Would the PIRA be talked about differently if they achieved a United Ireland?

Lurkio

K-9 wrote: »

No, it's the bit where you'd answer the question if you had an answer.

It's a silly emotional question. No war has a precise end, and saying deaths from (a) to (b) are somehow a crime because of some just thought up criteria is often done just to score a point and do the "men of violence" routine.

BalcombeSt4

K-9 wrote: »

I suppose the other side is if we had power sharing during the 80's and reforms got introduced, it wouldn't have been enough for Republicans and too much for Paisley et al. So reform would have been too slow, but that's politics! The alternative isn't very pleasant and nobody wants to go back to it, barring the extremists.

I talked to Cait Trainor a former member of Republican Sinn fein allegedly the political wing of the CIRA a number of times. and she seemed like a perfectly nice person, very friendly and funny. She supported armed struggle when she was with RSF but since she left I think her position on armed struggle has changed since she left RSF. But she's a very nice you lady.

I never supported the RIRA or CIRA because well it's obvious if the PIRA lost even with the huge ammounts of pretty modern weaponary and all the support they had and the intensity of their campaign - carrying out close to atleast one attack a day and during the early - mid 70's several attacks a day they still couldn't win.
So what make the RIRA & CIRA & ONH think they can win carrying out maybe a dozen attacks a year and killing a security force member every 2 or 3 years.

K-9

Lurkio wrote: »

It's a silly emotional question. No war has a precise end, and saying deaths from (a) to (b) are somehow a crime because of some just thought up criteria is often done just to score a point and do the "men of violence" routine.

Sorry you've lost me. I was responding to a post, why the poster chose to break then down into timelines? Take it up with the person who broke them down. Or are they on your side so cannot be challenged?

Lurkio

K-9 wrote: »

Sorry you've lost me. I was responding to a post, ,,,,,,,,

You were responding to a post and used it to say that the deaths between 88 and 94 were somehow pointless, along with the usual 'men of violence' cack. It was a sectarian statelet, they tried the peaceful route, got a violent response and had to take up arms. Any notion that what gains were achieved could have been reached otherswise is sheer fantasist nonsense.

BalcombeSt4

K-9 wrote: »

What did they get for the murders between 88 and 94?

Sunningdale happened, civil rights laws got introduced, the Anglo Irish Agreement happened, the Downing Street declaration happened, the GFA, the B-Specials, UDR, RUC all gone, SF are in power, loads more.

Plus those all killed on their side for nothing really. And still there's poverty and peace walls in their areas.

That's an odd way of viewing violence and murders as working.

The Union with Britain which is what they were murdering innocent Catholics for. The GFA was more acceptable to them than the 1985 Anglo-Irish Argeement & Sunningdale. And if you've seen interviews with former UVF & UDA terrorists they believe they made the Union safe thanks to the late 80's - mid 90's campaign. And Peter Taylor also said he belived Loyalist terrorists won the war.

K-9

Lurkio wrote: »

You were responding to a post and used it to say that the deaths between 88 and 94 were somehow pointless, along with the usual 'men of violence' cack. It was a sectarian statelet, they tried the peaceful route, got a violent response and had to take up arms. Any notion that what gains were achieved could have been reached otherswise is sheer fantasist nonsense.

You misread then. I asked about 88 to 94 specifically because I don't know why he picked that time period out, I still don't as he didn't answer. I assume because there is little difference, if any and it ended up in the GFA.

I then went onto mention stuff throughout the Troubles history and then mention pointless deaths.

You need to get out of the picking holes and whataboutery mindset,

K-9

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

The Union with Britain which is what they were murdering innocent Catholics for. The GFA was more acceptable to them than the 1985 Anglo-Irish Argeement & Sunningdale. And if you've seen interviews with former UVF & UDA terrorists they believe they made the Union safe thanks to the late 80's - mid 90's campaign. And Peter Taylor also said he belived Loyalist terrorists won the war.

Yep, the Loyalists wil think they won, Paisleyites too, SF as well, when opposing sides think they all won...

I like Taylor but I'd need to read up on why he thinks that, nobody is infallible.

Lurkio

K-9 wrote: »

You misread then. I asked about 88 to 94 specifically because I don't know why he picked that time period out, I still don't as he didn't answer. I assume because there is little difference, if any and it ended up in the GFA.

I then went onto mention stuff throughout the Troubles history and then mention pointless deaths.

You need to get out of the picking holes and whataboutery mindset,

Well the "hole" of the notion that anything other than armed struggle was going to get anywhere is hole enough for me, without adding more.

K-9

I think what happened more was Loyalist, Republican and British Government mindsets changed from Sunningdale, the AI agreement etc. until the GFA.

As I said with IRA supporters, Loyalists have to believe the killing was all worth it? Imagine looking back and thinking, really, all this went on 20 years too long and what did we get for all that?

K-9

Lurkio wrote: »

Well the "hole" of the notion that anything other than armed struggle was going to get anywhere is hole enough for me, without adding more.

Wouldn't expect anything else from somebody sympathetic to the IRA, UDA or British army or RUC/UDR at all. Incomprehensible

Phoebas

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

I talked to Cait Trainor a former member of Republican Sinn fein allegedly the political wing of the CIRA a number of times. and she seemed like a perfectly nice person, very friendly and funny. She supported armed struggle when she was with RSF but since she left I think her position on armed struggle has changed since she left RSF. But she's a very nice you lady.

I never supported the RIRA or CIRA because well it's obvious if the PIRA lost even with the huge ammounts of pretty modern weaponary and all the support they had and the intensity of their campaign - carrying out close to atleast one attack a day and during the early - mid 70's several attacks a day they still couldn't win.
So what make the RIRA & CIRA & ONH think they can win carrying out maybe a dozen attacks a year and killing a security force member every 2 or 3 years.

You might say the same thing about the 1916 rebels. They knew that they weren't going to win militarily, but they wanted to keep that idea of every generation striking for freedom alive.

The RIRA etc might see themselves in that mould.

LordSutch

Phoebas wrote: »

You might say the same thing about the 1916 rebels. They knew that they weren't going to win militarily, but they wanted to keep that idea of every generation striking for freedom alive.

The RIRA etc might see themselves in that mould.

So should we look forward to the next off duty police man being shot dead, or the next bus or pub bomb as a means to keeping the dream alive? must we welcome the continuation of the armed struggle?

DanielODonnell

The hunger strikers are viewed in a positive light and they were in PIRA so generally the early PIRA have a good enough reputation in the Gaelic settlements of Ulster

LordSutch

W.T.F

Lurkio

LordSutch wrote: »

W.T.F

Don't mind him - hes "in the care of the community".

Phoebas

LordSutch wrote: »

So should we look forward to the next off duty police man being shot dead, or the next bus or pub bomb as a means to keeping the dream alive? must we welcome the continuation of the armed struggle?

I don't look forward to it or welcome it at all.
I'm just trying to guess what their warped perspective might be.

LordSutch

Lurkio wrote: »

Don't mind him - hes "in the care of the community".

I presume you're talking about Daniel O'Donnell (Post 824).

Lurkio

LordSutch wrote: »

I presume you're talking about Daniel O'Donnell (Post 824).

Yep.

BalcombeSt4

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, the Loyalists wil think they won, Paisleyites too, SF as well, when opposing sides think they all won...

I like Taylor but I'd need to read up on why he thinks that, nobody is infallible.

I don't actually agree that Loyalists won it themselves. The SAS & the IRA shooting themselves in the foot won with itfor them.

BalcombeSt4

DanielODonnell wrote: »

The hunger strikers are viewed in a positive light and they were in PIRA so generally the early PIRA have a good enough reputation in the Gaelic settlements of Ulster

Yeah, but aren't most of them dead? Daithi O'Connell, Sean Mac Stofain, Ruari O'Bradaigh, Seamus Twomey, Brendan Hughes etc.... they were the early PIRA.

BalcombeSt4

Phoebas wrote: »

You might say the same thing about the 1916 rebels. They knew that they weren't going to win militarily, but they wanted to keep that idea of every generation striking for freedom alive.

The RIRA etc might see themselves in that mould.

But they've been carrying out this campaign for nearly 20 years in 10 years time they will have surpassed the lenght of time the Provo campaing went on for with no progress towards their objectives made.

It's the same as the 50's border campaign. If there's no support within the community for armed struggle your wasting your time.

BalcombeSt4

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

But they've been carrying out this campaign for nearly 20 years in 10 years time they will have surpassed the lenght of time the Provo campaing went on for with no progress towards their objectives made.

It's the same as the 50's border campaign. If there's no support within the community for armed struggle your wasting your time.

However within Republicanism the spirit of 1916 is always there, a belief (however misguided it may be) that perhaps an armed action of note will spur people into supporting them. Essentially an old tradition is being kept alive.

BalcombeSt4

Deleted User wrote: »

However within Republicanism the spirit of 1916 is always there, a belief (however misguided it may be) that perhaps an armed action of note will spur people into supporting them. Essentially an old tradition is being kept alive.

Maybe, but what spured people into supporting the PIRA wasn't any action taken by them it was counter productive actions taken by the British security forces like the Falls Curfew, Internment and Bloody Sunday.

BalcombeSt4

And the same could also be said of the Anglo-Irish war. IRA actions in 1919 were not popular at all and the Dail had to distance itself a bit from the Volunteers. It wasn't until heavy handed British tactics forced people into supporting the IRA.

tomwaterford

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

But they've been carrying out this campaign for nearly 20 years in 10 years time they will have surpassed the lenght of time the Provo campaing went on for with no progress towards their objectives made.

It's the same as the 50's border campaign. If there's no support within the community for armed struggle your wasting your time.

The border campaign of the 50s is held in huge esteem for keeping the flame of Irish freedom alive


Support or not....once British are in Ireland there'll always be people willing to risk life and liberty for Irish freedom

(Personally wouldn't....but think it's wrong to critism those who do as what's different today vs 1916)

KingBrian2

tomwaterford wrote: »

The border campaign of the 50s is held in huge esteem for keeping the flame of Irish freedom alive


Support or not....once British are in Ireland there'll always be people willing to risk life and liberty for Irish freedom

(Personally wouldn't....but think it's wrong to critism those who do as what's different today vs 1916)

Well for one back then we were at war with Britain.

tomwaterford

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Well for one back then we were at war with Britain.

Over what....

Bonniedog

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

It worked for Umkhonto we Sizwe, who the IRA alledgedly assisted in several attacks.


I don't think Republicans wanted to unite with the British security forces.

Umkhonto were more armed propaganda. They performed, or attempted to perform, occasional spectaculars, but they were never engaged in a guerrilla type war as in NI.

Not sure many of them would be particularly pleased either that their efforts ended in the corrupt mess that is SA now!

KingBrian2

tomwaterford wrote: »

Over what....

Religious, economic & civil freedoms.

timthumbni

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Maybe, but what spured people into supporting the PIRA wasn't any action taken by them it was counter productive actions taken by the British security forces like the Falls Curfew, Internment and Bloody Sunday.

Interestingly as a NI unionist I don't differentiate the current republican threat from that of the Provos a wheen of years back. Similarly doomed to fail of course but whatever.

It's nice tO see that the Irish republican terrorists are now seen as a similar level of threat as the Muslim extremists.