Most effective IRA brigade

Crooked Jack

mattjack wrote: »

How many helicopters were shot down ? I always thought it was no more than three or four with one fatality.

In south armagh they only ever succeeded in downing around that many. Damaged a few more. They got their hands on SAM missiles but it was towards the end of the conflict at that stage so Im not sure if they ever got a chance to use them. Not sure of the overall fatalities but I know it wasnt very high.
I think the thing with shooting down helicopters, much like the sniper attacks, was the psychological effect it had on enemy soldiers.

jonniebgood1

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Wow. That's a hack job from start to finish.
As someone who lives in south Armagh Im disgusted by that article and the way it attempts to portray my home.
As a journalist I must say that is one of the most badly written, maudlin, sensationalist and agenda-driven articles I've ever read, based largely on rumour, assumption and some good old fashioned Indo makey-uppy.

Its not sourced so we should deal with facts.
What is the background on the court cases that are mentioned? they should be on record?

Crooked Jack

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Its not sourced so we should deal with facts.
What is the background on the court cases that are mentioned? they should be on record?

As far as i know it's something to do with tax evasion. Hardly anything to do with this thread.

fasttalkerchat

mattjack wrote: »

How many helicopters were shot down ? I always thought it was no more than three or four with one fatality.

That's a relatively large number. The IRA had surface to air missiles but did not have the weaponry to fire them correctly also they had not been trained to use them so had to use homemade launchers with no tracking equipment.

Around 20 helicopters have been shot down in Afganistan from what I can see and there is a significantly greater number of them there over a much larger area.

whitelines

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

You really think that would have been tolerated by the USA? Also the Provos weren't as friendly as some would like to think. If genocide was to begin here there would have been killings all over England in retribution.

Of course. They were doing similar things in Vietnam.

As for killings all over England. LOL. Don't remember bombs in Belgrade.

fasttalkerchat

whitelines wrote: »

Of course. They were doing similar things in Vietnam.

As for killings all over England. LOL. Don't remember bombs in Belgrade.

The IRA were active in England. Canary Warf was the most costly attack since the Second world war.

Fenian Army

Crooked Jack wrote: »

As far as i know it's something to do with tax evasion. Hardly anything to do with this thread.

Agreed, I don't see how assassinating the character of ********* is relevant

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

Agreed, I don't see how assassinating the character of ******** is relevant

I was leaving this but if you genuinely dont see the relevance then I will explain:

For many years the British establishment tried to portray the IRA as some kind of common criminals/ terrorists (something which I would not agree with- as I see it they clearly had political aims). This kind of British portrayal goes back to the days of the hunger strikes when the differentiation between political prisoners and common criminal prisoners was fought out. The IRA on the other hand claimed they were fighting a war and did not accept the contention that they were common criminals.

It follows in the most straightforward manner that if the leading IRA man in South Armagh gets convicted for tax evasion or smuggling that it records a link between the IRA and criminality. That is fact. The recording of this would go on the written record and legitimise one side of the criminal/ political discussion. It is entirely relevent in this context.

Fenian Army

We are supposed to be comparing military effectiveness.

But anyway, there was a link with "criminality" with the IRA in all its guises.

Crooked Jack

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I was leaving this but if you genuinely dont see the relevance then I will explain:

For many years the British establishment tried to portray the IRA as some kind of common criminals/ terrorists (something which I would not agree with- as I see it they clearly had political aims). This kind of British portrayal goes back to the days of the hunger strikes when the differentiation between political prisoners and common criminal prisoners was fought out. The IRA on the other hand claimed they were fighting a war and did not accept the contention that they were common criminals.

It follows in the most straightforward manner that if the leading IRA man in South Armagh gets convicted for tax evasion or smuggling that it records a link between the IRA and criminality. That is fact. The recording of this would go on the written record and legitimise one side of the criminal/ political discussion. It is entirely relevent in this context.

Firstly, i has nothing to do with the IRA's effectiveness, which is the purpose of this thread. Secondly, wether one man was involved in tax evasion or not most certainly does not draw any link between the IRA and common criminality.
If a member of the GAA was dodging his taxes does that mean the GAA is a criminal organisation.

fasttalkerchat

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I was leaving this but if you genuinely dont see the relevance then I will explain:

For many years the British establishment tried to portray the IRA as some kind of common criminals/ terrorists (something which I would not agree with- as I see it they clearly had political aims). This kind of British portrayal goes back to the days of the hunger strikes when the differentiation between political prisoners and common criminal prisoners was fought out. The IRA on the other hand claimed they were fighting a war and did not accept the contention that they were common criminals.

It follows in the most straightforward manner that if the leading IRA man in South Armagh gets convicted for tax evasion or smuggling that it records a link between the IRA and criminality. That is fact. The recording of this would go on the written record and legitimise one side of the criminal/ political discussion. It is entirely relevent in this context.

I can see what you are trying to say however when the person you mention was directly accused of being an IRA member by a newspaper he took them to court for defamation of character.

Stemming from this I think mods should remove the name of the person named above.

whitelines

Crooked Jack said:

Well that's the thing, he obviously wasnt a clown or they would have.

You can't be serious! They didn't kill PIRA members including those living in isolated farm houses because they were operating under civil law!

Very rarely would you get IRA commanders "going to the shops." In order to assassinate somebody you need to compile information on them. Information is very difficult to compile when your spies and squaddies cant even come into an area without being shot at.

Again that's hilarious. Had The UK State deployed it's substantial forces in an aggressive manner, they could have driven up to his front door and thrown in a load of grenades. Who the hell would have stopped them? Anyone else who'd have raised their heads would have been gunned down. You do realise that PIRA murdered many off duty UDR/RUC men, some of them in isolated farm houses - do you think The UK State couldn't have raised itself to do the same?

Why you're clinging to this notion that the british state acted within civil law I have no idea, perhaps you have/had friends or relatives in the British Army and dont want to face the awful truth as to what they actually are/were, but your moral defending of the british state in the face of overwhelming evidence is just self deluding.
Only yesterday we were given another example of the british contempt for civil law. A mans 40 year old murder conviction (and original death sentence) were overturned after the courts finally accepted that not only was he totally innocent but that he was tortured by the brits and ruc before being taken to a field where a gun was put to his head and he was told he would be shot if he didnt confess.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18525631[/QUOTE]

So what! You seem to think that the security forces as a whole acting in compliance with the civil law rules out individuals or small groups breaking said civil law. According to you no one is ever abused in police custody in The Irish Republic, or tortured in a French police cell, or has a confession beaten out of them in a US prison! Get real!

In the case above, if The UK State had decided on an aggressive course of action, the individual involved wouldn't have confessed anything - he'd have been found dead in a ditch - perhaps in South Armagh.

whitelines

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Read Bandit Country by Toby Harnden, I think you'll find the brits did sit around ****ting themselves waiting for the next enemy assault.
In the above post you made a jibe about Irish reunification, now one about diesel. It seems you have nothing constructive to add, your argument is floundering so you're resorting to petty name calling.
For someone with such strong opinions on this issue you seem to know very little about it. Sounds as if a lot of your info is coming from English tabloids.

Ouch! Touched a nerve?

whitelines

Crooked Jack said

South Armagh was the most militarised area in western Europe, with the busiest heliport in all of europe. The british constructed massive steel and concreted barracks in practically every town and village. They placed giant spy posts on hill and mountaintops. They poured thousands of soldiers into a relatively small and sparsely populated area. The deployed their "elite" SAS into the area as well as their proxy murderers in the guise of loyalist paramilitaries.

Obviously the bit about Loyalist paramilitaries is manure. The rest was in accordance with civil law.

Yeah, all this really screams of the "gently, gently" approach.

In relative terms it does.

As for why they didnt ethnically cleanse the area, well, aside from the fact that it's extremely worrying you seem to think ethnic cleansing is the answer to a problem, they didnt because they couldnt.

I didn't say that -and they could have.

Not only would it have caused international outrage and lead to a possible UN intervention in the north,

It wouldn't have.

but it would have radicalised the sizeable Irish population living in Britain.

Most of them would have kept their heads down out of fear of what might happen to them.

Also, there is the very simple fact ethnically cleansing south armagh or indeed the north, would not have been as straightforward an operation as they might have liked because you can bet your life every IRA volunteer from every brigade, north and south, would have been out on the streets and fields with everything they could muster, making them pay dearly for their efforts.

Facing a regular army with tanks and air support? They'd have been exterminated like cockroaches.

whitelines

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

The IRA were active in England. Canary Warf was the most costly attack since the Second world war.

When your community is being ethnically cleansed it's a little difficult to implement such operations. Remember Kosova? Serb forces moved in and all Kosovans moved out. No bombs in Belgrade.

whitelines

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Firstly, i has nothing to do with the IRA's effectiveness, which is the purpose of this thread. Secondly, wether one man was involved in tax evasion or not most certainly does not draw any link between the IRA and common criminality.
If a member of the GAA was dodging his taxes does that mean the GAA is a criminal organisation.

And of course, if a policeman or a soldier colluded with Loyalist volunteers, it does not draw any link between the police/army as organisations and collusion.

Good point.

mattjack

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That's a relatively large number. The IRA had surface to air missiles but did not have the weaponry to fire them correctly also they had not been trained to use them so had to use homemade launchers with no tracking equipment.

Around 20 helicopters have been shot down in Afganistan from what I can see and there is a significantly greater number of them there over a much larger area.

I do a bit of fishing with a friend from Drumintee up in South Armagh , was talking to him 'bout an hour ago.His extended family , not so much himself would be very republican.
I was asking him about helicopters being shot down , he reckoned one crashed avoiding fire, another was actually hit and downed and a third one he'd heard about was hit by an improvised mortar either a fantastic shot or an amazing fluke.

He also reckon the logistics and organisation needed to put into bringing down a helicopter weren't worth it... lots of ammo etc , a particular large calibre Soviet gun being with D...needed to be mounted etc..

jonniebgood1

whitelines wrote: »

And of course, if a policeman or a soldier colluded with Loyalist volunteers, it does not draw any link between the police/army as organisations and collusion.

Good point.

Not as clear cut as that.

If the soldier was in command and used his sub-ordinates to commit crime then it would discredit the entire regiment. Same for the police. Look at the Donegal Gardai for a clear example of this. The current Donegal Gardai are suffering huge credibility issues as a result of criminality in their ranks and it certainly changed how people view their effectiveness.

Fenian Army

mattjack wrote: »

I do a bit of fishing with a friend from Drumintee up in South Armagh , was talking to him 'bout an hour ago.His extended family , not so much himself would be very republican.
I was asking him about helicopters being shot down , he reckoned one crashed avoiding fire, another was actually hit and downed and a third one he'd heard about was hit by an improvised mortar either a fantastic shot or an amazing fluke.

He also reckon the logistics and organisation needed to put into bringing down a helicopter weren't worth it... lots of ammo etc , a particular large calibre Soviet gun being with D...needed to be mounted etc..

It was hard to do but the fact that they had the capability to do so hampered the British army severely.

mattjack

Fenian Army wrote: »

It was hard to do but the fact that they had the capability to do so hampered the British army severely.

I'm not arguing with you, its just an opinion.

Fenian Army

mattjack wrote: »

I'm not arguing with you, its just an opinion.

Im not arguing either lol

fasttalkerchat

mattjack wrote: »

I do a bit of fishing with a friend from Drumintee up in South Armagh , was talking to him 'bout an hour ago.His extended family , not so much himself would be very republican.
I was asking him about helicopters being shot down , he reckoned one crashed avoiding fire, another was actually hit and downed and a third one he'd heard about was hit by an improvised mortar either a fantastic shot or an amazing fluke.

He also reckon the logistics and organisation needed to put into bringing down a helicopter weren't worth it... lots of ammo etc , a particular large calibre Soviet gun being with D...needed to be mounted etc..

That's about right. There was a one brought down early in the troubles but the brits denied all knowledge. The mortar one was the only missile used to hit a helicopter because of the danger.
There is footage of the IRA using mounted automatic weapons to shoot down a helicopter but this takes sustained firing.

thecommietommy

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Are they jibes? There are ongoing cases that are quite unsavoury rather than being made up by 'English tabloids'. Here is an Irish papers view on same http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/the-good-republican-who-has-become-lord-of-bandit-country-1503201.html .

Jayus, if Dr Sir Tony O'Reilly's comics Independent newspapers aren't effectively 'English tabloids' when it comes to the six counties I don't know what is :rolleyes: Jim Cusack and co. write more BS than even the Sun !!!

thecommietommy

whitelines wrote: »

That's because it wasn't tried. The UK State didn't deploy it's 'military might' in an aggressive manner. Had it done so, it could have ethnically cleansed NI of Nationalists in the same way The Serbs did to The Muslims in Bosnia.

And tell me what is Serbia now ? A Pariah state with the consequent economic ruin. Something the British got a taste of what could happen to them in 1956 with their fiasco the Suez crisis and has been well remembered since by it's administration and wouldn't dare do in a part of the EU

whitelines wrote: »

fasttalkerchat
You really think that would have been tolerated by the USA? Also the Provos weren't as friendly as some would like to think. If genocide was to begin here there would have been killings all over England in retribution.

Of course. They were doing similar things in Vietnam.

As for killings all over England. LOL. Don't remember bombs in Belgrade.

Yes the Americans were doing similar things - but their the superpower America not that broken down little ex colonial power off the coast of Europe And remember Irish Americans are one of the most powerful lobby groups in the US, Britain's international 'power' goes about as far as one telephone call from Washington

thecommietommy

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

East Tyrone were becoming very active before the Loughgall Massacre.

And they were very active after it as someone has pointed out with the Ballgawley bus bombing and six British soldiers blown up in Lisburn as a consequence of Loughgall.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-06-16/news/mn-6854_1_northern-ireland

indioblack

thecommietommy wrote: »

And tell me what is Serbia now ? A Pariah state with the consequent economic ruin. Something the British got a taste of what could happen to them in 1956 with their fiasco the Suez crisis and has been well remembered since by it's administration and wouldn't dare do in a part of the EU


Yes the Americans were doing similar things - but their the superpower America not that broken down little ex colonial power off the coast of Europe And remember Irish Americans are one of the most powerful lobby groups in the US, Britain's international 'power' goes about as far as one telephone call from Washington

Suez told the British that if there was a "special relationship" with the US, then Britain was the junior partner.
Since NI was part of the UK and therefore it was the British who were responsible for the place, (and the argument will come flying back that they had no business being there at all!), it could be conceded that PIRA were effective in making it difficult for them to do so.
Republicans will want to say that they brought the British to the negotiating table - the British will say that NI as a society did not completely fragment, and that they held the line until it was favourable to begin negotiations.
Both sides, of course, wanted to see the defeat of the other - but it's no secret that this was not going to happen.
Sitting with my relatives in Cork in the late 70's I proclaimed, with all the wisdom of an armchair strategist, that the whole business in the north would have to end in negotiation - and that meant that no-one would get all that they wanted. They were very polite and did'nt tell me to eff off!
Irish America? Probably more to do with sentiment than substance.
And as for that broken down ex colonial power, well it does contribute to the IMF which participated in the bailout of a small country off the north-east corner of Europe.

thecommietommy

indioblack wrote: »

Suez told the British that if there was a "special relationship" with the US, then Britain was the junior partner.
Since NI was part of the UK and therefore it was the British who were responsible for the place, (and the argument will come flying back that they had no business being there at all!), it could be conceded that PIRA were effective in making it difficult for them to do so.
Republicans will want to say that they brought the British to the negotiating table - the British will say that NI as a society did not completely fragment, and that they held the line until it was favourable to begin negotiations.
Both sides, of course, wanted to see the defeat of the other - but it's no secret that this was not going to happen.
Sitting with my relatives in Cork in the late 70's I proclaimed, with all the wisdom of an armchair strategist, that the whole business in the north would have to end in negotiation - and that meant that no-one would get all that they wanted. They were very polite and did'nt tell me to eff off!
Irish America? Probably more to do with sentiment than substance.

Well we're drifting away from the OP which is about specific brigades of the IRA and not the organisation or the six counties in general and I 'd like the mods to note I am only replying to what I consider a good post and not deliberately dragging the topic off post.

As for the "special relationship" that's supposed to exist between the US and the UK, as posted by someone else on the forum, it works like this: the Yanks tell the Brits what to do, and the Brits get to take what scraps fall from the table

And as for that broken down ex colonial power, well it does contribute to the IMF which participated in the bailout of a small country off the north-east corner of Europe.

Well with respect to indioblack, this it totally off topic, but we were also contributing to the IMF when Britain had to be baled out by it in the mid 70's, and as Cameron more than emphaised in the Commons, it's in Britain's interest to see that the ROI and the EU doesn't go down dragging them also.

thecommietommy

mattjack wrote: »

I do a bit of fishing with a friend from Drumintee up in South Armagh , was talking to him 'bout an hour ago.His extended family , not so much himself would be very republican.
I was asking him about helicopters being shot down , he reckoned one crashed avoiding fire, another was actually hit and downed and a third one he'd heard about was hit by an improvised mortar either a fantastic shot or an amazing fluke.

He also reckon the logistics and organisation needed to put into bringing down a helicopter weren't worth it... lots of ammo etc , a particular large calibre Soviet gun being with D...needed to be mounted etc..

Back on topic, interesting. Appearently the Brit helicopters had to start going in convoy's of 3 to fire back and try and avoid been shot down. According to Tim Pat Coogan's The IRA, the Provos biggest wish was to get Surface to Air Missile technology, appearently they used to refer to them as " the war winner ".

Is there any other urban guerilla organisation that was capable of taking down helicopters ? Cann't say I have ever heard of say, ETA or the PLO shooting down choppers.

thecommietommy

whitelines wrote: »

Helicopters can make a huge difference. I've always wondered why one wasn't used to fire missiles at that farm house in South Armagh where PIRA's brigade commander lived? What with it being a 'war' between the mighty British Army and the elite Provisional IRA and everything.

whitelines wrote: »

I see what you mean (I think). Still, they could have killed him anytime they liked as he came out of the pub. Why didn't they do that?

Yes, and many republicians were killed alleged by the loyalists and 'unknown' gun men etc. Of course likewise officers, politicans and senior members of the British establishment were likewise killed in return. And that's my point.

From what I remember from reading one of Tim Pat Coogan's interviews with a leading IRA man, as we know the IRA and senior members of British intelligence met regularily ( not only that but the IRA were even flown to London for talks during the ceasefire in 1972).

According to Tim Pat Coogan, the Provos made it known to the British that they kept " a shopping list " of senior RUC, British army, political and establishment figures that they would target and kill in return for the death of important nationalists. An example would be the attempted murder of Bernadette McAliskey and her husband in front of their children by UDA man Ray Smallwoods in 1981. This immediately resulted in the shooting of unionist icon Sir Norman Stronge. Smallwoods was later shot after getting out of prison and UDA leader John McMicheal blown up by a bomb. Similiar happened with the hunger strikes, when the IRA tried wipe out the British cabinet at the Brighton Hotel. ( It should be pointed out that one of those invovled in the Brighton bombing Martina Anderson is now a Euro MEP - and the IRA were defeated !!! ).

indioblack

thecommietommy wrote: »

Well we're drifting away from the OP which is about specific brigades of the IRA and not the organisation or the six counties in general and I 'd like the mods to note I am only replying to what I consider a good post and not deliberately dragging the topic off post.

As for the "special relationship" that's supposed to exist between the US and the UK, as posted by someone else on the forum, it works like this: the Yanks tell the Brits what to do, and the Brits get to take what scraps fall from the table

Well with respect to indioblack, this it totally off topic, but we were also contributing to the IMF when Britain had to be baled out by it in the mid 70's, and as Cameron more than emphaised in the Commons, it's in Britain's interest to see that the ROI and the EU doesn't go down dragging them also.

Good reply - point taken - back on topic.
Was this IRA group the most effective? Well I think restricting your opponents ability to manouvere is effective. I work with a man who served in NI and was in Crossmaglen on two occasions and it helped him decide on a career in civvy street!
There - no mention of Suez, the IMF or our friends the Americans.