Old IRA compared to PIRA

wendell borton

Just watching who do you think you are on rte 1 with your one off ballykissangell, goes to pains to differentiate the old IRA with the more modern ira.
But is there any difference between them?

Senna

The IRA have been around since the turn of the 19th century, which IRA are you on about?

Fox_In_Socks

Did you know that old Mr Brennan's first name is actually, Ira?

RayM

It's simple: There was the "good IRA" and the "bad IRA".

Celly Smunt

Call him...drunken ira hayes he wont answer anymore,
not the whiskey drinking indian or the marine that went to war.

Wacker The Attacker

ri-ra

MadsL

The Old IRA are still at war with Canada?

Menas

Time is the difference between the officials and the provos.

Celly Smunt

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Time is the difference between the officials and the provos.

What about the I cant beleive its not butter ira?

Celly Smunt

MadsL wrote: »

The Old IRA are still at war with Canada?

They dont lile the queen being on the front of the 20 note.

Sunnyisland

IRA,
Its quite a common name for Jewish people so I'd imagine it runs into the hundreds of thousands.

dinorebel

Celly Smunt wrote: »

What about the I cant beleive its not butter ira?

Spread themselves to thinly.

Jimminy Mc Fukhead

'The Invincibles' were the real thing. The rest were unconvincing rip offs.



Twasn't very sensible
To tell on the Invincibles
They stood up for their principles

Larbre34

Funnily enough shes going after a jewish connection now!

At the same time shes after being very moralistic and pious about how shes 'always chasing peace' when discussing the activity of the old IRA. How ****ing well a free country was provided for her in decades past so she could revel in her pacifism

Sunnyisland

Big difference...

One was setting bombs of and fighting for towards a United Ireland and the other was fighting towards a United Ireland and setting of bombs..

diomed

Is it something to do with the business model?

getzls

RayM wrote: »

It's simple: There was the "good IRA" and the "bad IRA".

Never been a good IRA.

A lot of the murderous deeds were as evil and sectarian as old or new IRA.

Lapin

wendell borton wrote: »

Just watching who do you think you are on rte 1 with your one off ballykissangell, goes to pains to differentiate the old IRA with the more modern ira.
But is there any difference between them?

No.

They're all tossers.

Banjo String

IRA v the Taliban.

Capt'n Midnight

Anyone even asking the question is either clueless about history or trolling.

comparing the old IRA to today's crowd is the same as comparing the original Sinn Fein with today's crowd

FF, FG, Workers Party, Labour etc. can all trace their roots to when Sein Fein irreconcilably split in the past

In the case of the IRA in addition to the political splits above there were all the other ones leading to the OIRA , PIRA , INLA (and IPLO ) CIRA, and RIRA. An each group claiming that it alone carried the original message.

Not only was there infighting between the various republican groups there was the wholesale move to criminality with bank robberies, smuggling and protection rackets. It got to the stage where you couldn't tell if it wasn't just criminals joining the biggest gang and paying lip service to "the cause".



As for Óglaigh na hÉireann this is their story.
http://www.military.ie/info-centre/defence-forces-history/

Nodin

Lapin wrote: »

No.

They're all tossers.

...I'm sure they appreciate your sentiment.

RobFowl

Old IRA were gob****es
PIRA were c*nts

Nodin

RobFowl wrote: »

Old IRA were gob****es
PIRA were c*nts

Do please explain your well phrased musing there.....

In a hundred years time they will be talking about Gerry Adams like the way Michael Collins is talked about today, time and a revisionist view of history will sort ever thing out.

Senna

mariaalice wrote: »

In a hundred years time they will be talking about Gerry Adams like the way Michael Collins is talked about today, time and a revisionist view of history will sort ever thing out.

No "they" wont.

Senna

Senna wrote: »

No "they" wont.

Sorry for my incorrect grammar as it seem to offend you, but I am certain distance for the event will elevate Gerry Adams ( I'm not a fan btw ) it how history works. I am not comparing him to Micheal Collins, just to the fact that how distance from the event changed the context of the event.

oppenheimer1

realies wrote: »

Big difference...

One was setting bombs of and fighting for towards a United Ireland and the other was fighting towards a United Ireland and setting of bombs..

No the big difference is the Old IRA has been sanitised and its atrocities whitewashed, wheres with the Provos this has yet to happen.

RayM

getzls wrote: »

Never been a good IRA.

A lot of the murderous deeds were as evil and sectarian as old or new IRA.

One man's Bad IRA is another man's Good IRA.

DwightSchrute1

mariaalice wrote: »

In a hundred years time they will be talking about Gerry Adams like the way Michael Collins is talked about today, time and a revisionist view of history will sort ever thing out.

I thought Gerry Adams was never part of the IRA. Silly me :rolleyes:

RobbingBandit

Are you talking about the post 1916 IRA or the Late 1960s IRA, such as the Provisional IRA OP?

Capt'n Midnight

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Are you talking about the post 1916 IRA or the Late 1960s IRA, such as the Provisional IRA OP?

or whatever name the "I can't believe it's not the IRA" go under ?

Sunnyisland

wendell borton wrote: »

Just watching who do you think you are on rte 1 with your one off ballykissangell, goes to pains to differentiate the old IRA with the more modern ira.
But is there any difference between them?

Serious imo its the great hypercritical question that troubles us no end in our 26 counties, How do we honour every year the men who took up arms to found this state and established an Independent republic and at the same time condemn those who took up arms in a part of our country that we abandoned.

We are willing to perform all manner of logical and moral contortions to attempt to show that the old IRA were good and the Provisionals were bad to try and square a circle.

There is no difference,both used armed republicanism to further their goals as they seen them at the time, both have ended up in the ruling government.

Maybe the question should be, When will it ever end...

LordSutch

realies wrote: »

There is no difference,both used armed republicanism to further their goals as they seen them at the time, both have ended up in the ruling government.

Maybe the question should be, When will it ever end...

Yes! but only after the Unionist/British population in the North has been subsumed & their culrure eradicated by an ever expanding Republican/ Nationalist population, who will in time become the dominant force. Therby breaking any and all links to the neighbouring island & the commonwealth (just like we did), ergo the end of the IRA and their very need to exist.

Job complete, with a Unionist/Loyalist free island with no connections to Britain.

PS; I'm not a fan of the IRA myself (in all its guises), but I guess this has always been their objective?

Grayson

realies wrote: »

Serious imo its the great hypercritical question that troubles us no end in our 26 counties, How do we honour every year the men who took up arms to found this state and established an Independent republic and at the same time condemn those who took up arms in a part of our country that we abandoned.

We are willing to perform all manner of logical and moral contortions to attempt to show that the old IRA were good and the Provisionals were bad to try and square a circle.

There is no difference,both used armed republicanism to further their goals as they seen them at the time, both have ended up in the ruling government.

Maybe the question should be, When will it ever end...

The difference is that one of them fought a war that targeted enemy soldiers. Whereas the other one threw nailbombs into crowded london resteraunts.

Sunnyisland

Grayson wrote: »

The difference is that one of them fought a war that targeted enemy soldiers. Whereas the other one threw nailbombs into crowded london resteraunts.

If there had been semtex or equivalent around back then it would have been used,or if they had the expertise to make more powerful bombs they certainly would have.There are many instances in mostly anglo Irish homes been firebombed and their businesses burned to the ground also,
There are more disappeared people from then who still have not been recovered than in the most recent PIRA campaigns, A lot of people have this nostalgia about the old fenian/Ira men,They were as good or as bad as the present ones.

AROUND 200 PEOPLE were ‘disappeared’ by the old IRA throughout the War of Independence and Civil War,http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bodies%20disappear%20from%20the%20civil%20war%20in%20ireland&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fexecuted-irish-war-of-independence-tv3-832378-Mar2013%2F&ei=eaYdUq7cHcGL7AaCwoDACw&usg=AFQjCNE5NbhjcOnihrcaFvqid4Vk7KuEGQ

Sunnyisland

LordSutch wrote: »

Yes! but only after the Unionist/British population in the North has been subsumed & their culrure eradicated by an ever expanding Republican/ Nationalist population, who will in time become the dominant force. Therby breaking any and all links to the neighbouring island & the commonwealth (just like we did), ergo the end of the IRA and their very need to exist.

Job complete, with a Unionist/Loyalist free island with no connections to Britain.

PS; I'm not a fan of the IRA myself (in all its guises), but I guess this has always been their objective?[/QUOTE]


Yes Lordsutch I have read your many previous posts re Ireland and its past history and your opinions about them

LordSutch

The IRA has been a curse on this landscape for far too long IMO, not that I'd expect you guys to agree witn me and anti-IRA stance, I guess that being anti IRA is becomming old hat in the new revisionist Ireland.

suggest you have a look at your 'quote' brackets/bold cut and paste

keelanj69

Well in 1916 they all wore Celtic jerseys or hoodies. In 2013 they wear flat caps and waist coats.

Sunnyisland

LordSutch wrote: »

The IRA has been a curse on this landscape for far too long IMO, not that I'd expect you guys to agree witn me and anti-IRA stance, I guess that being anti IRA is becomming old hat in the new revisionist Ireland.

suggest you have a look at your 'quote' brackets/bold cut and paste

Yes you're quite right I don't agree with you but not because I am some IRA man, more that as I see it you are an apologist for what caused the IRA and its offshoots to be formed in the first place with know acceptance that your unionist community had any part of the destruction and troubles in our country,
Maybe on this anniversary of rev martin luther king famous I have a dream speech you and your kind took his stance and not that of rev martin smith or rev Ian paisley we be all in a better place.

You do know that denial is not just a river in egypt.

Have to go out now,have a nice day.

fishy fishy

wendell borton wrote: »

Just watching who do you think you are on rte 1 with your one off ballykissangell, goes to pains to differentiate the old IRA with the more modern ira.
But is there any difference between them?

yes, saw this and had a great laugh - did she really think the "old" ira were a bunch of romantics. What an idiot she looked like.

fishy fishy

Senna wrote: »

No "they" wont.

they will - its how history works.

biko

Read "A life in the IRA" by Joe Cahill.
He discusses the change from Officials to Provos.

FTA69

The simple fact of the matter is that there is very little difference between the IRA of the 1920s and the IRA of the 1970s; of course the political circumstances were quite different (as you'd expect) but the concept of an armed Republican group challenging the British presence in Ireland remained the same. The IRA during the Tan War were a ruthless and hard-headed organisation and many of their activists who are now lauded today were stone cold killers. If you think there was some massive moral discrepancy between the likes of Dan Breen and Francis Hughes then you're simply codding yourself.

Here's an interview with Dan Breen and it's far from romantic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty_U6U8iiTg

Rubeter

FTA69 wrote: »

The simple fact of the matter is that there is very little difference between the IRA of the 1920s and the IRA of the 1970s; of course the political circumstances were quite different (as you'd expect) but the concept of an armed Republican group challenging the British presence in Ireland remained the same. The IRA during the Tan War were a ruthless and hard-headed organisation and many of their activists who are now lauded today were stone cold killers. If you think there was some massive moral discrepancy between the likes of Dan Breen and Francis Hughes then you're simply codding yourself.

Here's an interview with Dan Breen and it's far from romantic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty_U6U8iiTg

If you want a tap fixed you send in a plumber, if you want to fight a war you send in a killer. They wouldn't have been much of an army if they weren't killers, it's in the job description.

As for the difference the biggie is, the old lads had the population behind them, that made them a legit force fighting for independence.

FTA69

Rubeter wrote: »

If you want a tap fixed you send in a plumber, if you want to fight a war you send in a killer. They wouldn't have been much of an army if they weren't killers, it's in the job description.

It's how the killing is portrayed though. The Tan War is portrayed as a romantic and gallant struggle; almost in the same way war was portrayed in those 1980s boys' annuals. The reality was that it was a grinding and vicious conflict in which many unsavoury and often unjustified acts were committed by the IRA. Some of the cheesier folk songs don't really do it justice. For instance the Boys of the Old Brigade doesn't go into detail about how they shot pensioners and unarmed civilian informants before burying them in the bog, or how they tortured people, or how they killed naked men who were in bed with their wives.

While I do believe that that campaign was justified there has been a massive amount of sanitising and revisionism done. To try and portray the IRA of 1916 as gallant patriots while simultaneously tarring the Provisionals as bloodthirsty gangsters is simply dishonest claptrap.

Lorenzo the Magnificent

No other organisation in Ireland is the subject of so much revisionism by it's misty-eyed apologists.

Rubeter

FTA69 wrote: »

It's how the killing is portrayed though. The Tan War is portrayed as a romantic and gallant struggle; almost in the same way war was portrayed in those 1980s boys' annuals. The reality was that it was a grinding and vicious conflict in which many unsavoury and often unjustified acts were committed by the IRA. Some of the cheesier folk songs don't really do it justice. For instance the Boys of the Old Brigade doesn't go into detail about how they shot pensioners and unarmed civilian informants before burying them in the bog, or how they tortured people, or how they killed naked men who were in bed with their wives.

Show me a war where unsavory and unjustified acts didn't happen.
War by its very nature is pretty unpleasant, there is nothing nice about the actual killing, but there is nothing wrong with portraying the struggle itself as gallant or heroic.

While I do believe that that campaign was justified there has been a massive amount of sanitising and revisionism done. To try and portray the IRA of 1916 as gallant patriots while simultaneously tarring the Provisionals as bloodthirsty gangsters is simply dishonest claptrap.

Well they were gallant patriots, they were fighting for the independence of their country, that their job involved doing some pretty nasty stuff and a that a lot of "shit happened" is precisely what war is.

Yellowblackbird

Which one was the Omagh bomb? Was it gallant or was it "**** that happened".

FTA69

Rubeter wrote: »

Show me a war where unsavory and unjustified acts didn't happen.
War by its very nature is pretty unpleasant, there is nothing nice about the actual killing, but there is nothing wrong with portraying the struggle itself as gallant or heroic.

I never said that we shouldn't take pride in our struggle for freedom. I do in fact think the likes of Mellowes, O'Malley, Treacy, Sands et al were heroes. They were ordinary people who did extraordinary things. I'm also conscious of the fact that war is a terrible thing and that reality shouldn't be covered up so the like of Fianna Fáil can hark back to the "Old IRA" and other such b*llocks to claim some sense of false legitimacy.

Well they were gallant patriots, they were fighting for the independence of their country, that their job involved doing some pretty nasty stuff and a that a lot of "shit happened" is precisely what war is.

I agree. My point is that while people love to lambast the Provisional IRA for all the terrible things that occurred recently they often erroneously gloss over what went on during the Tan War when they were every bit as ruthless back then as well.

Rubeter

FTA69 wrote: »

Rubeter wrote: »

I never said that we shouldn't take pride in our struggle for freedom. I do in fact think the likes of Mellowes, O'Malley, Treacy, Sands et al were heroes. They were ordinary people who did extraordinary things. I'm also conscious of the fact that war is a terrible thing and that reality shouldn't be covered up so the like of Fianna Fáil can hark back to the "Old IRA" and other such b*llocks to claim some sense of false legitimacy.


I agree. My point is that while people love to lambast the Provisional IRA for all the terrible things that occurred recently they often erroneously gloss over what went on during the Tan War when they were every bit as ruthless back then as well.

This is not in line with your previous two posts.

Rubeter

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

Which one was the Omagh bomb? Was it gallant or was it "**** that happened".

Omagh wasn't perpetrated by the old IRA, So your question is a bit odd (to say the least).