Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Options
1…34689…37

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    trendyvicar wrote: »
    Can anyone summarise what would be different now if Republican groups had never existed?

    Nope, because that would be talking about an alternate reality that didn't happen and this isn't a sci-fi novel.


  • Options
    #153
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    This is not true.

    There are plenty of people on this site who condemn Nationalist violence on the one hand but who supported the illegal war on Iraq, Call for an attack on Syria, support Israel's attacks on Gaza and Lebanon and call for an attack on Iran.

    Liam doesn't, in my experience at least, in fairness to him.

    Probably a few, still doesn't justify a slur that can just ruin the debate.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #154
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Border-Rat wrote: »
    Then why does that free-state army exist? If Dublin was invaded tommorow, it would be 'nonsense' for the Irish army to counter-attack, merely because the enemy was in a stronger position?



    I didn't say anything about 'easy'. Since when are military decisions based on whether or not they're easy?



    Then what is the point of the Irish army? If they can't defend 06 Counties? They have responsibility for 4 times that size.



    Less so is it even mentioned. The IRA afforded us protection up here. What did they detractors do? Nothing. If you people don't want the 06 Counties, refrain from throwing muck over how we defend ourselves.

    You people want to pontificate, but at the same time you want no responsibilities.

    How does bombing a shopping centre defend nationalists in the north?


  • Options
    #155
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Border-Rat wrote: »
    Then why does that free-state army exist? If Dublin was invaded tommorow, it would be 'nonsense' for the Irish army to counter-attack, merely because the enemy was in a stronger position?



    I didn't say anything about 'easy'. Since when are military decisions based on whether or not they're easy?



    Then what is the point of the Irish army? If they can't defend 06 Counties? They have responsibility for 4 times that size.



    Less so is it even mentioned. The IRA afforded us protection up here. What did they detractors do? Nothing. If you people don't want the 06 Counties, refrain from throwing muck over how we defend ourselves.

    You people want to pontificate, but at the same time you want no responsibilities.

    If Ireland was invaded the Irish army (being an actual legitimate army) would most likely spend most of its time holding back the invading troops so that civilians could be evacuated to safety.

    I'm pretty sure they wouldn't just go and blow up an Argos :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #156
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    K-9 wrote: »
    Probably a few, still doesn't justify a slur that can just ruin the debate.

    I didn't want to ruin the debate FWIW and it's not so much a slur as an opinion I hold.

    There are constant threads on this site questioning the actions of northern Nationalists and few (none?) that examine the brutality of the British and their proxies.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Border-Rat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 921 ✭✭✭Border-Rat


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    How does bombing a shopping centre defend nationalists in the north?

    Civilians will inevitably get hit in a war, so will infrastructure. You should know this, seeing as how your lot started it and the experience you have killing innocents abroad.

    Would you care to point out a conflict without civilian losses?
    Zombrex wrote: »
    If Ireland was invaded the Irish army (being an actual legitimate army) would most likely spend most of its time holding back the invading troops so that civilians could be evacuated to safety.

    By the formers logic, if they lost ground it would be senseless to counter-attack.
    I'm pretty sure they wouldn't just go and blow up an Argos rolleyes.gif

    Ah right, because the oul Irish army doesn't have any roots of terrorism. Is that right? Burning Protestants in their homes, fine and dandy, so long as it was in the 26 Counties.


  • Options
    #158
    Border-Rat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 921 ✭✭✭Border-Rat


    The same people who critisize the IRA will be out celebrating in 2016. Celebrating 26 County terrorism. Theres a word for that, although I got a 'warning' for using it previously.


  • Options
    #159
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Border-Rat wrote: »
    The same people who critisize the IRA will be out celebrating in 2016. Celebrating 26 County terrorism. Theres a word for that, although I got a 'warning' for using it previously.
    Some people are proud of the Irish Republic. Some Irish people don't want anything to do with Northern Ireland. That is why they celebrate 1916.


  • Options
    #160
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Border-Rat wrote: »
    By the formers logic, if they lost ground it would be senseless to counter-attack.

    It would be senseless if the goal was to drive the invaders from the shores. Most armies in the world could easily destroy ours.

    But you will notice I didn't way that was the goal. The goal of the Irish Army in such a scenario would be to protect civilians for as long as possible in order to evacuate them.

    Was this what the IRA were doing when they were putting bombs in dust bins? Protecting civilians?
    Border-Rat wrote: »
    Ah right, because the oul Irish army doesn't have any roots of terrorism. Is that right? Burning Protestants in their homes, fine and dandy, so long as it was in the 26 Counties.

    The Irish army is answerable to the President of the country (an elected official) and the Minister for Defense (an elected official). All members of the Army are bound by law to the Army code of conduct and Irish law.

    If you have evidence that a member of the Irish Army, or any member of the Irish Defense forces has been involved in burning Protestants out of their homes I suggest you report this to the civilian authorities that regulate the Army.

    See how this works in a legitimate system. I wonder who do you complain to if you have a complaint about the IRA :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #161
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    Border-Rat wrote: »
    Civilians will inevitably get hit in a war, so will infrastructure. You should know this, seeing as how your lot started it and the experience you have killing innocents abroad.

    Would you care to point out a conflict without civilian losses?


    Then why are Irish Nationalists always ranting and raving about "Bloody Sunday" and the big bombs in Dublin - in fact dead Nationalists generally (who for some reason are always suddenly transformed into "Catholics" or more often "innocent Catholics" immediately they expire)? What's the big fuss, if as you say, civilians inevitably get hit in war?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    trendyvicar wrote: »
    Then why are Irish Nationalists always ranting and raving about "Bloody Sunday" and the big bombs in Dublin - in fact dead Nationalists generally (who for some reason are always suddenly transformed into "Catholics" or more often "innocent Catholics" immediately they expire)? What's the big fuss, if as you say, civilians inevitably get hit in war?

    As someone from Derry, my blood boils when I see Bloody Sunday mentioned like this. Ranting and raving?

    Bloody Sunday had nothing to do with a War, it was a civil rights march that was attacked by the forces of the State.


  • Options
    #163
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    karma_ wrote: »
    As someone from Derry, my blood boils when I see Bloody Sunday mentioned like this. Ranting and raving?

    Bloody Sunday had nothing to do with a War, it was a civil rights march that was attacked by the forces of the State.

    In the context of a violent conflict.

    The question was addressed to Border Rat, as he was being relaxed about civilian casualties during a violent conflict. I assume you are enraged by every death during 'The Troubles' who ever they may have been and not just those at 'Bloody Sunday'.


  • Options
    #164
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    trendyvicar wrote: »
    Then why are Irish Nationalists always ranting and raving about "Bloody Sunday" and the big bombs in Dublin - in fact dead Nationalists generally (who for some reason are always suddenly transformed into "Catholics" or more often "innocent Catholics" immediately they expire)? What's the big fuss, if as you say, civilians inevitably get hit in war?

    Exactly, you can't blame the British for killing civilians by firing blindly into a crowd of unarmed civilians. It was war, civilians get killed wars, just an unfortunately fact.

    [me stands back and waits for 10 Republican posters to completely miss the point and start screaming of course you can blame the British and how dare I suggest otherwise I must be a West-Brit and an apologist for the British Army! :P]


  • Options
    #165
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    karma_ wrote: »
    As someone from Derry, my blood boils when I see Bloody Sunday mentioned like this. Ranting and raving?

    Bloody Sunday had nothing to do with a War, it was a civil rights march that was attacked by the forces of the State.

    Lol, wow that didn't take long. Well played trendyvicar, well played.


  • Options
    #166
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    For a very long time the british government never recognized that it was in fact a war and tried unsuccessfully to put it across that it was a few bad paddies who had no support at all.Even now they wont open there files on the dublin bombings or Pat finucane,Don't know why as we the people who lived there through it wont be a bit surprised by there acts of killings.


  • Options
    #167
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Border-Rat wrote: »
    Then why does that free-state army exist? If Dublin was invaded tommorow, it would be 'nonsense' for the Irish army to counter-attack, merely because the enemy was in a stronger position?


    I didn't say anything about 'easy'. Since when are military decisions based on whether or not they're easy?

    Any action, of any kind, that any sensible person makes would be premised on the idea that the consequences of that action is to improve matters, or at the very least that there would be a reasonable expectation that it might improve matters.

    The idea of doing something, anything at all, even if it makes matters worse (and a border crossing by the Irish army would certainly have made things worse) is quite simply mindless.
    Border-Rat wrote: »
    If you people don't want the 06 Counties, refrain from throwing muck over how we defend ourselves.

    Ah, the familiar lie. You cannot defend the indefensible actions of PIRA who acted against the wishes of the Irish people and instead resort to the straw man. Once again (though I am sure you will continue to ignore this point as the rest do), PIRA are not being criticized for defending Northern Catholics. And on that matter, how many PIRA operations can you cite where it might reasonably be argued that any Catholic NI was safer or better protected as a consequence? Very few I imagine.

    And PIRA made it our business. I would have no great interest in what they did and how they did it had they confined themselves to Northern Ireland. But they had the arrogance to presume they represented the Irish people as they set about trying to subvert this state.


  • Options
    #168
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    realies wrote: »
    For a very long time the british government never recognized that it was in fact a war and tried unsuccessfully to put it across that it was a few bad paddies who had no support at all.Even now they wont open there files on the dublin bombings or Pat finucane,Don't know why as we the people who lived there through it wont be a bit surprised by there acts of killings.

    That is surprising given that apparently once you call something a "war" you can kill as many civilians as you like and later just shrug and say "meh, its war, civilians deaths are inevitable"

    I would have thought the British would have jumped at the chance to explain away all the civilian deaths they caused by just calling it a war.


  • Options
    #169
    blahfckingblah
    Registered Users Posts: 1,666 ✭✭✭blahfckingblah


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Some people are proud of the Irish Republic. Some Irish people don't want anything to do with Northern Ireland. That is why they celebrate 1916.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_the_Irish_Republic i must have missed the bit about partition


  • Options
    #170
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Lol, wow that didn't take long. Well played trendyvicar, well played.

    I'm not a Republican.

    I'm strictly only even participating in this topic as a Derry man, and only in regards to Bloody Sunday.

    I'll ask you something else, if so many Nationalists in the North supported the armed campaign, why then, throughout the Troubles did they flock to vote for the SDLP and not SF?


  • Options
    #171
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    Zombrex wrote: »
    That is surprising given that apparently once you call something a "war" you can kill as many civilians as you like and later just shrug and say "meh, its war, civilians deaths are inevitable"

    I would have thought the British would have jumped at the chance to explain away all the civilian deaths they caused by just calling it a war.



    What is surprising about it ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Exactly, you can't blame the British for killing civilians by firing blindly into a crowd of unarmed civilians. It was war, civilians get killed wars, just an unfortunately fact.

    It was a despicable cowardly act of brutality.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Lol, wow that didn't take long. Well played trendyvicar, well played.

    Well played? Strange.


  • Options
    #173
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    It was a despicable cowardly act of brutality.



    Well played? Strange.
    No more cowardly than the PIRA on Bloody Friday and Enniskillen. The Republican movement has such hypocrisy about the Troubles. The British Army = Bad. The PIRA = Good. Its laughable.


  • Options
    #174
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    No more cowardly than the PIRA on Bloody Friday and Enniskillen. The Republican movement has such hypocrisy about the Troubles. The British Army = Bad. The PIRA = Good. Its laughable.

    I've told you before on numerous occasions that you're outside the spectrum of people I'm interested in discussing these matters with so I don't know why you continue to try to get my attention.


  • Options
    #175
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    It was a despicable cowardly act of brutality.

    Well you apparently didn't get the memo. It was in fact a "war", and didn't you know, calling something a "war" means you don't have to justify civilians deaths, they are "inevitable" in a "war" so I mean what can you do, they are just going to happen, right?


  • Options
    #176
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    No more cowardly than the PIRA on Bloody Friday and Enniskillen. The Republican movement has such hypocrisy about the Troubles. The British Army = Bad. The PIRA = Good. Its laughable.


    The nationalist and catholic communities of the six counties were an oppressed community and had every right to rise up against there aggressors,What was the British Army and your community doing keith ? Murdering everyone that don't agree with you.


  • Options
    #177
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    No more cowardly than the PIRA on Bloody Friday and Enniskillen. The Republican movement has such hypocrisy about the Troubles. The British Army = Bad. The PIRA = Good. Its laughable.

    I agree with the bolded part.

    However, Keith, a majority of the Unionists in the North believed, and still do that all Nationalists supported the IRA, which itself is about as far from the truth as you're likely to get. Like I stated in the previous post, the vast, vast majority of Nationalists always voted accordingly during the height of the Troubles.

    It's also pretty ironic, given your stated support of Loyalist terrorists previously, defecate Keith, or get off the pot.


  • Options
    #178
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    realies wrote: »
    What is surprising about it ?

    Surely the British government would be egger to not have to explain or justify killing lots and lots of civilians. I mean the IRA seem pretty happy with this, they just called it a "war" and they can say that civilian deaths were just an inevitable consequence of it being a "war"

    I would have thought the British government would jump at the chance to wash their hands clean of all the civilian blood as the IRA did.


  • Options
    #179
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    I've told you before on numerous occasions that you're outside the spectrum of people I'm interested in discussing these matters with so I don't know why you continue to try to get my attention.
    If it wasn't just blatant hypocrisy, you would never get a reply from me.


  • Options
    #180
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    karma_ wrote: »
    I'll ask you something else, if so many Nationalists in the North supported the armed campaign, why then, throughout the Troubles did they flock to vote for the SDLP and not SF?

    Because not many Nationalists supported the IRA campaign.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    realies wrote: »
    The nationalist and catholic communities of the six counties were an oppressed community and had every right to rise up against there aggressors,What was the British Army and your community doing keith ? Murdering everyone that don't agree with you.
    No worse than what the IRA was doing with Gerry and co running the show. I on the other hand can admit it was brutal and don't try and make a hierarchy of victims like Bloody Sunday.

    It is all about opinions. When Republicans bring up terms such as cowardly when it comes to the British Army, it is just hypocrisy.


Advertisement