BBC iPlayer: The Paras (1982)

thecommietommy

whitelines wrote: »

There's different means of applying 'pain and hardship' to a terrorist host community. It can be applied legally through internment, saturating whole areas with troops, repeated search and seize operations, curfews, and can advance through to the destruction of properties that might or where used for terrorist purposes. There are many, many, more oppressive techniques that can be utilised for this purpose - most beyond the scope of what The UK State was prepared to countenance within NI.

That's exactly what the Brits did with the Falls Road curfew, operation Motorman etc. Nor did it work but only served to make a bad situation worse as 25 years of the troubles proved. In the case of internment ( operation Motorman ) which had the British army claiming that they had " broken the IRA " , the Provos had been bugging the British army and legendary IRA man Brendan Hughes intercepted the information so most of the Provisionals were safely on the run to escape capture.

As for Loughinisland and Dublin, those operations were not carried out by state forces, but by militant Loyalists. Their view would have been that they added something extra to the process, going further than the legal forces of The Crown, in an attempt to undermine support for PIRA within the broader Nationalist community across The Island of Ireland.

These murders were not directly carried out by the Brits but indirectly due to arming and directing the loyalist murder gangs, which in turn produced the IRA and INLA reaction. You seem to use the term "host community" to imply that somehow anyone of a nationalist background whatsoever was somehow fair game.Since as can be seen from the table by CAIN, since Republicans killed more in the conflict than -2030 verses Loyalists/Brits 1379, Republicans were the clear winners by your criteria.http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Summary.html

Certainly, within an international context, the use of paramilitary 'death squads' to terrorise insurgents and their supporters would be the norm. Generally though, such auxiliaries would fall fully within state control. In NI, for a number of reasons, Crown forces were unable to act in a similar manner and as a result forces outside state control felt obliged, for ideological reasons, to carry out such operations themselves.

Clearly within any context, forces of the state are supposed to act within the rules of the state and the use of proxy murder gangs would in any civilised society be totally rejected. However that former colonial state Britain wouldn't obviously fall into that category, and the loyalist murder squads were undoubtably under state control. Quite clearly both obviously failed as per the head count and the " Protestant state for a Protestant people " is no more.

Collusion between Security Forces and Paramilitaries
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/collusion/index.html

thecommietommy

whitelines wrote: »

Responding to point 1, 'They fought one of the worlds most advanced and formidable armies to a standstill for nearly thirty years' is hyperbole of the worst sort. UK State forces acted as police support during 'the troubles', operating under civil law, they couldn't even discharge their weapons unless lives were threatened. If they were one of the world's 'most advanced and formidable armies', they certainly didn't act that way in NI.

No they didn't, barely a handful of them ever served prison for the murder of almost exclusively nationalists such as Bloody Sunday etc During the troubles the British forces killed more civilians than the INLA ( I am a former member of the IRSP btw). However justice of a kind was dished out at Warrenpoint etc

Responding to point 2, 'They made large area's of the UK no go areas that could only be accessed by air'. Well, of course they did. What would you have had The UK Army do? Impose a scorched earth policy in South Armagh? Again, they were acting as an auxiliary police force, not a fighting army.

Well they tried that in Cork and Tipperary etc 1919 - 1921 with murders, mass arrests, martial law, burnings, looting etc and it didn't work. However you seem to be lost in some delusion that Britain is somehow an all powerful state like American and could do as it likes The international community wouldn't stand for it and as the Brits sharply learned during the Suez crisis in 1956 ( which they couldn't do on their own anyway without the French and Israeli's), their just a broken down former colonial power

Responding to point 3, 'They carried out some very well planned actions deep behind enemy lines. By these I refer to the mortar attack on 10 Downing St and the Brighton bombing'. These attacks were made possible because The UK State allowed PIRA to operate effectively at will, deploying The UK Army under the rule of law - civil law. In such circumstances it was inevitable that PIRA would achieve some results.

As above, far from operating under the rule of law ( indeed when John Stalker for example tried to uncover several extrajudical murders, we all know what happened). And inevitably the IRA and INLA achieved thousands of results and by your criteria Republicans were the clear winners, Republicans 2030 verses Loyalists/Brits 1379.

Responding to point 4, 'They bled the UK government white financially'. They did indeed. In fact, you could say that instead of bullets, The Nationalist community in NI was given silver.

The " Protestant state for a Protestant people is smashed and gone forever with an ever increasing nationalist and importantly better educated population - and worse of all with some of the leaders of the IRA such as Martin McGuinnes, Gerry Kelly etc running the state !!!!!

Indeed Sinn Fein/IRA is still bleeding the British state as they have amongst the highest expenses claimed in Westminister which they don't even attend

Responding to point 5, 'They forced repeated governments to the negotiation table'. They certainly created an environment in which The UK State abandoned democratic norms in NI.

The reality is that PIRA were a committed and determined terrorist organisation, with commendable staying power, but one which operated within the most benign environments imaginable. Their leaders were free to stroll around NI preaching subversion in public. It's hard to see this being applicable anywhere outside a handful of western nations. Certainly not in The US. Still, you fight what's put in front of you.

Responding to your final point - some do more bad things than others.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

thecommietommy

whitelines wrote: »

Regarding the high lighted section - it's actually completely wrong. A large state can simply ethnically cleanse a small minority should it decide.

That's true, Germany could in theory invade the Sudentenand in the Czech Republic tomorrow and ethically cleanse the Czechs only to become a pariah state like Serbia. But just remember Einstein, international opinion and the Suez crisis or even better again, the Cod War when tiny Iceland made the Royal navy turn about head home with it's tail between it's legs in the 70's

http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/articles/iceland/Cod-War-in-Iceland/527

The UK would have had very few problems doing this with Northern Ireland's RC population, had it so wished. In fact, provisional plans were discussed at cabinet level. The good news for Northern Ireland's Nationalist population is that this wasn't the solution implemented, for whatever reason.

That is indeed true, provisional plans were discussed at Cabinet level. The motivation may well have been the delusion most of the Brit forces have of Britain's power and standing in the world, or just the usual Brit saber rattling. However people in the British administration in contact with reality poured cold water over the delusional idea. But one thing for certain, no one more than the IRA would have known about the Brits fantasy's, and seen it for what it was - saber rattling - and carried on regardless.

As the saying goes, the British bulldog can bark but it's got no teeth to bite !!!!!