Old IRA compared to PIRA

RobFowl

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Ugh, this is the typical moral posturing response you get from some when this issue comes up.

Morality really messes up discussions about the IRA doesn't it.
I feel for you being sickened by those of us who find the "armed struggle" morally repugnant.

Dyr

handlemaster wrote: »

Its all about drugs and filli g their pockets now. The notion of a unitied ireland is just wish wash

Is that why the links between the provos and drugs were so well documented? What with all them provos being convicted on drug busts :rolleyes:

Crooked Jack

RobFowl wrote: »

Morality really messes up discussions about the IRA doesn't it.
I feel for you being sickened by those of us who find the "armed struggle" morally repugnant.

See what I mean? That's not what the poster was talking about. You want to talk about the morality, we can do that, but that's not what that particular discussion was about.
You might as well have just written "I have nothing to contribute here but on a side note I think killing is bad."
very commendable and I'm sure you feel great about yourself for doing it but it's not what was being talked about.

FTA69

You see I am not making a judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the actions here, (it gets too messy and I couldn't be arsed).
All I am saying is holding differing opinions of people doing similar things distanced by 80 odd years is not necessarily hypocritical because of one big difference and that difference is, the times. The times in which things happen is a very important variable, and if there is a variable then things are not the same.

So how do "the times" justify armed struggle in 1916 but not in 1969?

dd972

An appealing flat capped G-Man chic

compared to

Wing collared shirts, flares and platform shoes.

goose2005

The bomber pilots of WWII were considered heroes, would the same attitude be expressed today with the carpet bombing of cities?

No, they weren't considered heroes. There was no memorial built until last year and they were ignored because area bombing was an act of brutality that the Allies wanted to forget.

Ignoring the context of an action is quite simply ridiculous. Whether Terence Mc can be considered a hero or not depends on his actions at a certain time and place and the same for Sands. Their actions may be the same, they may have had similar motivations but the contexts were different and the times were different, these must be taken into account in determining the validity of an action.

But what clear difference is there in the Old IRA fighting to free Ireland from British rule and the PIRA fighting to free Northern Ireland from British rule? The more you look into it the vaguer it becomes

BrokenArrows

SamHall wrote: »

IRA v the Taliban.

Wtf!

Arawn

IIRC the Ira way back set up a pension for widows/old age folk

anncoates

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Ugh, this is the typical moral posturing response you get from some when this issue comes up.

The only moral posturing is from imbeciles that think innocent human lives can be bean-counted by zealots in some kind of effete armchair stratagem.

Crooked Jack

anncoates wrote: »

The only moral posturing is from imbeciles that think innocent human lives can be bean-counted by zealots in some kind of effete armchair stratagem.

I've noticed that both of the posters currently pontificating about my post have only quoted part of it and taken it completely out of context.
That may suit their agenda and allow them to feel smug but i say again, it's not the issue that was being discussed.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

No they didn't. There were a few stupid operations in the early-1970s where they targeted pubs frequented by soldiers, something which discontinued quite early on. They never went around throwing nail bombs into restaurants with a view to killing civilians.

Aah come on now.

How many soldiers were drinking in Birmingham that infamous night, or eating in Scott's in Mayfair?

Is the Warrington branch of Argos really a cover for the local SAS, or maybe the Le Mons hotel was an MI5 office?

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The provos were by far the most selective of any group in the north. About 30 per cent of their victims were civilians, largely people caught up in explosions or crossfires. Unacceptable, but it still hardly means they targeted them. The term civilians also extended to people like judges (hardly uninvolved given the sentences they handed out to people on evidence that was clearly made up or confessions that were beaten out of them) informers, criminals etc... Compared to the British Army, half of whose victims were civilian, ditto for the RUC

Could you define targeting civilians? Because in most people's book that would mean bombing civilian establishments, such as pubs, bus stations, hotels and shopping centres. I'd also like to know what you mean by "caught up in an explosion". If you are in a pub and a bomb goes off under your table, are you the target of that bomb, or simply caught up in it?

Percentages mean nothing, if the army and RUC had killed IRA members in cold blood (like the IRA did to members of those services) rather than arrested them, their percentage of civilian deaths would be far less.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Could you define targeting civilians?

Doing something with the expressed intent of killing people uninvolved in the conflict.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Because in most people's book that would mean bombing civilian establishments, such as pubs, bus stations, hotels and shopping centres.

Most places like that that were bombed were bombed for economic reasons. Warnings were given to clear the area of people. Hardly a sound strategy for killing people. As a previous poster mentioned a number of attacks carried out in the early days of the Troubles involved things like bombing pubs frequented by soldiers of or members of the British government. This tactic was unacceptable and thankfully dropped.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'd also like to know what you mean by "caught up in an explosion". If you are in a pub and a bomb goes off under your table, are you the target of that bomb, or simply caught up in it?

Premature explosion, inadequate or ignored warnings.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Percentages mean nothing, if the army and RUC had killed IRA members in cold blood (like the IRA did to members of those services) rather than arrested them, their percentage of civilian deaths would be far less.

Im not quite sure what you're saying here. Fact is the British Army and RUC did kill IRA members in cold blood without attempting arrest them. Loughall, Gibraltar, Peter Cleary, Craigavon, Lurgan, Mullacreavie and the other victims of the British state's Shoot to Kill policy.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Doing something with the expressed intent of killing people uninvolved in the conflict.



Most places like that that were bombed were bombed for economic reasons. Warnings were given to clear the area of people. Hardly a sound strategy for killing people. As a previous poster mentioned a number of attacks carried out in the early days of the Troubles involved things like bombing pubs frequented by soldiers of or members of the British government. This tactic was unacceptable and thankfully dropped.



Premature explosion, inadequate or ignored warnings.



Im not quite sure what you're saying here. Fact is the British Army and RUC did kill IRA members in cold blood without attempting arrest them. Loughall, Gibraltar, Peter Cleary, Craigavon, Lurgan, Mullacreavie and the other victims of the British state's Shoot to Kill policy.

Oh Jack, please take off the tri-colour glasses.

Twenty years after 21 innocent civilian people were slaughtered in bomb attacks in Birmingham, two young boys were killed in a bomb attack on a small shopping centre. Neither of these were economic, both were intentional and both were carried out by the IRA.

Neither of these targets had even the remotest of economic or military importance, they were done to terrorise the civilian population of England.

jalan8984

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh Jack, please take off the tri-colour glasses.

Oh Fred, you might want to take off your fleg glasses and stop with the whataboutery.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh Jack, please take off the tri-colour glasses.

Twenty years after 21 innocent civilian people were slaughtered in bomb attacks in Birmingham, two young boys were killed in a bomb attack on a small shopping centre. Neither of these were economic, both were intentional and both were carried out by the IRA.

Neither of these targets had even the remotest of economic or military importance, they were done to terrorise the civilian population of England.

Oh Fred, take off the red, white and blue glasses.
Birmingham was bombed during part of a wider campaign of bombings in Britain designed to attack the British economy. Terrorising the english population would not have served the IRA's goals. Two warnings were sent, one six minutes and one sixteen minutes before the blasts. These were inadequate warnings. There is no doubt a longer warning should have been given. The loss of life was horrendous, nobody is arguing against that. Even the IRA cancelled any further attacks in Birmingham. But the issue here is were the people killed targeted by the IRA, were their deaths the intention and the answer is clearly no.
In 1993 the IRA bombed a gas station and shopping centre/main thoroughfare in warrington. Clearly economic targets. Two children were killed. Again, utterly tragic but the question here is were civilians the target. A warning half an hour before the blast would indicate no. Had the police cleared the area instead of sending officers to look for the bombs there could have been a very different outcome. The IRA called the deaths "tragic and deeply regrettable," hardly the words of an organisation gloating over the killing of its targets.

Well over 10,000 bombs were set off by the IRA over the course of the Troubles. Had the targets been civilian then civilian deaths would have been astronomically higher than they were.
Again, before people leap in with their moral posturing, I am not justifying these acts. I am saying that it is disingenuous and inaccurate to claim that the IRA was targeting these people. That is the issue here.

Cienciano

Whatever about years ago, you'll have a hard job finding anyone willing to defend the current lads.

Nodin

Cienciano wrote: »

Whatever about years ago, you'll have a hard job finding anyone willing to defend the current lads.

....they've nothing to do with anything though. They're just using the name.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Oh Fred, take off the red, white and blue glasses.
Birmingham was bombed during part of a wider campaign of bombings in Britain designed to attack the British economy. Terrorising the english population would not have served the IRA's goals. Two warnings were sent, one six minutes and one sixteen minutes before the blasts. These were inadequate warnings. There is no doubt a longer warning should have been given. The loss of life was horrendous, nobody is arguing against that. Even the IRA cancelled any further attacks in Birmingham. But the issue here is were the people killed targeted by the IRA, were their deaths the intention and the answer is clearly no.
In 1993 the IRA bombed a gas station and shopping centre/main thoroughfare in warrington. Clearly economic targets. Two children were killed. Again, utterly tragic but the question here is were civilians the target. A warning half an hour before the blast would indicate no. Had the police cleared the area instead of sending officers to look for the bombs there could have been a very different outcome. The IRA called the deaths "tragic and deeply regrettable," hardly the words of an organisation gloating over the killing of its targets.

Well over 10,000 bombs were set off by the IRA over the course of the Troubles. Had the targets been civilian then civilian deaths would have been astronomically higher than they were.
Again, before people leap in with their moral posturing, I am not justifying these acts. I am saying that it is disingenuous and inaccurate to claim that the IRA was targeting these people. That is the issue here.

This is the really tragic thing about the shinners glorifying the PIRA, kids are growing up actually believing this sort of crap.

Economic targets ffs, the world's sixth largest economy brought to its knees because a few pubs and an Argos get blown up.

Jack, you seriously need to cop on.

Fratton Fred

jalan8984 wrote: »

Oh Fred, you might want to take off your fleg glasses and stop with the whataboutery.

Seriously?

Rubeter

FTA69 wrote: »

So how do "the times" justify armed struggle in 1916 but not in 1969?

Why do you asume I feel the actions of 1969 were unjustified?

handlemaster

Bambi wrote: »

Is that why the links between the provos and drugs were so well documented? What with all them provos being convicted on drug busts :rolleyes:

The lastest bust up was among themselves over the proceeds.

BlatentCheek

It's a simplification, but not a terribly inaccurate one, to view the various iterations of the IRA as an inverted pyramid in terms of justification, methods and popular support.

The IRA recognised by the first Dail was the national army of an occupied country, given Sinn Feins overwhelming electoral mandate in Ireland. It's methods, while sometimes brutal, come off favourably to those of the British security forces in the war of independence, and hardly worse than those of most popular liberation movements.

From the treaty on no version of the IRA enjoyed a democratic mandate, SF only got a sizable one from the hunger strikes on and only eclipsed the SDLP when it renounced violence. The dissidents popular mandate is practically zero. The justification for the different IRAs armed struggle shrank from ending occupation of Ireland by a foreign power to defending Northern Catholics against oppression and pogroms, and finally to the point where dissidents now oppose a Northern State that arguably gives Northern Catholics better access to health, schooling and jobs than the Republic does its own citizens. Their methods gradually devolved through the secterian bloodletting of the troubles all the way to the indiscriminate slaughter of the Omagh bombing and the rampant gangsterism of the current dissidents.

The IRA didn't take part in 1916, that was the National Voulunteers.

Grayson

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Oh Fred, take off the red, white and blue glasses.
Birmingham was bombed during part of a wider campaign of bombings in Britain designed to attack the British economy. Terrorising the english population would not have served the IRA's goals. Two warnings were sent, one six minutes and one sixteen minutes before the blasts. These were inadequate warnings. There is no doubt a longer warning should have been given. The loss of life was horrendous, nobody is arguing against that. Even the IRA cancelled any further attacks in Birmingham. But the issue here is were the people killed targeted by the IRA, were their deaths the intention and the answer is clearly no.
In 1993 the IRA bombed a gas station and shopping centre/main thoroughfare in warrington. Clearly economic targets. Two children were killed. Again, utterly tragic but the question here is were civilians the target. A warning half an hour before the blast would indicate no. Had the police cleared the area instead of sending officers to look for the bombs there could have been a very different outcome. The IRA called the deaths "tragic and deeply regrettable," hardly the words of an organisation gloating over the killing of its targets.

Well over 10,000 bombs were set off by the IRA over the course of the Troubles. Had the targets been civilian then civilian deaths would have been astronomically higher than they were.
Again, before people leap in with their moral posturing, I am not justifying these acts. I am saying that it is disingenuous and inaccurate to claim that the IRA was targeting these people. That is the issue here.

In warrington the bombs were timed so that after the first one went off the other went off further down the street. They were placed and timed so that people running from one would be hit by the other.

As for the manchester bomb,

Forensic experts later estimated that the truck contained a 3,300-pound (1,500 kg) mixture of semtex, a military-grade plastic explosive, and ammonium nitrate fertiliser,[19] a cheap and easily obtainable explosive used extensively by the IRA.[20] Components of what may have been a tremble trigger were also found later, designed to detonate the bomb if the truck was tampered with

Although the police had warning the maximum possible evacuation zone was 1/4 of a mile. And even at that distance 200+ people were injured.



The IRA were responaible for 1800 deaths in the troubles. about 600 were civilians.

jalan8984

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Seriously?

Yes. I feel embarrassed for you when I read your posts:- vehemently anti-Republican, making incorrect statements as if they're facts, and trying to personalise arguments and belittle the opinions of those you disagree with. It's attitudes like yours that stop Ireland from moving forwards.

Rubeter

goose2005 wrote: »

No, they weren't considered heroes. There was no memorial built until last year and they were ignored because area bombing was an act of brutality that the Allies wanted to forget.

The ordinary people at the time (on both sides) were quite happy to see their enemies cities flattened (for quite obvious reasons), and the lads who did it were heroes in their eyes, also any objections that were raised were based on the cost in men and materiel not because of any qualms over the destruction caused.

Mr_Spaceman

Grayson wrote: »

I just tried googling that and couldn't find anything. Do you have a link? (BTW, I'm not saying it dodn't happen, jsut maybe you know better keywords for googling )

Coolacrease, Co Offaly.

Fratton Fred

jalan8984 wrote: »

Yes. I feel embarrassed for you when I read your posts:- vehemently anti-Republican, making incorrect statements as if they're facts, and trying to personalise arguments and belittle the opinions of those you disagree with. It's attitudes like yours that stop Ireland from moving forwards.

Are you for real? Please explain

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This is the really tragic thing about the shinners glorifying the PIRA, kids are growing up actually believing this sort of crap.

Remember when I said this

Again, before people leap in with their moral posturing, I am not justifying these acts

Of course you don't because I doubt you're even reading my posts. You're just seeing what you want to see and then coming out with one of your typical preset posts.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Economic targets ffs, the world's sixth largest economy brought to its knees because a few pubs and an Argos get blown up.

Jack, you seriously need to cop on.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Hey I know, lets take one soldier, or one bomb, or one mission that was carried out in world war 2. Now, I could look at it and go "pffft, one of the biggest armies in the world defeated just because that one guy was killed/one barracks destroyed." See how stupid that sounds? That's what you sound like. Those attacks were part of a much wider campaign aimed at wrecking the British economy. A campaign which damn near succeeded given that London, Britain's economic powerhouse, was almost crippled by IRA bombs and the brits scurried to the negotiating table as soon as that became apparent.
Someone here needs to cop on alright.

Grayson wrote: »

In warrington the bombs were timed so that after the first one went off the other went off further down the street. They were placed and timed so that people running from one would be hit by the other.

The bombs were less than 100 yards apart and went off within seconds of each other after a 30 minute warning. What you have written here is little more than some twisted wishful thinking.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As for the manchester bomb,

Although the police had warning the maximum possible evacuation zone was 1/4 of a mile. And even at that distance 200+ people were injured.

A massive bomb with an hour and a half warning that cost the British economy over a billion pounds and killed nobody. How is this evidence for anything other than my assertion that attacks were aimed at the british economy and not people in the streets?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA were responaible for 1800 deaths in the troubles. about 600 were civilians.

Figures vary somewhat but in general, like I said, about a third and every one of them was tragic and regrettable. If only the other groups involved in the conflict had put similar efforts into avoiding civilian casualties.

suchafunkymonke

As already stated by someone else, history is blurred through the eyes of those re-telling it. Acts of courage are embellished, acts of atrocity are swept under the carpet.

British airmen did bomb German cities during WWII which is akin to terrorism, but driven by the fact that London was being bombed nightly, the people were terrified and their very existence was being threatened. I don't overlook or support such behaviour, but the context of the situation needs to be taken in to account.

The original IRA were fighting an invasive Army (whose soldiers didn't even want to be there). That is an Army vs an Army. That is War.

Setting off explosives in a public place is not an act undertaken by an Army. It is an act designed to scare, injure and kill civilians in the hope that the governing bodies will change their mind about a political situation. That is terrorism.

Those currently pledging alliance to the cause, do not represent anything other than their own interests.