Is there a differance between the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA?

SoulandForm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Errr, what was it then, initially anyway.

What exactly did British intelligence have to gain my keeping the conflict going? How did they benefit from the Dublin and Monaghan bombs?

The attitude of the southern government changed rather radically after them; you began to see rebel songs banned from RTE and them put much less international pressure on the UK government.

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What exactly did British intelligence have to gain my keeping the conflict going?

I'd disagree with Elmer in that the sense they wanted to prevent a political solution, they just wanted one on their terms. During the period whereby the Brits were trying to defeat the IRA militarily, British intelligence pursued a variety of strategies; chief amongst was facilitating Loyalists to act as a proxy against the IRA and their support base.

How did they benefit from the Dublin and Monaghan bombs?

Attacks dispelled the misty-eyed attitude nationalism in south had towards the northern conflict. Incidents like those bombings compounded the southern feeling that the conflict was something to be avoided at all costs. In the early-1970s there was widespread political sympathy for northern nationalists and intervention was a seriously-discussed policy. By the mid-1980s there was an overwhelming anti-nationalist feeling throughout the south perpetuated by the media and the political classes.

In short - the likes of Dublin and Monaghan becoming a regular occurrence would have put Fianna Fáil well off intervention.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

Well the Viet Cong didn't beat the Yanks in Vietnam by persuading the American public that their government should be nice to them. They did it by escalating the conflict to the point that the American public called for withdrawal. The IRA correctly reasoned that while the British government wanted to remain in Ireland, their public generally thought the place was a backward sh*thole they'd do well to be rid of. As such they thought enough bombs in England and a steady stream of bodies being sent home would tilt the balance. After all, it was the British public who previously forced their government to talk a Truce in 1921; not the IRA (despite the romanticised nature of the gallant IRA defeating a superior force.)

The IRA couldn't really keep Ireland at the top of the political agenda for long enough however, and due to Ulsterisation they were predominantly killing local police and soldiers as opposed to sending home a steady stream of bodies. This in turn had the effect of the British public viewing it as a foreign internal squabble as opposed to an imperial conflict. On top of this the British also managed to achieve an "acceptable level of violence" and while the IRA could tip away indefinitely, it wasn't going to break that deadlock.

You kind of answer your own question there. In 1921 the conflict in Ireland did not benefit the average English Joe, so it was a simple case of why are we bothering to try and stay somewhere we aren't wanted?

Fast forward sixty years and if you asked the average Sun reader did they believe Ireland should be united, the probable answer would have been yes, of course. If you asked should Britain give in to the IRA, you would have been told to **** off.

The terror campaign in England only succeeded in extending the troubles.

Painted Pony

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This is disingenuous in the extreme. The IRA did not collaborate to start a war that nobody wanted. War was upon them. The Stormont regime had been waging war on the nationalist population for 50 years. Loyalists were burning nationalist homes. The RUC were beating people off the streets, that's when they werent beating them to death. The writing was on the wall - IRA - I Ran Away. The people needed defending and with the British government blustering as usual and the free state government wallowing in their shame faced silence, the IRA stepped in to do so.

All of this is an argument for a militia to defend Catholics, something I have no issue with. But the IRA were about something rather different. To quote yourself …

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The IRA went on to carry out a 30 year campaign against British occupation of Ireland

Exactly. Theirs was a political project to dismantle the Northern (and Southern) states on this island. And such a project surely demanded that a majority of Irish people (at least) support, not only this end but the violent means employed to bring it about. But of course they did not.

This idea that they were about defending Catholics is a bit of spurious revisionism. None of their many spectaculars that disgusted their fellow Irish men and women had anything to do with protecting Catholics. Of the top of my head I cannot think of one death attributed to them than did anything to protect the Catholic community. Perhaps there might be a few, but the vast majority of their attacks were about either economic sabotage or targeting British security forces.

FTA69

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I'm not so sure. The mid 90's Canary Wharf and Manchester CBD economically devastating bombs brought the foot-dragging British back to the negotiation table and forced them to bring the mad dogs of Unionism/Loyalism to heel.

They were tactics that were discovered too late. Hindsight is great and all of that, but the blockbuster bombs couldn't have been sustained to that intensity either and they would soon have fizzled out. The "land war" in Ireland was also becoming a dead duck and the IRA were f*cked in some parts of the country i.e. Derry City.

Personally I think armed struggle was done as a tactic by the early-1990s. The Brits coming back to negotiations was more to do with Tony Blair's policy as opposed to Canary Wharf if we're being honest.

SoulandForm

Painted Pony wrote: »

Exactly. Theirs was a political project to dismantle the Northern (and Southern) states on this island. And such a project surely demanded that a majority of Irish people (at least) support, not only this end but the violent means employed to bring it about. But of course they did not.

The thing is though most of their supporters believed honestly that Catholics within the six counties while it was under the UK.

Karl Stein

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The terror campaign in England only succeeded in extending the troubles.

The evidence points in a different direction. When they started focussing on the UK economy and political classes in the 90's (mortar attack Downing Street, Canary Wharf, Manchester CBD, Heathrow, bomb scares on the rail infrastructure) the peace process accelerated and Unionism/Loyalism was sent a message that the game was up (Drumcree).

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You kind of answer your own question there. In 1921 the conflict in Ireland did not benefit the average English Joe, so it was a simple case of why are we bothering to try and stay somewhere we aren't wanted?

It was more a case of them being disgusted by British troops/Auxiliaries committing atrocities in an integral part of the United Kingdom. They opened the paper and saw them killing British citizens and burning creameries etc. Obviously the difference back then was that the establishment realised the status quo was no longer tenable, that they would never hold the entire country on their terms without thousands of executions and mass internment throughout the country.

Fast forward sixty years and if you asked the average Sun reader did they believe Ireland should be united, the probable answer would have been yes, of course.

Unfortunately the average Sun reader doesn't decide the intricacies of Britain's strategic and political nuances in Ireland and other countries.

Painted Pony

SoulandForm wrote: »

The thing is though most of their supporters believed honestly that Catholics within the six counties while it was under the UK.

I don't understand? Believed honestly what?

Manassas61

Charlie Rock wrote: »

A poll asking 'who was the most blood-thirsty paramilitary group during the troubles' would give us a better idea of what those who'd vote think.

Then we could discuss the 85% Loyalist civilian kill count, the 'romper rooms' were Catholics were beaten to death for the 'craic' and the Shankill Butchers who were held in high regard by many in their local communities.

The PIRA disappeared squad which is infamous which murdered people and didn't even give them the dignity of a proper burial or the PIRA torture squads which again they took part in.

No honor, no dignity. Murderous thugs.

SoulandForm

Painted Pony wrote: »

I don't understand? Believed honestly what?

Sorry- wouldnt be safe with the UK.

Previous sectarian violence and the state's response to it fueled the troubles.

Manassas61

Charlie Rock wrote: »

If you choose to engage in whataboutery, moral equivocation, and moving the goal posts I will point it out - feel free to respond in kind.

I will destroy any argument you have to try and make them look like honorable people, the rewriting of history and the denial of the barbaric regime which was the PIRA.

Crooked Jack

Manassas61 wrote: »

I will destroy any argument you have to try and make them look like honorable people, the rewriting of history and the denial of the barbaric regime which was the PIRA.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Destructo - Master Debater

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

The PIRA disappeared squad which is infamous which murdered people and didn't even give them the dignity of a proper burial or the PIRA torture squads which again they took part in

I highlight Loyalist mass-murder and degeneracy you engage in whataboutery. A familiar tune indeed.

Manassas61 wrote: »

I will destroy any argument you have to try and make them look like honorable people, the rewriting of history and the denial of the barbaric regime which was the PIRA.

Strawman. Point out where I tried to make out that the PIRA were honourable. I'll save you the time - I didn't.

I will destroy any argument you have

My arguments are grounded in facts - you can't destroy facts. Your arguments appear to be built on emotion.

Take some advice from me. Try not to see these debates as a zero-sum-game and you'll feel less frustrated.

Manassas61

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I highlight Loyalist mass-murder and degeneracy you engage in whataboutery. A familiar tune indeed.



Strawman. Point out where I tried to make out that the PIRA were honourable. I'll save you the time - I didn't.

You did it with the "statistic" nonsense you posted to try and score points. Perhaps you should live in the real world and what the PIRA really done to REAL people and not just numbers.

Both are murderous thugs. The conflict was not fun and there was no honor in it Charlie. I hope you realize this.

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

You did it with the "statistic" nonsense you posted to try and score points.

The numbers are the numbers. I didn't invent percentages. If you have a problem with them take it up with CAIN.

Perhaps you should live in the real world and what the PIRA really done to REAL people and not just numbers.

My extended family lived in the Bogside/Creggan of Derry during the Troubles. Let me assure that I'm very aware of what the real world was like for them.

Both are murderous thugs.

Moral equivocation. Loyalists were far more murderous than Republicans.

Loyalists: 85% civilians killed (just 4% Republican despite being fed intelligence).

Republican: 35% civilians killed.

Painted Pony

FTA69 wrote: »

The Brits coming back to negotiations was more to do with Tony Blair's policy as opposed to Canary Wharf if we're being honest.

I would say more about Major being unable to do much rather than Blair's willingness to. Remember Major had a fairly slim majority and had to keep the unionists sweet.

Fratton Fred

Charlie Rock wrote: »

The evidence points in a different direction. When they started focussing on the UK economy and political classes in the 90's (mortar attack Downing Street, Canary Wharf, Manchester CBD, Heathrow, bomb scares on the rail infrastructure) the peace process accelerated and Unionism/Loyalism was sent a message that the game was up (Drumcree).

Enniskillen and Warrington were the two biggest factors. After those two atrocities the support for the armed campaign reached an all time low. The IRA realised they needed a new tactic, but it was too late.

Admittedly, the campaign against generally non civilian targets, or ones that didn't kill people, made it easier for the government to negotiate, but the IRA bombed themselves to the negotiating table as much as Westminster.

The real winners were, of course, the average person of northern Ireland who just wanted a peaceful life.

Manassas61

Charlie Rock wrote: »

The numbers are the numbers. I didn't invent percentages. If you have a problem with them take it up with CAIN.



My extended family lived in the Bogside/Creggan of Derry during the Troubles. Let me assure that I'm very aware of what the real world was like for them.



Moral equivocation. Loyalists were far more murderous than Republicans.

Loyalists 85% civilians (just 4% Republican despite being fed intelligence).

Republican 35%.

I have already pointed out the context to this argument you make 3-4 pages back in that the PIRA had armed soldiers to aim for. They had a clear target and that wasn't the same with Loyalist paramilitaries.

The actual information they got was not as great as some people think. But I am just glad that you acknowledge the lack of honor during the Troubles and I am happy that you acknowledge that the PIRA and UVF were murderous thugs.

Fratton Fred

Painted Pony wrote: »

I would say more about Major being unable to do much rather than Blair's willingness to. Remember Major had a fairly slim majority and had to keep the unionists sweet.

Whereas Blair had a huge majority and an opposition in disarray. Good news for the peace process, bad news for Saddam.

Thatcher actually kicked off the process, although no one will admit to it.

Manassas61

Its all in the past anyway and Northern Ireland is moving forward in the Union at this moment in time. So this is all pretty irrelevant now.

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

the PIRA had armed soldiers to aim for.

Loyalists had no soldiers to aim for so they simply had no choice but to murder innocent Catholic civilians going about their business?

Is this the argument you're making?

Fratton Fred

Manassas61 wrote: »

Its all in the past anyway and Northern Ireland is moving forward in the Union at this moment in time. So this is all pretty irrelevant now.

It is, but the nationalists have organised themselves superbly. They have a master tactician at the helm and unless unionists sort themselves out and rally behind one moderate, unbigoted party, they will continue to lose ground.

Manassas61

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is, but the nationalists have organised themselves superbly. They have a master tactician at the helm and unless unionists sort themselves out and rally behind one moderate, unbigoted party, they will continue to lose ground.

Who is this master tactician? The Union has never had more support in Northern Irelands history.

Manassas61

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Loyalists had no soldiers to aim for so they simply had no choice but to murder innocent Catholic civilians going about their business?

Is this the argument you're making?

This is using the context of that time. It wasn't a rational time, it was a dark and nasty time. That is why it was called the dirty war.

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

Who is this master tactician? The Union has never had more support in Northern Irelands history.

Don't mistake contentment with the status qou on the part of Nationalists for some sort of cultural attachment to the concept of the UK and/or Britain.

Manassas61 wrote: »

This is using the context of that time. It wasn't a rational time, it was a dark and nasty time. That is why it was called the dirty war.

Just so we're clear, do you condemn the killing of civilians by Loyalists?

Manassas61

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Don't mistake contentment with the status qou on the part of Nationalists for some sort of cultural attachment to the concept of the UK and/or Britain.



Just so we're clear, do you condemn the killing of civilians by Loyalists?

Yes.

And I never said they are in love with the Union culturally.

Painted Pony

FTA69 wrote: »

In short - the likes of Dublin and Monaghan becoming a regular occurrence would have put Fianna Fáil well off intervention.

I think that is a rather dubious claim. The great tragedy of violence beyond the immediate victims is that it inevitable only serves to radicalise those targeted all the more. Few would dispute that a legacy of Bloody Sunday was a major surge in support for physical force republicanism, just as all acts of aggression by British forces generally tended to inflame rather than dampen. Why you would contend that the polar opposite effect might be expected after attacks in the South is odd.

Much like the attacks around the same time by loyalists gangs in NI, I think you might be left scratching your head if you are trying to decipher any strategic planning behind their actions. It probably was, literally, a mindless atrocity.

LordSutch

The who wrote: »

Is there a differance between the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA?

No not really. Both are misguided drug crazed psycopathic Terrorist outfits, with minimal support. As per their predecessors.

Fratton Fred

Manassas61 wrote: »

Who is this master tactician? The Union has never had more support in Northern Irelands history.

Gerry Adams knows what to say and what to do at exactly the right time. Politically, I think Sinn Fein are very clever, God forbid they ever get near to actually running the country though.