Old IRA compared to PIRA

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).

goose2005

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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".

The Old IRA also shot unarmed policemen, got weapons from the German Empire, shot alleged "informers" on the slightest of evidence, burned down "loyalist" houses, tortured people, carried out summary executions, etc. Their enemies were more brutal and the overall cause was just, but it's stupid to imagine that you can have a war without brutality, without criminals joining in to get rich or get revenge on their enemies, etc. Do you think the Ulster loyalists would have made all the concessions they have made if they had just been asked politely?

goose2005

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.

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.

Of course, but that fails to explain why the PIRA were evil murderers when theirs was a similar conflict carried out through similar means.

Rubeter

goose2005 wrote: »

Of course, but that fails to explain why the PIRA were evil murderers when theirs was a similar conflict carried out through similar means.

No, but it made the point I wanted to make.

.jacksparrow.

No difference between the old ira the pira and the new ira, their aims remain the same.

FTA69

Rubeter wrote: »

FTA69 wrote: »

This is not in line with your previous two posts.

It is. I said those who declare the 1916 men patriots and deride the Provos as criminals are engaging in duplicitous revisionism. Which is true.

padd b1975

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

No difference between the old ira the pira and the new ira, their aims remain the same.

As do their methods.

liamygunner29

There's a huge difference between people who wanted a united Ireland and all that romantic **** and the scumbags now.

I'm Irish and was victim to an IRA armed robbery. They are uneducated rats. I could write a couple of pages on the subject but I'll leave it at uneducated rats.

anncoates

I'm opposed to armed force nationalism, no matter what the vintage although it's a valid point that many opponents of modern day armed force nationalists elect to eulogize the more historical strain of same.

Karl Stein

liamygunner29 wrote: »

They are uneducated rats.

A lot of them came out of jail with degrees masters' and PHDs.

Had one as lecturer myself. He was a lovely terrorist actually.

Galwayguy35

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 won't.