

The IRA chose to bomb civilian areas and - as someone pointed out above - it is astronomically stupid to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different result.

So they were either (a) astronomically stupid or (b) knew damn well that civilians would be murdered and didn't give a crap.

Either way, that means unjustifiable.

Liam Byrne

Noreen1 wrote: »

So does that mean that if people condone Loyalist Paramilitary gangs, they can't moan about the PIRA?

Ideally it should mean both. But double-standards are the order of the day.

The IRA can attack because there's a war on (meaning war rules apply) but the British Army can't act like there's a war on, and the opposing "side" (ironically with the same mentality and more in common with the IRA than ordinary decent people) will get whinged about by apologists for doing exactly what the IRA were doing.

Farcical at times, but what can you do.

Tiocfaidh Armani

The IRA chose to bomb civilian areas and - as someone pointed out above - it is astronomically stupid to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different result.

So they were either (a) astronomically stupid or (b) knew damn well that civilians would be murdered and didn't give a crap.

Liam, this is kinda also the point I'm making. People are selective about their outrage about civilians being killed.

The Westerner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That pointless question.

Evasion on an extraodinary scale Liam. Are you saying your not bothered how many innocents die here?

I'll ask you again like so:

If the outcome of any event happening in World War 2 was changed in any way and this led to Germany and Japan winning the war, where probably more innocents would have died than really occurred, would you prefer that World War 2 happened the way it did, in order to keep the number of innocents deaths down?

Yes or no?

Liam Byrne

The Westerner wrote: »

Evasion on an extraodinary scale Liam. Are you saying your not bothered how many innocents die here?

I'm saying that you cannot have the high moral ground while murdering innocents. Your scenario has someone else murdering the innocents, and regardless of my actions, the person murdering them is to blame for that, not me.

The Westerner wrote: »

I'll ask you again like so:

If the outcome of any event happening in World War 2 was changed in any way and this led to Germany and Japan winning the war, where probably more innocents would have died than really occurred, would you prefer that World War 2 happened the way it did, in order to keep the number of innocents deaths down?

Yes or no?

Completely hypothetical, and your phrasing is deliberately ignoring the key differential......would vs could. If you KNOW FOR A FACT IN ADVANCE that they'll die AS A DIRECT RESULT OF YOUR ACTIONS, then it's wrong.

If they "could" die, then it's a whole different argument. My key objections is knowing that your actions will result in the murder of innocents - if they will, then change your actions.

It's also a different argument entirely in the context of the thread, since the actions were SPECIFICALLY TARGETTED AT CIVILIANS, not targetted at killing Saddam or Hitler or anyone else.

So ditch the strawmanning and false accusations of evasion.

Liam Byrne

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Liam, this is kinda also the point I'm making. People are selective about their outrage about civilians being killed.

I'm not. As I've repeatedly said, there were 2 types of people in Northern Ireland....those who were OK with murdering innocents and those who weren't.

Anyone who is selective is engaging in whataboutery and double-standards.

The Westerner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Completely hypothetical

Shouldn't accuse others of that really........

My key objections is knowing that your actions will result in the murder of innocents - if they will, then change your actions.

With Hitler in mind? Do you really mean this? Want to nip into the Wolfs Lair and suggest it to him?

So ditch the strawmanning and false accusations of evasion.

Strawmanning? Are you serious? !! The accusation at you remains intact in my eyes and won't be withdrawn anytime soon.

It's also mysterious that suddenly you won't comment that more innocents dying is a bad thing when you were happily debating with Chuck Stone and others further back up the thread with posts like this (#616):

If I kill 20 people and 10 are innocent, and someone else kills 10 people and 6 are innocent, then Chuck would have you believe that I'm less evil than them because their percentage is higher. Despite the fact that I killed both more people and more innocent people.

Tiocfaidh Armani

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not. As I've repeatedly said, there were 2 types of people in Northern Ireland....those who were OK with murdering innocents and those who weren't.

Anyone who is selective is engaging in whataboutery and double-standards.

No, I'm talking about other folk who cry about civilians being killed in a conflict but largely will defend armies in uniform who bomb and kill innocent people but it's legitimate because they wear a uniform.

maccored

this thread is going to get killed because of this sidelining. I put Liam on ignore a long time ago mainly because, though I applaud (seriously) his moral values - the world just doesnt work that way. Standing there saying killing is wrong is a fine and upstanding thing, but your opposition would just mow you down regardless. I think you're all wasting your time having this argument .

Though I will point out, murdering anyone shouldnt be acceptable, innocent or not (if one was to go down that road).

junder

So what appears to being argued here is that civilian causultys are inevitable so there for, the ira was justified

Tiocfaidh Armani

junder wrote: »

So what appears to being argued here is that civilian causultys are inevitable so there for, the ira was justified

Not quite that simple. I see now difference to them to the IRA of 1919 etc. I don't get how cold blooded killing back then is different to the recent IRA campaign.

Britain had no mandate to partition Ireland, misruled nationalists there to an unbearable level and made the conflict inevitable imo. To just condemn an armed campaign because innocent people died is a bit simplistic as all conflicts have seen innocent people die.

maccored

junder wrote: »

So what appears to being argued here is that civilian causultys are inevitable so there for, the ira was justified

No - i think its civillian causalities are inevitable as that is the way with wars. I also think that very same argument has been done to death in this forum many, many many times. Pardon the pun.

Sunnyisland

under wrote: »

So what appears to being argued here is that civilian casualties are inevitable so there for, the iraq was justified

I haven't seen anybody saying that, But so far and as far I know in all wars/conflicts its inevitable that civilians will be killed.

Hannibal

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Not quite that simple. I see now difference to them to the IRA of 1919 etc. I don't get how cold blooded killing back then is different to the recent IRA campaign.

Britain had no mandate to partition Ireland, misruled nationalists there to an unbearable level and made the conflict inevitable imo. To just condemn an armed campaign because innocent people died is a bit simplistic as all conflicts have seen innocent people die.

The above post pretty much nails this thread.

The British invaded and crucially misruled and all Irish nationalist campaigns were inevitable because of the conditions the British rule created and how they treated the natives. The Irish have never accepted this rule which is why so many rebellions and campaigns have erupted throughtout time be it from Wolfe Tone and Emmet through to 1916 and the subsequent War of Independence and right through to the split in the IRA to form the provisional movement in 1969 are all as legitimate as the other.

lugha

Dotsey wrote: »

The Irish have never accepted this rule which is why so many rebellions and campaigns have erupted throughtout time be it from Wolfe Tone and Emmet through to 1916 and the subsequent War of Independence and right through to the split in the IRA to form the provisional movement in 1969 are all as legitimate as the other.

I notice you omit the modern day dissident republicans from your role of honour. If others are to be excused for willfully ignoring the wishes of the vast majority who believed their political ambitions could be fulfilled by peaceful means, why not these fine fellows?

Sunnyisland

lugha wrote: »

I notice you omit the modern day dissident republicans from your role of honour. If others are to be excused for willfully ignoring the wishes of the vast majority who believed their political ambitions could be fulfilled by peaceful means, why not these fine fellows?

Now that's a good question which at the moment I cant answer.

Tiocfaidh Armani

lugha wrote: »

I notice you omit the modern day dissident republicans from your role of honour. If others are to be excused for willfully ignoring the wishes of the vast majority who believed their political ambitions could be fulfilled by peaceful means, why not these fine fellows?

There's always been a small minority willing to use force, republicans except the period from 1918-1922 have always been a minority ideology in Ireland.

Hannibal

lugha wrote: »

I notice you omit the modern day dissident republicans from your role of honour. If others are to be excused for willfully ignoring the wishes of the vast majority who believed their political ambitions could be fulfilled by peaceful means, why not these fine fellows?

Because on the whole I dont believe many of these people to be true republicans, some are but some are also complete fantascists who think that dragging Ireland back into a war zone like the 70's and 80's is a good thing that should be viewed with some form of twisted nostalgia.

The armed campaign was always the last resort for republicans but many believed they were left with absolutely no alternative from 1969 until 1994/96. When you examine the process in which led the IRA to a ceasefire and to ultimately decommission you understand that republican leaders had foresight and could see another way forward through the political process based on equality.

There was always going to come a day when the IRA was no longer needed and that day arrived, republicans can now have faith in a fair and unbiased political system based on equalities which were never there before. The path set by Sinn Fein is the logical and crucially realistic way forward to reuniting Ireland.

I believe the reason behind all Irish uprisings was the harsh treatment of nationalists and the inequalities that existed and them barriers have been mostly broken down and are covered within the GFA. Now that we have equality across both communities we have to engage the political process and the direction the electorate wish to take.

lugha

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

There's always been a small minority willing to use force.

Succinctly put. The great tragedy is that there are so many who seemingly find nothing amiss with such an abhorrent view (for a democrat).

Tiocfaidh Armani

lugha wrote: »

Succinctly put. The great tragedy is that there are so many who seemingly find nothing amiss with such an abhorrent view (for a democrat).

I was stating a fact.

KeithAFC

Dotsey wrote: »

Because on the whole I dont believe many of these people to be true republicans, some are but some are also complete fantascists who think that dragging Ireland back into a war zone like the 70's and 80's is a good thing that should be viewed with some form of twisted nostalgia.

The armed campaign was always the last resort for republicans but many believed they were left with absolutely no alternative from 1969 until 1994/96. When you examine the process in which led the IRA to a ceasefire and to ultimately decommission you understand that republican leaders had foresight and could see another way forward through the political process based on equality.

There was always going to come a day when the IRA was no longer needed and that day arrived, republicans can now have faith in a fair and unbiased political system based on equalities which were never there before. The path set by Sinn Fein is the logical and crucially realistic way forward to reuniting Ireland.

I believe the reason behind all Irish uprisings was the harsh treatment of nationalists and the inequalities that existed and them barriers have been mostly broken down and are covered within the GFA. Now that we have equality across both communities we have to engage the political process and the direction the electorate wish to take.

You had the IRA in the 50s, coming from the Irish Republic to the near boarder. That wasn't about equality, that was about basic Republican aggression.

To many, that fight still goes on. To many Republicans, the 1998 agreement was a surrender and they don't see the GFA working and think it cements partition. Can't say I disagree with them on the partition bit.

lugha

Dotsey wrote: »

There was always going to come a day when the IRA was no longer needed

Ah well now, that is a matter of opinion. You think they are no longer needed, the dissidents think that are still needed, I think they (as an agent to bring about a united Ireland) were never needed.

Here’s a mad idea! When it comes to, what I think all would agree, is the very serious decision of using force to bring about political change, perhaps we should take the counsel of the people on whose behalf the force is being used? And the Irish people made it perfectly clear that they did not endorse PIRA.

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

I was stating a fact.

Yes, I know. I was pointing out that quite a few people are rather untroubled by this fact.

Liam Byrne

The Westerner wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Completely hypothetical

Shouldn't accuse others of that really........

My key objections is knowing that your actions will result in the murder of innocents - if they will, then change your actions.

With Hitler in mind? Do you really mean this? Want to nip into the Wolfs Lair and suggest it to him?

So ditch the strawmanning and false accusations of evasion.

Strawmanning? Are you serious? !! The accusation at you remains intact in my eyes and won't be withdrawn anytime soon.

It's also mysterious that suddenly you won't comment that more innocents dying is a bad thing when you were happily debating with Chuck Stone and others further back up the thread with posts like this (#616):

If I kill 20 people and 10 are innocent, and someone else kills 10 people and 6 are innocent, then Chuck would have you believe that I'm less evil than them because their percentage is higher. Despite the fact that I killed both more people and more innocent people.

Nothing mysterious about it at all - bar a ridiculous conspiracy theory that you are trying to manufacture. I wasn't the one making false claims, and "less evil" is still evil.

I never claimed otherwise.