Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

john reilly

junder wrote: »

Humour me

No I will stick with the facts and leave the poor attempt at humour to you

lugha

john reilly wrote: »

can you tell me what democratic choice the people of the six counties were given when they were left to rot by the british and irish goverments.

I would dispute your implication that there was something the Irish government could have done that would not have made things worse (as IMO, PIRA made things worse). But in any case, this only amounts to an argument for the use of force on behalf of oppresses Northern Catholics.

Which once again, it not my particular difficulty. I ask on what basis you can justify the PIRA purporting to act on behalf of all Irish people, including those of us in the South who in free and fair elections overwhelmingly supported political parties who pursued a united Ireland by peaceful means only?

john reilly wrote: »

I would imagine the men and women risking there life fighting for irish freedom werent doing so for the unanimous recognition of the brainwashed irish public.

Again you make clear your distain for democracy. Which is fine and dandy, provided you do not, like most republicans, insist that you are committed exclusively to democratic means.

Nodin

junder wrote: »

I agree, it's really quite a disgusting attuitude amoung some republicans

I'd appreciate it if you didn't distort my posts like that. I'm civil to you, I don't think it too much to ask the same in return.

junder

john reilly wrote: »

No I will stick with the facts and leave the poor attempt at humour to you

you have yet to present any facts, hyperbol does not count as facts. so back to the original question. define what a true irisman is and why does myers fail to meet this critia

junder

Border-Rat wrote: »

Are you an Irishman?

does it matter?

john reilly

lugha wrote: »

I would dispute your implication that there was something the Irish government could have done that would not have made things worse (as IMO, PIRA made things worse). But in any case, this only amounts to an argument for the use of force on behalf of oppresses Northern Catholics.

Which once again, it not my particular difficulty. I ask on what basis you can justify the PIRA purporting to act on behalf of all Irish people, including those of us in the South who in free and fair elections overwhelmingly supported political parties who pursued a united Ireland by peaceful means only?

Again you make clear your distain for democracy. Which is fine and dandy, provided you do not, like most republicans, insist that you are committed exclusively to democratic means.

well it was the intitial decision to partition the country that caused the problem, and the realisation that while the people of the 26 counties could enjoy their freedom. The people of the six counties had been left in an unbearable situation. its hard to know why the people of the 26 counties were so quick to desert their fellow irishmen whether it was to get over the guilt of creating this situation or just pure cowardice. The goverments that followed where quick to try and ignore the situation in the hope that it would quietly go away. then to demonise those who were fighting for freedom despite all the goverment parties having there basis in freedom fighting. Time and again the people south of the border showed negligence and even contempt for their fellow irishmen north of the border. The basic additude was if we could saw off the six counties and let them all kill each other that would be the ideal situation and you wonder why republicans show contempt for irish political parties and their pro-brit stance

john reilly

junder wrote: »

you have yet to present any facts, hyperbol does not count as facts. so back to the original question. define what a true irisman is and why does myers fail to meet this critia

To start myers is an english surname and for second his contempt for the irish nation and his widely stated belief that all irish people are inferior.a true irish person would have a belief that irish people are race who are the most superior, brave, intelligent and dignified on this planet. this would explain how a small band of irish men and women were able to bring one of the biggest, richest, most agressive armies in the world to its knees

Border-Rat

junder wrote: »

does it matter?

No, but you just answered my question.

I love it when Englishmen bellyache about the IRA. Please, continue.

Border-Rat

john reilly wrote: »

To start myers is an english surname and for second his contempt for the irish nation and his widely stated belief that all irish people are inferior.a true irish person would have a belief that irish people are race who are the most superior, brave, intelligent and dignified on this planet. this would explain how a small band of irish men and women were able to bring one of the biggest, richest, most agressive armies in the world to its knees

Don't waste your time on disingenuous English trolls chara. They hide behind Protestant victims but in reality they're just upset that Paddy said no and knocked them about for 3 decades.

junder

john reilly wrote: »

To start myers is an english surname and for second his contempt for the irish nation and his widely stated belief that all irish people are inferior.a true irish person would have a belief that irish people are race who are the most superior, brave, intelligent and dignified on this planet. this would explain how a small band of irish men and women were able to bring one of the biggest, richest, most agressive armies in the world to its knees

so by having an english surname rules you out of being a true irishman. well that rules out a significant amount of the irish population, including a certain mr adams. also going by your post a 'true irish man' is a racial supremacist who believes they are 'superior' to oher people on the planet

junder

Border-Rat wrote: »

No, but you just answered my question.

I love it when Englishmen bellyache about the IRA. Please, continue.

i am not an englishman either

Fratton Fred

Border-Rat wrote: »

Don't waste your time on disingenuous English trolls chara. They hide behind Protestant victims but in reality they're just upset that Paddy said no and knocked them about for 3 decades.

Who is this Paddy of which you speak and what has he got to do with this thread?

KeithAFC

FeckinUsername wrote: »

The PIRA were a broader front movement than many of the Republican groups that went before them. To Republicans the war was for freedom, but there is a suspicion though that certain Volunteers were happy to attain civil rights. Some suggest that this is why we have such a problem these days with compromising politicians, they were never actually Republicans in the first place. Whatever the case, there can be no doubt that the conditions and experiences of the northern Nationalist community up to '69 fanned the flames of revolution.

People have different views on it. I view the PIRA campaign as a war of Republican aggression. Like most in the PUL community do.

But you haven't argued against my point that it wasn't about Civil Rights. The Hunger strikers and blanketmen never did what they did for Civil Rights for the normal nationalist on the street.

john reilly

junder wrote: »

so by having an english surname rules you out of being a true irishman. well that rules out a significant amount of the irish population, including a certain mr adams. also going by your post a 'true irish man' is a racial supremacist who believes they are 'superior' to oher people on the planet

No this is where you are wrong N.I protestants believe that they are racial supremacists. irish people know that they are racially superior

JustinDee

If ever anyone needed to get laid or feck off and see the world, its the barstool/internet warrior republicans and loyalists who post the same tosh every time a thread on Northern Ireland gets more air then Spud's Law takes over and we read more distorted rubbish about the Famine etc.

Seriously, sit back and re-read the myopic drivel that gets posted in yet-another-deluded-tirade-about-the-North.
Those too young to remember the worst of it or those who just can't let it go due to being far too one-eyed on the subject can romanticise all they want about the I]insert chosen side's paramilitaries[/I.
It makes no difference to the fact that the compromise we have now is FAR better than before and that an overwhelming majority of this island's inhabitants democratically chose this compromise.

Fratton Fred

john reilly wrote: »

irish people know that they are racially superior

Err, I think you will find that you are somewhat at odds with the republican movement there.

No one, Irish or otherwise, is racially superior to anyone else.

junder

john reilly wrote: »

junder wrote: »

so by having an english surname rules you out of being a true irishman. well that rules out a significant amount of the irish population, including a certain mr adams. also going by your post a 'true irish man' is a racial supremacist who believes they are 'superior' to oher people on the planet

No this is where you are wrong N.I protestants believe that they are racial supremacists. irish people know that they are racially superior

So do you 'know' that your are racially superior to me?

Djmf

Yes .
But think of the reality of a united Ireland now? The south can't support itself anymore, can any of you seriously imagine if we had to take the economic burden of the north along with the mess were already in ?? Good luck.

Fear Uladh

It was partly responsible for giving Irish people in the North a voice and it was born out of necessity. Look at the North now, it is a very different place thanks to equal opportunity and is free (mostly) of discrimination. If Irish people, be them nationalist catholic or otherwise, had these rights granted by the British government in the first place, a war would not have spawned.

It also acted somewhat as a deterrent against anymore bullyboy tactics used by the colluding RUC/unionist paramilitaries and BA to oppress said people.

The atrocities committed where unacceptable and I hope an independent commission is set up to bring those perpetrators to justice.

KeithAFC

Fear Uladh wrote: »

It was partly responsible for giving Irish people in the North a voice and it was born out of necessity. Look at the North now, it is a very different place thanks to equal opportunity and is free (mostly) of discrimination. If Irish people, be them nationalist catholic or otherwise, had these rights granted by the British government in the first place, a war would not have spawned.

It also acted somewhat as a deterrent against anymore bullyboy tactics used by the colluding RUC/unionist paramilitaries and BA to oppress said people.

The atrocities committed where unacceptable and I hope an independent commission is set up to bring those perpetrators to justice.

You see this would be true if we didn't have the IRA still running around. Some call them the "dissidents". So it does show you that it wasn't about Civil Rights.

tim_holsters

FeckinUsername wrote: »

Yes. Anyone who says no should get out and about and meet some of the families of people who died because of British and Loyalist violence, people burnt out of their homes in '69, people discriminated against in their own country due to their religion, denied equal rights in employment, education, and housing - and tell them why their family members death was justifiable, why the absolute discrimination in the north of Ireland up to '69 was justifiable. Will they do that? Will they Fuk.

Simple opinions merit simple replies. I think that was simple enough.

Agreed my post was a tad "simple". I was a little inebriated when I made it.

So you think PIRA's murderous campaign was justified, fair enough, but whether it was justified or not it was certainly an abject failure. Last time I looked the wonderful 6 counties are still part of the UK.

lugha

Fear Uladh wrote: »

It was partly responsible for giving Irish people in the North a voice and it was born out of necessity. Look at the North now, it is a very different place thanks to equal opportunity and is free (mostly) of discrimination. If Irish people, be them nationalist catholic or otherwise, had these rights granted by the British government in the first place, a war would not have spawned.

It also acted somewhat as a deterrent against anymore bullyboy tactics used by the colluding RUC/unionist paramilitaries and BA to oppress said people.

The question of how effective the republican campaign was is a different one to whether or not it was justified, unless you are trying to argue that the end justifies the means.

But leaving that aside, a lot of what republicans claim as dividends from that campaign is highly questionable, including the two points you allude to.

First, I see no evidence that the vastly improved conditions for Northern nationalists can be attributed to the activities of republicans. Indeed it could be argued that they hindered more than helped. Society was very different 40-50 years ago and much that would be deemed intolerable now didn’t raise an eyebrow in the past.

African-Americans in the US had a very similar experience to Northern nationalists. In our own fair land (and many others) we had all manner of quaint views. You could have non-consensual sex with your wife without fear of the law but consensual sex could lead you to being labeled a criminal. We prohibited contraception but often brutalized the children that resulted from unplanned pregnancies, indeed we give our educators the liberty to brutalize all children, if they thought it fit. And in the UK, overt racism against minorities, including the Irish, was deemed acceptable.

All of these things have changed for the better because civilized society tends towards greater level of civility with the passing of time. But only with regard to Northern nationalists do some claim that the change was brought about by violent intervention. Or do you think that without PIRA, northern Nationalists would in 2012 be still where they were in 1969 with respect to rights while in the UK it is deemed appropriate to prosecute the England football captain for what would be considered no more than a bit of verbals a few years ago?

As far as deterring loyalist paramilitaries, well alas, the reality was very different. Anybody who remembers the time will recall that the effect of direct action been taken against loyalists was usually to invite reprisals. You could certainly argue that such activities (unlike the majority of what PIRA got up to) could be justified but you can’t make the case that it enhanced the security of Northern nationalists. Indeed, there was hardly a more worrying time for nationalist living in vulnerable areas that in the immediate aftermath of one of PIRA’s "deterring" acts.

And of course the big claim that republicans make, that the forced the British to make a favorable settlement it also highly spurious. Let’s just recap. The Brits will pack their packs in NI, a place they admit they have no interest in and is costing them billions every year to maintain, when the majority up there want them to? Surely it is blindingly obvious to anyone that that was always going to be the case, agreement or no agreement?

Hannibal

john reilly wrote: »

No this is where you are wrong N.I protestants believe that they are racial supremacists. irish people know that they are racially superior

All modern racism and fascism came out of the belief that one group was more superior than the other. No one to my knowledge in Irish republicanism or Irish politics has ever stated we are racially superior to anybody.

The core belief of Irlsh republicans is an end to foreign rule in Ireland and EQUALITY not proclaiming racially superiority.

KeithAFC wrote: »

You see this would be true if we didn't have the IRA still running around. Some call them the "dissidents". So it does show you that it wasn't about Civil Rights.

the IRA decommissioned in 2005 so they are not still running around. These groups can call themselves what they want but they are not the IRA simple as that.

Have all or any loyalist groups decommissioned their weapons yet as a matter of interest?

john reilly

Dotsey wrote: »

All modern racism and fascism came out of the belief that one group was more superior than the other. No one to my knowledge in Irish republicanism or Irish politics has ever stated we are racially superior to anybody.

The core belief of Irlsh republicans is an end to foreign rule in Ireland and EQUALITY not proclaiming racially superiority.


the IRA decommissioned in 2005 so they are not still running around. These groups can call themselves what they want but they are not the IRA simple as that.

Have all or any loyalist groups decommissioned their weapons yet as a matter of interest?

Hi dotsey can you tell me the difference between the ira operating today to that which operated 20 years ago to that which operated 50 years ago or 100 years ago. thanks

john reilly

KeithAFC wrote: »

You see this would be true if we didn't have the IRA still running around. Some call them the "dissidents". So it does show you that it wasn't about Civil Rights.

This is true keith that is why there will always be an ira while britain claims juristiction over part of this island. Having said that the republican movement was a smoldering fire that was going out and could have been extinguished by a bit of unionist goodwill. instead your friends the pul. pour petrol on the fire. whether they done this out of ignorance or stupidity only they can answer. But if I was a member of this comunity I would be looking at what we could have done to save the lives that were lost

maccored

If your view is Im a 'republican apologist' who is answering "a different question", then honestly .... I'm fine on this one. In all honest respect, I say you waffle sir, and prefer to criss cross and 'he said/she said' a question rather than take a straight answer. You've already got mine - hence my assertion of your waffle.

While Im at it - I completely question your belief that at the start of the conflict the question was about a united ireland, since it was about protecting nationalists in the north. did they protect nationalists in the north? yes. job done.

lugha wrote: »

No, you are not answering the question. You are doing what all republican apologists do when faced with this question, you answer a different question.

I am not querying whether PIRA were justified in their use of violence to win basic civil rights for northern nationalists (which is not to say that it was justified or that they achieved very much) I am asking you about their political objective to bring about a united Ireland by using means that the vast majority of Irish people did not sanction. Do you agree that in this respect the activities of PIRA were not justified?

maccored

Im more interested in finding out how your question is even relevant to the conversation, than I am dotseys answer.

john reilly wrote: »

Hi dotsey can you tell me the difference between the ira operating today to that which operated 20 years ago to that which operated 50 years ago or 100 years ago. thanks

Shea O'Meara

Seems to me it's all about popularity and what's deemed justifiable to those in charge or with the most muscle and these days P.R. pull on the world stage.
Ireland was invaded and is still partially occupied, but the views of those who consider themselves British need to be considered. Then the battle lines become blurred as to what actions if any are justifiable by either side when you're talking doorstep to doorstep.
Then you have the British royal wedding making them the darlings of the international media, while crimes against humanity perpetrated by their government are forgotten or filed under 'let bygones be bygones' because the dresses are lovely.
Take Bush wanted for investigations into war crimes, Obama authorising assassinations in other countries and of course the combined 9/11 + let's invade Iraq nonsense’s.

I would ask by what and who's yardstick can one measure if the Republican campaign was/is justifiable?
In my view it was needed and politically is still needed. The whole peace process and talks only came about to bring peace. In other words, without violence there would be no movement towards any kind of reconciliation or respect from either side, especially the British government.

lugha

maccored wrote: »

If your view is Im a 'republican apologist' who is answering "a different question", then honestly .... I'm fine on this one. In all honest respect, I say you waffle sir, and prefer to criss cross and 'he said/she said' a question rather than take a straight answer. You've already got mine - hence my assertion of your waffle.

I asked you to justify how PIRA could take up arms on behalf of the Irish people against the wishes of the vast majority Irish people. You have not answered that question because you cannot answer it. It simply cannot be justified.

maccored wrote: »

While Im at it - I completely question your belief that at the start of the conflict the question was about a united ireland, since it was about protecting nationalists in the north. did they protect nationalists in the north? yes. job done.

The clue is in the name, IRA. They didn’t call themselves the Northern nationalist militia or the catholic protection force or some other more appropriate name if their primary aim was to protect Catholics. The idea of a united Ireland was always on the agenda of the IRA, in all its guises, and it is just silly to now try and re-write history to pretend it wasn’t really an issue at all with the modern IRA.

And as an aside, I have outlined above why I do not think PIRA did very much to protect nationalists in practice.

lugha

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Seems to me it's all about popularity and what's deemed justifiable to those in charge or with the most muscle and these days P.R. pull on the world stage.
Ireland was invaded and is still partially occupied, but the views of those who consider themselves British need to be considered. Then the battle lines become blurred as to what actions if any are justifiable by either side when you're talking doorstep to doorstep.
Then you have the British royal wedding making them the darlings of the international media, while crimes against humanity perpetrated by their government are forgotten or filed under 'let bygones be bygones' because the dresses are lovely.
Take Bush wanted for investigations into war crimes, Obama authorising assassinations in other countries and of course the combined 9/11 + let's invade Iraq nonsense’s.

I would ask by what and who's yardstick can one measure if the Republican campaign was/is justifiable?
In my view it was needed and politically is still needed. The whole peace process and talks only came about to bring peace. In other words, without violence there would be no movement towards any kind of reconciliation or respect from either side, especially the British government.

Well here is one difference for you. Both Bush & Blair were democratically elected by their people and both got approval for their Iraq campaign from their respective legislatures. And critically, both were subsequently re-elected to office by their people, so their actions were not a deal-breaker for their people.

Now of course you can point at deficiencies in terms of how Blair in particular secured this approval from parliament but PIRA did not come anywhere close to acquiring the same degree of authority to act as the two B's did.

Which is not to say that this authority is sufficient to justify their decisions to go to Iraq. But it clearly is necessary, and it is something PIRA did not have.