Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

john reilly

lugha wrote: »

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.

By this logic the british army as employees of the lawfully elected britsh goverments were correct to impose their genocide on irish catholics in north of Ireland. Wow that means that north korean leaders would be fully justified on nuking the west (well they have the mandate of their people). In one foul swoop you have undermined your whole point. The fact is that like the IRA didnt need a unianimous mandate from the irish people their armed struggle was morally justified. just as the western invasion of iraq was morally unjustified

Hannibal

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

To put it simply the IRA left the stage in 2005 when they decommissioned their weapons so they're not operating today as these operations have long since ceased.

In my opinion the IRA had a direct lineage from when the IRB and the Irish volunteers merged in 1919 until 2005 when what became know as the Provisional IRA decommissioned. No other groups whether it was the OIRA, CIRA or RIRA had or has a claim to be the IRA.

lugha

john reilly wrote: »

By this logic the british army as employees of the lawfully elected britsh goverments were correct to impose their genocide on irish catholics in north of Ireland.

Only if you get the logic completely wrong, which you did. I suggest you consider the distinction between necessary and sufficient.

john reilly wrote: »

Wow that means that north korean leaders would be fully justified on nuking the west (well they have the mandate of their people).

Ditto

john reilly wrote: »

The fact is that like the IRA didnt need a unianimous mandate from the irish people their armed struggle was morally justified.

Not a unanimous one, majority backing will do. So when the majority of Irish people say, “we approve of your ends but not of your means” then you think it is acceptable for a small group to decide that they know what’s best for the Irish people?

I think the Brits would have loved to have you on their side when their colonial empire was at its zenith, someone who sees nothing amiss with dictating to a people what you think is best for them. Your bizarre notions of supremacy would no doubt be handy too!

Liam Byrne

Dotsey wrote: »

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

To put it simply the IRA left the stage in 2005 when they decommissioned their weapons so they're not operating today as these operations have long since ceased.

In my opinion the IRA had a direct lineage from when the IRB and the Irish volunteers merged in 1919 until 2005 when what became know as the Provisional IRA decommissioned. No other groups whether it was the OIRA, CIRA or RIRA had or has a claim to be the IRA.

Define "direct lineage" ?

Are you suggesting that there are no members of the other organisations who were part of the IRA and dissented to join the other groups, similar to those who disagreed years ago and "dissented" to join the PIRA ?

Because if PIRA contained none of those "dissenters", you cannot claim "lineage".

You can't have it both ways, y'know.

john reilly

lugha wrote: »

Only if you get the logic completely wrong, which you did. I suggest you consider the distinction between necessary and sufficient.


Ditto


Not a unanimous one, majority backing will do. So when the majority of Irish people say, “we approve of your ends but not of your means” then you think it is acceptable for a small group to decide that they know what’s best for the Irish people?

I think the Brits would have loved to have you on their side when their colonial empire was at its zenith, someone who sees nothing amiss with dictating to a people what you think is best for them. Your bizarre notions of supremacy would no doubt be handy too!

The only bizzare thing is your answer which makes no sense.

john reilly

Dotsey wrote: »

To put it simply the IRA left the stage in 2005 when they decommissioned their weapons so they're not operating today as these operations have long since ceased.

In my opinion the IRA had a direct lineage from when the IRB and the Irish volunteers merged in 1919 until 2005 when what became know as the Provisional IRA decommissioned. No other groups whether it was the OIRA, CIRA or RIRA had or has a claim to be the IRA.

What so when gerry adams says the war is over then its over. Ah well thats cleared that up then........NOT.

JustinDee

john reilly wrote: »

By this logic the british army as employees of the lawfully elected britsh goverments were correct to impose their genocide on irish catholics in north of Ireland. Wow that means that north korean leaders would be fully justified on nuking the west (well they have the mandate of their people). In one foul swoop you have undermined your whole point. The fact is that like the IRA didnt need a unianimous mandate from the irish people their armed struggle was morally justified. just as the western invasion of iraq was morally unjustified

That is just a big bowl of wrong. Deluded claims of "genocide", the usual abuse of the term "mandate" and a stubborn, ill-informed refusal of the rights of the majority of this island's inhabitants.
Either too young to know what it was like and unaffected or else just plain myopic.

maccored

lugha wrote: »

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.

They had the support of the people they were representing ..... ergo your claim is false.

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.

I dont care where you think the 'clue' is .. the FACT is a united ireland wasnt the driving force of the IRA reappearing in the early 70s.

Hannibal

john reilly wrote: »

What so when gerry adams says the war is over then its over. Ah well thats cleared that up then........NOT.

Gerry Adams wasn't the one who declared war so he can't be the one who says it over. Gerry Adams is only one part of the wider republican movement and 95% of the movement can see the sense in supporting the SF position on the GFA, the IRA decommissioning and the fact that this stage of the struggle can be won through the electoral process.

The end result of this "war" is Irish unity, and nowhere does it say it has to achieved through violence. It's a struggle for Irish unity and independence and this struggle can and will take on many guises to adapt to the times. None of these organisations proclaiming to be the IRA can or will match the strength or manpower of the IRA from 1969 until 1997.

You have to understand that anytime the IRA's volunteer numbers have swelled was mostly as a reaction to British or loyalist brutality and aggression whether it be the execution of the leaders of 1916, the aggression of the orange apartheid state upto 1969 or the hunger strikes in 1981. These were all critical points in young men and women choosing to take up arms.

For people to make the life changing decision to join any paramilitary group be it republican or loyalist they need to have fire in the belly and if there is nothing igniting this fire then it takes away the need to join these groups. Most people living in the 6 counties simply just want peaceful lives and the democratic process will in time yield whatever results it yields.

With the peace process, the GFA, power sharing and the big improvements in Irish/British relations it takes away the need for the IRA as there is a democratic path to achieve the end goal and this end goal is what we need to focus on rather than the methods used to achieve it and the romantic notion we can fight the British out of Ireland.

lugha

maccored wrote: »

They had the support of the people they were representing ..... ergo your claim is false.

Wikipedia wrote: »

The Provisionals maintained the principles of the pre-1969 IRA, considering British rule in Northern Ireland and the government of the Republic of Ireland to be illegitimate and that the IRA's Army Council was the legitimate government of the all-island Irish Republic. This belief was based on a series of perceived political inheritances which constructed a legal continuity from the Second Dáil.

Note the bit where it says that the IRA Army Council was the legitimate government of the all-island Irish Republic. In other words, they did claim to represent all Irish people. They considered themselves to be our government. Now can you square that with your insistence that “they had the support of the people they claimed to represent”?

maccored wrote: »

I dont care where you think the 'clue' is .. the FACT is a united ireland wasnt the driving force of the IRA reappearing in the early 70s.

The reasons for the emergence of the provos is irrelevant to my claim that they presumed to represent people who did not mandate them to do so.

KeithAFC

The end result of this "war" is Irish unity, and nowhere does it say it has to achieved through violence. It's a struggle for Irish unity and independence and this struggle can and will take on many guises to adapt to the times. None of these organisations proclaiming to be the IRA can or will match the strength or manpower of the IRA from 1969 until 1997.

That is a false position to take because there will never be Irish unity because not everyone on the island is Irish. That is the false position Republicanism finds itself in. Thinking a United Ireland is uniting all Irish people. It isn't.

The people from the PUL community are British and wish to remain so. Something which I can't understand about the PIRA and its aim for a United Ireland. It was like Guy Fawkes. Trying to change the politics of a country by force against a majority which disagree with them.

Hannibal

KeithAFC wrote: »

That is a false position to take because there will never be Irish unity because not everyone on the island is Irish. That is the false position Republicanism finds itself in. Thinking a United Ireland is uniting all Irish people. It isn't.

The people from the PUL community are British and wish to remain so. Something which I can't understand about the IRA and its aim for a United Ireland. It was like Guy Fawkes. Trying to change the politics of a country by force against a majority which disagree with them.

but in the case of Ireland that "majority" is soon disappearing Keith and you know it. Four out of six counties have predominant nationalist majorities.. maybe we could start with taking Fermanagh, Tyrone and Derry City.

By your logic the UK is also in a false position as it's uniting Irish (northern Ireland), Welsh, Scottish and English people. There will never be British unity because not everyone on that island are British as they are essentially Welsh, Scottish and English before they are British.

Geographically speaking you and others from the PUL community aren't British, you are from and live in Ireland which makes you Irish. Northern Ireland is part of the UK & Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

KeithAFC

Dotsey wrote: »

but in the case of Ireland that "majority" is soon disappearing Keith and you know it. Four out of six counties have predominant nationalist majorities.. maybe we could start with taking Fermanagh, Tyrone and Derry City.

By your logic the UK is also in a false position as it's uniting Irish (northern Ireland), Welsh, Scottish and English people. There will never be British unity because not everyone on that island are British as they are essentially Welsh, Scottish and English before they are British.

Geographically speaking you and others from the PUL community aren't British, you are from and live in Ireland which makes you Irish. Northern Ireland is part of the UK & Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The false position the Republican movement find themselves in is thinking they can unite all Irish people when not everyone is Irish. That is the point I was making. Living on the island does not make you Irish. Being born in a stable does not make one a horse.

In regards to the nationalist majority of 4 counties, all I need to do is point towards the polls and the political opinion on a United Ireland. That points towards not nationalism but Unionism.

Border-Rat

lugha wrote: »

Note the bit where it says that the IRA Army Council was the legitimate government of the all-island Irish Republic. In other words, they did claim to represent all Irish people. They considered themselves to be our government. Now can you square that with your insistence that “they had the support of the people they claimed to represent”?


The reasons for the emergence of the provos is irrelevant to my claim that they presumed to represent people who did not mandate them to do so.

The Provo's protected us after the South elected to turn its head. Once, again, you want to pontificate but you don't want responsibility. Nobody in Ireland gave the IRA a mandate? Neither did they do anything re: the protection of houses being burned out. Thus, their opinion is void.

To be honest, whilst the likes of Bloody Sunday was occurring, why the hell would we give a damn what the South thought?

maccored

Quote wikipedia all you want, and dream on all you wish, but the provos represented those in the north, who were basically ignored by the rest of the country. jesus, when I was growing up nationalists didnt have much time for the 'free staters' as we used to call them, so Im not too sure where you get the idea that the provos first and foremost wished to fight on your behalf. Then again, you more than likely will keep the waffles flowing .... I'd said my piece so I wont be entertaining you any further.

lugha wrote: »

Note the bit where it says that the IRA Army Council was the legitimate government of the all-island Irish Republic. In other words, they did claim to represent all Irish people. They considered themselves to be our government. Now can you square that with your insistence that “they had the support of the people they claimed to represent”?


The reasons for the emergence of the provos is irrelevant to my claim that they presumed to represent people who did not mandate them to do so.

Border-Rat

maccored wrote: »

Quote wikipedia all you want, and dream on all you wish, but the provos represented those in the north, who were basically ignored by the rest of the country. jesus, when I was growing up nationalists didnt have much time for the 'free staters' as we used to call them, so Im not too sure where you get the idea that the provos first and foremost wished to fight on your behalf. Then again, you more than likely will keep the waffles flowing .... I'd said my piece so I wont be entertaining you any further.

I suspect there are deep-rooted esteem issues at play here. There's a well-written essay on the free-state psyche by by Garrett O'Connor, 'Recognising and Healing Malignant Shame'.

By this chaps reasoning above, if the troubles started again next week and Catholics started being burned out of their houses and murdered, that they must simply endure it, if it is the perceived opinion of a population that has washed its hands of them that defense would be inappropriate. I think this kind of 'logic' reveals a deeply troubled mindset.

It would be one thing, had the free-state earned responsibility, let us say it defended us at one point, then ordered us to stand down later. They would've earned that right to make that demand. Here's a case in point: The PIRA currently opposes the RIRA. And, as a community up here, we back the PIRA in this stance and accept its judgement. That is because they have earned our trust. Sinn Fein and the IRA have our mandate.

RandomName2

Border-Rat wrote: »

I suspect there are deep-rooted esteem issues at play here. There's a well-written essay on the free-state psyche by by Garrett O'Connor, 'Recognising and Healing Malignant Shame'.

By this chaps reasoning above, if the troubles started again next week and Catholics started being burned out of their houses and murdered, that they must simply endure it, if it is the perceived opinion of a population that has washed its hands of them that defense would be inappropriate. I think this kind of 'logic' reveals a deeply troubled mindset.

It would be one thing, had the free-state earned responsibility, let us say it defended us at one point, then ordered us to stand down later. They would've earned that right to make that demand. Here's a case in point: The PIRA currently opposes the RIRA. And, as a community up here, we back the PIRA in this stance and accept its judgement. That is because they have earned our trust. Sinn Fein and the IRA have our mandate.

How do you believe the revived Irish Republican Army or its splinter groups protected nationalists/Catholics?

How do you believe the Republic of Ireland should have mimicked these actions?

----


I found it unusual the coverage granted to Rose Dugdale on RTE today, along with the programmes covering other women who were involved in the IRA and are predominantly involved with Sinn Fein today.

It is strange from RTE's point of view; but no less Sinn Fein, who seem to have moved from a the MO of 'am not and never was in the IRA' of Gerry Adams, to 'was briefly in the IRA, but we have to move on' of Martin McGuinness, to finally 'was in the IRA and we should celebrate that fact'.

john reilly

KeithAFC wrote: »

That is a false position to take because there will never be Irish unity because not everyone on the island is Irish. That is the false position Republicanism finds itself in. Thinking a United Ireland is uniting all Irish people. It isn't.

The people from the PUL community are British and wish to remain so. Something which I can't understand about the PIRA and its aim for a United Ireland. It was like Guy Fawkes. Trying to change the politics of a country by force against a majority which disagree with them.

This doesnt make sense. There is a large minority living in north of ireland who are irish, but are denied that right because of british rule. when the six counties is part of a united ireland. You can call yourself british but you will be an irish citizen and let me tell you keith its a lovely feeling you will be welcomed where ever you go

lugha

Border-Rat wrote: »

The Provo's protected us ….

Myth. Attacks on loyalists who targeted Catholics certainly could be justified. But it invariably led to tit for tat reprisals. In effect they made things more dangerous for Catholics. As is often the case, even when violence can be justified it tends to make matters worse.

Border-Rat wrote: »

…. after the South elected to turn its head.

Myth. Realistically, there was nothing the Dublin government could have done in ’69 that would not have made matters worse.

Border-Rat wrote: »

To be honest, whilst the likes of Bloody Sunday was occurring, why the hell would we give a damn what the South thought?

Indeed, the provos did ignore the Irish people and presumed that they knew what was best for them. Of course, they do look a bit silly when then criticize the British for doing exactly that for nearly a millennium.

Border-Rat wrote: »

By this chaps reasoning above, if the troubles started again next week and Catholics started being burned out of their houses and murdered, that they must simply endure it

Once again, with feeling. I do not question the right of Catholics or anyone else to defend themselves I question the right of PIRA to presume that they were the legitimate government of Ireland. But I am sure, like the rest of your caras, you will contrive to miss that and come back to be telling be about the plight of the Catholics.

I wonder has anyone every written a play explaining why republicans seem unable to understand a very simple question that is put to them and persist with answering a different one?

maccored wrote: »

Quote wikipedia all you want …

Feel free to quote any source that disputes this. Actually, don’t bother. It is quite evident that you are ill-informed about an organization that you so vehemently defend.

maccored

personally, i think its just a matter that for people from here in the south, its like talking about iraq, or somewhere far far away, whereas for people who grew up between the late 60s and the late 80s in the north, it was a completely different reality. There are things that will make sense to people from the north that just wont make sense to some in the south.

Border-Rat wrote: »

I suspect there are deep-rooted esteem issues at play here. There's a well-written essay on the free-state psyche by by Garrett O'Connor, 'Recognising and Healing Malignant Shame'.

By this chaps reasoning above, if the troubles started again next week and Catholics started being burned out of their houses and murdered, that they must simply endure it, if it is the perceived opinion of a population that has washed its hands of them that defense would be inappropriate. I think this kind of 'logic' reveals a deeply troubled mindset.

It would be one thing, had the free-state earned responsibility, let us say it defended us at one point, then ordered us to stand down later. They would've earned that right to make that demand. Here's a case in point: The PIRA currently opposes the RIRA. And, as a community up here, we back the PIRA in this stance and accept its judgement. That is because they have earned our trust. Sinn Fein and the IRA have our mandate.

maccored

lugha wrote: »

It is quite evident that you are ill-informed about an organization that you so vehemently defend.

I rest my case.

john reilly

lugha wrote: »

Note the bit where it says that the IRA Army Council was the legitimate government of the all-island Irish Republic. In other words, they did claim to represent all Irish people. They considered themselves to be our government. Now can you square that with your insistence that “they had the support of the people they claimed to represent”?


o.

Heres the thing what made the free state goverment legitimate in the first place. Did they have permission to give part of this country to the british and if so from whom did they get it. who gave them the authority to create and run a 26 county ireland against the wishes of the majority.what give this so called "legitimate" goverment the authority to collude with british terrorists against their own people.

maccored

lugha wrote: »

I question the right of PIRA to presume that they were the legitimate government of Ireland.

Thats a question that far pre-dates the provos .. and as I already said, wasnt the reason why they reappeared in the north in the early 70s. I once again find your question to be invalid.

lugha

john reilly wrote: »

Heres the thing what made the free state goverment legitimate in the first place.

Did you mean to say illegitimate?

john reilly wrote: »

Did they have permission to give part of this country to the british and if so from whom did they get it. who gave them the authority to create and run a 26 county ireland against the wishes of the majority.

Yes, the Dail ratified the Anglo-Irish treaty in 1922.

john reilly wrote: »

what give this so called "legitimate" goverment the authority to collude with british terrorists against their own people.

Don't know what you are on about here?

maccored

Originally Posted by Border-Rat
The Provo's protected us ….

lugha wrote: »

Myth.

The provos protected me, non violently I may add, in stopping three local gangs from trying to beat the crap out of me every weekend.

The RUC on the other hand actually stopped me - mid flight from 20 skinheads one night - let the skin heads catch up, and then drove off.

Dont try and tell me its a myth that provos protected catholics in the north when the RUC couldnt be arsed, because I know you're wrong.

maccored

lugha wrote: »

Did you mean to say illegitimate?

I think he meant "Heres the thing - what made the free state goverment legitimate in the first place?"

Yes, the Dail ratified the Anglo-Irish treaty in 1922.

The point being that the people of Tyrone/Derry etc etc werent really listened to

Don't know what you are on about here?

I swear to god Im not trying to be condesending ... honestly, I am not trying to attack the poster -but I personally think john reilly has a better understanding of Irish history that you do yourself. Certainly going by this thread anyway.

KeithAFC

maccored wrote: »

[/I]


The provos protected me, non violently I may add, in stopping three local gangs from trying to beat the crap out of me every weekend.

The RUC on the other hand actually stopped me - mid flight from 20 skinheads one night - let the skin heads catch up, and then drove off.

Dont try and tell me its a myth that provos protected catholics in the north when the RUC couldnt be arsed, because I know you're wrong.

This defence of the PIRA as the Catholic defenders is just nonsense. The PIRA had no problem planting bombs and killing Catholics. They had no problem shooting Catholic Garda or Catholic RUC.

The PIRA did not set out to defend Catholics.

lugha

maccored wrote: »

Thats a question that far pre-dates the provos .. and as I already said, wasnt the reason why they reappeared in the north in the early 70s. I once again find your question to be invalid.

It predates them but they were content to take up that mantle. If they were about protecting catholics why did they do this. And the fact that you cannot answer a question does not make it invalid.

maccored wrote: »

Dont try and tell me its a myth that provos protected catholics in the north when the RUC couldnt be arsed, because I know you're wrong.

Are you now disputing that tit for tat killings was a familiar story up there through out the troubles?

maccored wrote: »

I swear to god Im not trying to be condesending ... honestly, I am not trying to attack the poster -but I personally think john reilly has a better understanding of Irish history that you do yourself. Certainly going by this thread anyway.

In fairness, John is of a superior race, by his own admission, so he has an advantage on me

He accuses the government (presumably the Irish one) of colluding with British terrorists (loyalists ?). I genuinely do not know what he is referring to.

maccored

KeithAFC wrote: »

This defence of the PIRA as the Catholic defenders is just nonsense.

Yes Keith. I was obviously hallucinating. you can have this one, really.

maccored

No, seriously, no. I've had my fill of this wasteland of a conversation. Your question has been well and truly answered. that goose is long, long cooked.

lugha wrote: »

It predates them but they were content to take up that mantle. If they were about protecting catholics why did they do this. And the fact that you cannot answer a question does not make it invalid.


Are you now disputing that tit for tat killings was a familiar story up there through out the troubles?


In fairness, John is of a superior race, by his own admission, so he has an advantage on me

He accuses the government (presumably the Irish one) of colluding with British terrorists (loyalists ?). I genuinely do not know what he is referring to.