Anyone willing to admit that they supported the IRA at any point?

steddyeddy

Taytoland wrote: »

You had Nationalists voting and electing politicians even before the ill-fated sunningdale agreement. And even after that agreement you had Nationalists voting in elections during the very darkest of times in Ulster. So what I said was just factually true. Nationalists did have a vote in that timeline and voted SDLP. 

Hilarious how you make a point which had absolutely nothing to do with my point which was pointing out a Republican myth about Nationalists not being allowed near the ballot in the mid 70s. You call Unionist terrorists scumbags almost as if the IRA weren't scumbags, they were just angels who didn't turn children into mince meat, who didn't murder Garda officers, women with children, working class people, you name it, they murdered it. They even killed a beloved horse, such was the psychotic mentality of them. But carry on trying to rewrite it.

A misunderstanding on your part is presenting a simplistic version of the events.

In the run up to the Sunningdale agreement there was a form of democracy that benefited unionism at the expense of nationalism.

The partition of Ireland redrew some constituencies to ensure a unionist majority even in areas like Derry where nationalists were the majority. They also attached voting privileges to housing and discriminated against nationalists in terms of housing. They allowed unionists who owned businesses two votes. A unionist government was allowed free reign and straight away turned away from true democracy. Powersharing was needed and rejected by unionists via loyalist paramilitary groups.

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Yet the IRA death rate lowered, had more members being locked away and agent Martin negotiating with the British government. The IRA plan to force what they wanted failed.

You need to show facts again Tayto.

Other than a bitter ex IRA man's 'confessions' that is.

The fact is that the British acceded to the IRA's demand that they would not decommission until there was a signed deal.
The facts show that the British capitulated (I think it was John Major) to that demand.

And they did so after the IRA carried the fight to the heart of the nation with devastating results.
Not exactly fodder for the imagined 'riddled with informers' scenario. Unless spooks in MI5 and 6 allowed those bombings to happen.

How is first hand accounts from actual Republican members at that time involved at the heart of it for over 30 years wrong or what makes them bitter? The documentary who won the war, Gerald Hodgins lays it out perfectly clear what the goal really was and what really happened in the end.

archer22

The IRA goals were not only the destruction of the Northern Ireland state but also the destruction of the Southern Irish state and the creation of a 32 county socialist nation...ie Cuba mk2.

Of those 3 goals they achieved none...an utter failure thankfully.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

How is first hand accounts from actual Republican members at that time involved at the heart of it for over 30 years wrong or what makes them bitter? The documentary who won the war, Gerald Hodgins lays it out perfectly clear what the goal really was and what really happened in the end.

Because it doesn't bear out the reality nor other 'first hand' accounts from those with an overview. See Tony Blair's comments and those commanding the BA.

Yes there were informers (there always were) but they did not impact in the way you seem to fantasize about.

The war reached a stalemate, entered talks, and it was the IRA who dictated the terms of the agreement. Equality and powersharing, parity of esteem, the legitimacy of aspiring to a UI, and no decommissioning until a committment to the above was signed. I.E. The GFA, Britain and unionists tried to stand firm on decommissioning before an agreement. But the unionists got sold out (again) by the British after the IRA resumed their campaign in England.
Decommissioning was dropped as a pre-requisite and the deal was doneand only then did they decommission.
Not the typical behaviour of an organisation 'riddled with informers' is it?

If you say it happened any other way. Lay it out with facts.

steddyeddy

archer22 wrote: »

The IRA goals were not only the destruction of the Northern Ireland state but also the destruction of the Southern Irish state and the creation of a 32 county socialist nation...ie Cuba mk2.

Of those 3 goals they achieved none...an utter failure thankfully.

The ironic thing is that the DUP's unwavering support of Brexit is doing more for Irish unity than the IRA ever could.

Strazdas

archer22 wrote: »

The IRA goals were not only the destruction of the Northern Ireland state but also the destruction of the Southern Irish state and the creation of a 32 county socialist nation...ie Cuba mk2.

Of those 3 goals they achieved none...an utter failure thankfully.

Yes, it's almost getting overlooked that they didn't respect or recognise the Irish state or the legitimacy of the Dáil (the Republic was a corrupt entity in their eyes as it only contained 26 counties). There was a feeling that they regarded themselves as the "real" army of Ireland and the official Irish Army were a bunch of impostors propping up a bogus, fraud state.

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

How is first hand accounts from actual Republican members at that time involved at the heart of it for over 30 years wrong or what makes them bitter? The documentary who won the war, Gerald Hodgins lays it out perfectly clear what the goal really was and what really happened in the end.

Because it doesn't bear out the reality nor other 'first hand' accounts from those with an overview. See Tony Blair's comments and those commanding the BA.

Yes there were informers (there always were) but they did not impact in the way you seem to fantasize about.

The war reached a stalemate, entered talks, and it was the IRA who dictated the terms of the agreement. Equality and powersharing, parity of esteem, the legitimacy of aspiring to a UI, and no decommissioning until a committment to the above was signed. I.E. The GFA, Britain and unionists tried to stand firm on decommissioning before an agreement. But the unionists got sold out (again) by the British after the IRA resumed their campaign in England.
Decommissioning was dropped as a pre-requisite and the deal was doneand only then did they decommission.
Not the typical behaviour of an organisation 'riddled with informers' is it?

If you say it happened any other way. Lay it out with facts.

Another lie. It was an agreement to end hostilities and enter a peace process, the IRA didn't dictate the agreement whatsoever. The fact that Articles 2 and 3 got removed shows this. It's called give and take, if the IRA dictated the terms they would not have wanted such articles removed from the Irish constitution. 

Tony Blair might have a fair point with that quote, you haven't seen me say the British won or anything, it was basically a stalemate, but to say the IRA had the "Brits" on the run or the IRA was going to win just before the negotiations is a nonsense and most people who have read anything on what happened know that.

Also because the IRA was riddled with informers doesn't mean attacks can't still happen, it just means less of them and less efficiency. The drop in RUC deaths from around 91 was considerably less than the 70s and 80s. Pretty sure it's the same with British Army soldiers. Let's just be happy it's been over for over 20 years and move on in peace.

end of the road

robindch wrote: »

By their actions, they demeaned and discredited the idea of Irishness and associated it on the international stage with bombs, bulllets, criminality and death.

i don't agree. i believe they cemented the idea of irishness and showed the world that we were a nation which wouldn't tolerate being screwed over. sadly we are no longer that but i guess things change.

robindch wrote: »

Probably worth noting that they fought as terrorists too and not face-to-face as real soldiers would.

they faught as soldiers but in a different way. and it was the best way. their tactics were mostly successful against the RUC and BA who had to be dealt with. the targeting of civilians by members of the IRA was of course inexcusable.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

Another lie. It was an agreement to end hostilities and enter a peace process, the IRA didn't dictate the agreement whatsoever. The fact that Articles 2 and 3 got removed shows this. It's called give and take, if the IRA dictated the terms they would not have wanted such articles removed from the Irish constitution. 

Tony Blair might have a fair point with that quote, you haven't seen me say the British won or anything, it was basically a stalemate, but to say the IRA had the "Brits" on the run or the IRA was going to win just before the negotiations is a nonsense and most people who have read anything on what happened know that.

I never said they 'had the Brits on the run' nor that the IRA was 'about to win'.

I said the IRA dictated terms. That they would not decommission until a deal that satisfied SF was signed and delivered. THIS is what actually happened.
Show us with facts that the British DID not quietly drop their demands that decommissioning happen first.

Also because the IRA was riddled with informers doesn't mean attacks can't still happen, it just means less of them and less efficiency. The drop in RUC deaths from around 91 was considerably less than the 70s and 80s. Pretty sure it's the same with British Army soldiers. Let's just be happy it's been over for over 20 years and move on in peace.

I am delighted everyday that it is over.

However you cannot be allowed to try rewrite the ACTUAL history.
'Riddled with informers' is a Unionist/loyalist myth, conceived to hide the treachery of the British selling them out.
Seems that a few have bought it, rather than believe the facts.

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Another lie. It was an agreement to end hostilities and enter a peace process, the IRA didn't dictate the agreement whatsoever. The fact that Articles 2 and 3 got removed shows this. It's called give and take, if the IRA dictated the terms they would not have wanted such articles removed from the Irish constitution. 

Tony Blair might have a fair point with that quote, you haven't seen me say the British won or anything, it was basically a stalemate, but to say the IRA had the "Brits" on the run or the IRA was going to win just before the negotiations is a nonsense and most people who have read anything on what happened know that.

I never said they 'had the Brits on the run' nor that the IRA was 'about to win'.

I said the IRA dictated terms. That they would not decommission until a deal that satisfied SF was signed and delivered. THIS is what actually happened.
Show us with facts that the British DID not quietly drop their demands that decommissioning happen first.

Also because the IRA was riddled with informers doesn't mean attacks can't still happen, it just means less of them and less efficiency. The drop in RUC deaths from around 91 was considerably less than the 70s and 80s. Pretty sure it's the same with British Army soldiers. Let's just be happy it's been over for over 20 years and move on in peace.

I am delighted everyday that it is over.

However you cannot be allowed to try rewrite the ACTUAL history.
'Riddled with informers' is a Unionist/loyalist myth, conceived to hide the treachery of the British selling them out.
Seems that a few have bought it, rather than believe the facts.

That is facts coming from people who were in the IRA, who went on "operations" with the IRA, took commands from the Army council, people who went on hunger strike. That is not my words, I am not making any of this up. I am only quoting from actual ex IRA members.

I also didn't say the British didn't relinquish that demand, it makes perfect sense as asking people to decommission weapons before any agreement is a stupid policy. But once they signed up to the rule of law and sat in a British administered state, they eventually decommissioned. If you are talking about the IRA dictating terms on the GFA negotiations, well as I said that is not true.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

That is facts coming from people who were in the IRA, who went on "operations" with the IRA, took commands from the Army council, people who went on hunger strike. That is not my words, I am not making any of this up. I am only quoting from actual ex IRA members.

I also didn't say the British didn't relinquish that demand, it makes perfect sense as asking people to decommission weapons before any agreement is a stupid policy. But once they signed up to the rule of law and sat in a British administered state, they eventually decommissioned. If you are talking about the IRA dictating terms on the GFA negotiations, well as I said that is not true.

The word of bitter avowedly anti-Adams ex members of the IRA are not to be trusted. Only self serving unionists would do such a thing.
You reach a ridiculous point in this particular debate in the case of Brendan Hughes: partitionists and unionists will accept his word on Adams and the IRA being riddled with informers but will scream and shout, lie! lie! when Hughes says Jean McConville was an informer. Funny that and reveals all about the agendas of some.

There will be facts to back up contentions, where are the 'many' intercepted missions?
There were in actuality, only a few. The IRA could bomb the heart of Britain when they chose to do it. And they did it with the strategic aim of forcing the British to the table.
The British sold unionism out by going to that table and cutting a deal. A deal the DUP never accepted and still harp about today.

realdanbreen

robindch wrote: »

Probably worth noting that they fought as terrorists too and not face-to-face as real soldiers would.

Do you mean 'real soldiers' like the Para's and the SAS ?

realdanbreen

realdanbreen wrote: »

Do you mean 'real soldiers' like the Para's and the SAS ?

Or maybe another crop of Britains finest, the Black & Tans !

Zebra3

Focusing on “who won the war” is a waste of time.

The Brits will tell you they won WWII and the Germans lost.

But who the peace?

In post-WWII Europe it was Germany.

Post-conflict here, it’s highly unlikely to be the flat earthers.

mikeym

But what about Chucky Ar La?

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

That is facts coming from people who were in the IRA, who went on "operations" with the IRA, took commands from the Army council, people who went on hunger strike. That is not my words, I am not making any of this up. I am only quoting from actual ex IRA members.

I also didn't say the British didn't relinquish that demand, it makes perfect sense as asking people to decommission weapons before any agreement is a stupid policy. But once they signed up to the rule of law and sat in a British administered state, they eventually decommissioned. If you are talking about the IRA dictating terms on the GFA negotiations, well as I said that is not true.

The word of bitter avowedly anti-Adams ex members of the IRA are not to be trusted. Only self serving unionists would do such a thing.
You reach a ridiculous point in this particular debate in the case of Brendan Hughes: partitionists and unionists will accept his word on Adams and the IRA being riddled with informers but will scream and shout, lie! lie! when Hughes says Jean McConville was an informer. Funny that and reveals all about the agendas of some.

There will be facts to back up contentions, where are the 'many' intercepted missions?
There were in actuality, only a few. The IRA could bomb the heart of Britain when they chose to do it. And they did it with the strategic aim of forcing the British to the table.
The British sold unionism out by going to that table and cutting a deal. A deal the DUP never accepted and still harp about today.

It actually doesn't matter if Jean Mcconville was an informer, she didn't deserve as a mother of 12 to be taken and shot in the head and thrown into a ditch like she was nothing. Why would the testament of respectable people within the Republican movement and true Republicans at that in Brendan Hughes be bitter when all they did was follow true to what he deemed he was fighting for? 


Both are true Republicans, both remain true to the Republican movement, not middle class sell outs, but working class Republicans. 

realdanbreen wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

 Probably worth noting that they fought as terrorists too and not face-to-face as real soldiers would.

Do you mean 'real soldiers' like the Para's and the SAS ?

The mighty SAS.

talking_walnut

I once got in a row with a young lad over whether Gerry Adams was ever in the IRA. He was convinced he wasn't because "they would have charged him with a crime if he had been" :rolleyes:

end of the road

Taytoland wrote: »

It actually doesn't matter if Jean Mcconville was an informer, she didn't deserve as a mother of 12 to be taken and shot in the head and thrown into a ditch like she was nothing.

agreed and i think the vast vast majority of republicans would agree. it served no purpose.

Taytoland wrote: »

The mighty SAS.

not really. their actions in NI killed mostly civilians and all for little effect on the ira in return for it. they were nothing more then a nucence.

talking_walnut wrote: »

I once got in a row with a young lad over whether Gerry Adams was ever in the IRA. He was convinced he wasn't because "they would have charged him with a crime if he had been"

the young lad is correct. if they could have got our boy gerry they would have.

gormdubhgorm

Like many I suspect, I did not support the IRA but I can see why they did what they did.

As a person born and bred I had a tendency to take being Irish for granted.
When I was growing up as young fella 'the troubles' seemed like another world. I heard all these bombings and people being shot. It eventually became 'oh another one'.

I did History for the leaving cert we went to see the Michael Collins film as a class.
But I still felt divorced from things 'Up North' in my mind it was either in the past, or somewhere 'up there' that did not effect me or my family.

I then voted no on the removal of article 2 and 3 in 1999 - but I still felt NI is ours but it is someone else's problem.

It was not until I started going to Dublin away matches up North that I realised what the people there had to put up with.

An Army base on Crossmaglen's ground helicopter's buzzing over. It really hit home to see it.
They also had no traffic lights because of the troubles
I went to see a Fermanagh v Dublin game in Brewster park. it again hit home it was built like an army bunker / bank fortress.
I remember the pride individual's had in thier voice when they discussed the Irish flag flying at Brewster Park (obviously a new thing).
I remember a game at Healy Park (Tyrone) where the announcer said before Amhrán na bhFiann 'Please respect the national athem and do not cheer out until it is completed - thank you'. 'Wow' I thought.
It showed me how hurtful statements like 'Your Sterling's no use down here' and 'What's it like to have a Queen' to Northern GAA supporters when they travel to Croke Park.

Do/did I support the IRA? No
If I was brought up in NI could I have? Maybe
Do I understand it now? Yes

It is far too easy for people who did not live through it or live in an area to say SF/IRA terrorist's etc
Imagine feeling oppressed day after day in your everyday life with an occupying force patrolling the streets?
Discriminated in employment etc
It's no wonder they all didn't go mad from all that alone.
Never mind the bombs and bullets and having to be conscious of where they are going, and who they are talking to

talking_walnut

end of the road wrote: »

the young lad is correct. if they could have got our boy gerry they would have.

You do know he was in the Maze don't you? Admittedly it was initially due to internment without trial, but he has two convictions for attempted escapes, one of which involved kidnapping a lookalike in an attempt to forcibly make him swap places with "our boy gerry". But sure that's just what normal people do to get there mates out of prison right?

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

It actually doesn't matter if Jean Mcconville was an informer, she didn't deserve as a mother of 12 to be taken and shot in the head and thrown into a ditch like she was nothing. Why would the testament of respectable people within the Republican movement and true Republicans at that in Brendan Hughes be bitter when all they did was follow true to what he deemed he was fighting for? 

Typically you move the goalposts to the moral high ground to attempt to hide the hypocrisy inherent in believing what you only want to believe.

Anyhow, when you get some factual information together on how 'riddled' the still functioning IRA was, maybe present it to us.

The facts are that they forced the British and unionists to do something they patently didn't want to do and fought bitterly not to, for almost a 100 years = share power.

Republicans/Nationalists were massively better off as a result of the war/conflict and Unionism has been whinging and Never Never Never since.
That is a win in my book.

So insecure are they that they are now imploding the Union rather than take a deal that separates them notionally.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

brainfreeze

talking_walnut wrote: »

You do know he was in the Maze don't you? Admittedly it was initially due to internment without trial, but he has two convictions for attempted escapes, one of which involved kidnapping a lookalike in an attempt to forcibly make him swap places with "our boy gerry". But sure that's just what normal people do to get there mates out of prison right?

Yes. I think every rational human being knows Gerry was in the IRA.

Nobody has yet been able to prove it, from British Intelligence to the CIA. They state what they believe but they admit they can't prove it. I think people underestimate just how clandestine Gerry actually was in the 70s and early 80s.

What you know to be "common knowledge" and what you can prove are different things. The only way they could get to Gerry was through interment.

Either way, from IRA commander to influential outsider, he's pretty much controlled them from 1986. That, everyone can agree on. What doesn't sit well with most people is why would the Army Council give so much power to an outsider if he wasn't one of them? However nothing has actually been proven and it probably never will.

FrancieBrady

brainfreeze wrote: »

Yes. I think every rational human being knows Gerry was in the IRA.

Nobody has yet been able to prove it, from British Intelligence to the CIA. They state what they believe but they admit they can't prove it. I think people underestimate just how clandestine Gerry actually was in the 70s and early 80s.

What you know to be "common knowledge" and what you can prove are different things. The only way they could get to Gerry was through interment.

Either way, from IRA commander to influential outsider, he's pretty much controlled them from 1986. That, everyone can agree on. What doesn't sit well with most people is why would the Army Council give so much power to an outsider if he wasn't one of them? However nothing has actually been proven and it probably never will.

but but they was 'riddled with informers'!

StringerBell

Yes I am willing to admit I have supported the IRA at some point, not that I've ever denied it either.

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

It actually doesn't matter if Jean Mcconville was an informer, she didn't deserve as a mother of 12 to be taken and shot in the head and thrown into a ditch like she was nothing. Why would the testament of respectable people within the Republican movement and true Republicans at that in Brendan Hughes be bitter when all they did was follow true to what he deemed he was fighting for? 

Typically you move the goalposts to the moral high ground to attempt to hide the hypocrisy inherent in believing what you only want to believe.

Anyhow, when you get some factual information together on how 'riddled' the still functioning IRA was, maybe present it to us.

The facts are that they forced the British and unionists to do something they patently didn't want to do and fought bitterly not to, for almost a 100 years = share power.

Republicans/Nationalists were massively better off as a result of the war/conflict and Unionism has been whinging and Never Never Never since.
That is a win in my book.

So insecure are they that they are now imploding the Union rather than take a deal that separates them notionally.

It's hardly radical to think the murder of a mother of 12 is wrong, it's hardly a big moral mountain, I'd say if you asked most people on this forum they would agree. 

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/iras-ghq-riddled-with-informers-26231534.html
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/so-many-suspects-in-an-ira-riddled-with-spies-35076370.html
https://ansionnachfionn.com/2016/09/26/british-spies-agents-and-informers-in-the-ira/
https://www.irishecho.com/2011/02/how-informers-forced-the-provos-to-the-peace-table-2/
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Talking to Terrorists book is excellent for more information on the agents within the IRA. [/font]

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

It's hardly radical to think the murder of a mother of 12 is wrong, it's hardly a big moral mountain, I'd say if you asked most people on this forum they would agree. 

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/iras-ghq-riddled-with-informers-26231534.html
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/so-many-suspects-in-an-ira-riddled-with-spies-35076370.html
https://ansionnachfionn.com/2016/09/26/british-spies-agents-and-informers-in-the-ira/
https://www.irishecho.com/2011/02/how-informers-forced-the-provos-to-the-peace-table-2/
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Talking to Terrorists book is excellent for more information on the agents within the IRA. [/font]

That was not the point.

The point was about what people selectively believe.

You keep busting your own arguments by harvesting info you think is relevant.

Did you even read this one? :D:D
https://ansionnachfionn.com/2016/09/26/british-spies-agents-and-informers-in-the-ira/

FTA69

FTA69 wrote: »

Depends on who you ask I suppose. I was in Algeria last year and met a few members of the old FLN there who fought against the French, they didn't regret the FLN campaign as they saw it as one which they fought for their liberation. Ireland is no different. I know some incredibly bitter former members, but they're bitter about the idea that what they didn't wasn't worth the outcome. Other former members you'll speak to (ones still to do with SF primarily) like Gerry Kelly or Danny Morrison wouldn't be bitter and acrimonious. Huge amounts of former combatants also suffer from PTSD etc.

As I said, the IRA were normal people who arose from their communities and did so because of a set of conditions that existed here. The fact they aren't saying today that they think the campaign etc was wrong isn't a sign they weren't 'normal'.

Which would make sense in the main and if the IRA fought to remove the British army from the island of Ireland, but that doesn’t explain the young people from Glenageary and Killininey who decided to shoot dead innocent Australians in Amsterdam or plant bombs in a busy pub in Birmingham on a Friday evening.

Like any army, the IRA ended up with a bunch of psychopaths that just wanted to kill people, Irish freedom was just the flag they nailed their colors to.

Odhinn

Mutant z wrote: »

Anyway the British state has supported some of the biggest terrorists on the planet its bloody hypocritical of them to turn around and brand the IRA terrorists when you look at the sort of people they have colluded with.

They were the biggest "terrorists" on the planet themselves.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

Which would make sense in the main and if the IRA fought to remove the British army from the island of Ireland, but that doesn’t explain the young people from Glenageary and Killininey who decided to shoot dead innocent Australians in Amsterdam or plant bombs in a busy pub in Birmingham on a Friday evening.

Like any army, the IRA ended up with a bunch of psychopaths that just wanted to kill people, Irish freedom was just the flag they nailed their colors to.

All groups killed...it happens in conflicts/wars.

Do you know how many children the British army killed for instance?