...and in the darkness bind them

Stabshauptmann

For those of you who dont instantly get that quote its Lord of the Rings and the reason it sprung to mind is the shere abundance of IRA threads on this board. This in itself isnt a bad thing - discussion is good- but that they seem to loop and then go nowhere is. Personally I'd love there to be a debate over in the debate forum for this but Ill settle for here.

If you try to debate Iraq or Bush here it all gets skewed to the left but there is enough posters here both pro and anti the IRA to get a decent debate, and the stupidity isnt all on one side either.

So here it goes, I would like to discuss:

1) Was the IRA justified in carrying out its campaign.

2) Did the IRA carry out its campaign in an acceptable way.

3) Has the IRA's campaign led to an improvement in the state of NI.


I would argue yes to all three. I could launch into a huge long post now as to why but I feel that would scare off the ppl Im interested in attracting to this thread.

The main reseration I have about this thread is that either:
A) It will get bogged down in a specific case or A steriotypical "shinner" nut will spoil it by being too stupid and indoctrinated to debate with.

I dont want this to turn into a SF in power in '07 or should there be a united Ireland.
Who ever wants to get the ball rolling, tell me why you'd disagree with any of the three propositions

ionapaul

This will be an interesting one, as it is easy (and at the same time extremely difficult!) to argue using historical contingencies, as many of the posters will do! I will respond to this when I have some more time...work is almost over I feel certain what you fear will indeed occur - I know how others will argue already! And yes, my mind is already made up too

Sparks

1) No, because they killed innocent people;
2) No, because they killed innocent people;
3) No, because all the advances in civil rights were made through the courts and legitimate government, not through killing innocent people.

Swarfboy

1) Was the IRA justified in carrying out its campaign.

Yes they helped create the independant Sate we all live in.!

2) Did the IRA carry out its campaign in an acceptable way.

It was a war of independance, an uprising of the population who had been suppressed for too long.

3) Has the IRA's campaign led to an improvement in the state of NI.

Go ask Michael collins that one.!


I am sick and tired of people reffering to the bloody Provos as IRA.. they are two distinctly different organisations. If you wish to pose intelligent questions please get the terminology correct.!

uberwolf

Necromancer wrote:

1) Was the IRA justified in carrying out its campaign.

2) Did the IRA carry out its campaign in an acceptable way.

3) Has the IRA's campaign led to an improvement in the state of NI.

1) Were they representing a group of people who had legitimate complaints - yes. So organising a group to do something about that is/was legitimate.

2) Bit of confusion here for me. Do you mean, IRA terrorists - as terrorists go were they ok, or as a politically motivated group - should they have gone the terror route.

3) Is NI better now for the group that were sufficently disenfranchised to support the IRA? Probably yes. Was this caused by the IRA? arguably, although other routes of protest have proved more efficent (Ghandi) and the moral high ground is better for political maneuvering.

Stabshauptmann

Some confusion already, very few ppl have a problem with the war of independance and it doesnt come up here often. I was refering to the PIRA which was set up in 1969

Sparks wrote:

1) No, because they killed innocent people;
2) No, because they killed innocent people;
3) No, because all the advances in civil rights were made through the courts and legitimate government, not through killing innocent people.

ok
1) a)Did they have grievences worth of campaigning against
b)where these grievences so great that it justified the distruction of property and civil disobiedience
c) " " " taking of life

Ive to go now and wont be back till wed 6ish

Sparks, can good ever come from the loss of life, be it an evil or good person (not that I believe in the existance of either type of person).
If the loss of one innocent life saved 2 more innocent lives would in be justified (i didnt use the word acceptable). This will be the basis of a long post by me tomorrow so stay tuned. I should have done this earlier when I had more time.

Sparks

Necromancer wrote:

ok
1) a)Did they have grievences worth of campaigning against
b)where these grievences so great that it justified the distruction of property and civil disobiedience
c) " " " taking of life

a) is irrelevant to the questions you originally asked, as are b) and c).
There have been numerous cases throughout history of people having genuine grievances with the State they lived in that caused them to organise into groups and bring about change, all without having to kill people. Not even just things like Ghandi, but even simple things - the recent eVoting debacle, for example, was a government programme that would have adversly affected us all, but it was dealt with by a peaceful group working completely within the system, rather than someone shooting Minister Cullen in the kneecaps or blowing up his family.

Sparks

Necromancer wrote:

Sparks, can good ever come from the loss of life, be it an evil or good person (not that I believe in the existance of either type of person).
If the loss of one innocent life saved 2 more innocent lives would in be justified (i didnt use the word acceptable). This will be the basis of a long post by me tomorrow so stay tuned. I should have done this earlier when I had more time.

You might ask the medical ethics board that deliberated on Dr.Mengele's work for a more informative answer to that question.

growler

1) Was the IRA justified in carrying out its campaign.

As with the original IRA (and the many irish independence movements that preceeded them) the provosional IRA had an ideological justification, had a certain amount of popular support in the republic, the north and amongst the Irish diaspora so I guess they could certainly justify it to themselves.

2) Did the IRA carry out its campaign in an acceptable way.
It's impossible to discuss this without discussion of the specifics events that occured as part of the campaign, many of these could be justified within the "rules of war" and many more which could not be justified by any sane individual. The two facets to their campaign are so intertwined that that it's impossible (for me anyway) to say all or none of their actions were justified.


3) Has the IRA's campaign led to an improvement in the state of NI.

In the long run , it would appear that it has, if you are from an urban working class catholic area, without the IRA's constant pressure on the British governments (and their embarassment at not being able to contain the IRA) and the ensuing political pressure from the USA. The unionists would have continued to preside over a wholly unequal society, they had a pretty poor view of changing the status quo as seen from the establishments actions on bloody sunday. However if you had the misfortune to be an innocent young catholic male in the 70's or 80's I doubt you would feel particularly enamoured of having to live in such a militarised and dangerous society with the constant threat of internment, death squads etc. The end goal of a united ireland seems a little closer, a fairer society seems almost a reality but this seems to have come about more through a collective public disillusionment with the never ending violence that the achievement of any stated military or political goals.

spanner

Sparks wrote:

a) is irrelevant to the questions you originally asked, as are b) and c).
There have been numerous cases throughout history of people having genuine grievances with the State they lived in that caused them to organise into groups and bring about change, all without having to kill people. Not even just things like Ghandi, but even simple things - the recent eVoting debacle, for example, was a government programme that would have adversly affected us all, but it was dealt with by a peaceful group working completely within the system, rather than someone shooting Minister Cullen in the kneecaps or blowing up his family.

it is all very well working within the system when your dealing with the relitive trival matter of evoting, but lets all remember how the PIRA began.
there was an attempt to resolve grivevances peacefully with people like john hume and austin currie copying the martin luther style non violent protest however we all know what happened to that it was bloody represed by loyalist thugs as the RUC looked on and sometimes joined. matters became so bad they began to burn down nationlist parts of beflast as the law looked on, both the british and irish governments hesitated on what to do, so the PIRA broke off from the main body of the IRA and began to get guns so as to defend nationlist areas and when the british army finally came in and decided they must disarm the PIRA it was to late and the die had already been cased.

so even though they now are really nothing but glorified crinimals there roots where of an understandable cause.

Hobbes

Sparks wrote:

a) is irrelevant to the questions you originally asked, as are b) and c).

Hardly. First up everyone stop linking the Micheal Collins IRA to the current IRA. They are different bodies (otherwise we may as well throw FF and FG into the mix as well).

Secondly. "Justified"? NO. Reasons to get support for it YES. Lets not all scream "look at them look at them!", the British and loyalist paramilitaries were as, if not worse then the IRA at times.

After WWII the IRA didn't even have any real support of the Irish population until the Civil rights abuses in the north of Ireland. (English army were sent in originally because it was the Catholics that were all getting killed).

Lumping it all on the IRA is not really bringing anything to the argument.

was a government programme that would have adversly affected us all, but it was dealt with by a peaceful group working completely within the system, rather than someone shooting Minister Cullen in the kneecaps or blowing up his family.

Ahh, but you do know that it was a "peaceful group" that was gunned down during bloody sunday? That did more to help the IRA then anything else going on.

Then you have internment and all the other crap.

Desperate times leads to deperate measures. I am not saying it is in anyway justified but people with no way out tend to fight back in the same way. You see this time and time again. It is only by treating each side with a bit of respect and not tarring them all with the same brush do things start to get better.

Typical enough the Bristish didn't sit up and listen until the IRA started hitting money targets instead of people. Killing people just polorises people more to do the reverse.

So yous can all sit around whinging about who did what and keep living in the past, or you can move on from it.

So what do all the SF haters think about Bush ringing them? Or Gerrys ultimatium to the IRA to disarm just recently.

rather than someone shooting Minister Cullen in the kneecaps or blowing up his family.

Can you post a link to a news story for that? Did it happen recently?

ionapaul

The problem with question 1 is the confusion between the justification for armed action in the late 60's and the justification for the specific campaign waged by the PIRA during the past three decades. I believe there was some justification for armed action in the late 60's, but there was and can be no justification for the campaign waged by the PIRA that killed hundred of innocents, both Catholic and Protestant, men, women and children.
Obviously, as a result my answer to question 2 would be No, the campaign was unacceptable.
Question 3 would be the hardest to answer for me. The campaign made the North such a wasteland in many ways, led to so many problems, social, cultural and economic. Life is undoubtably better for some sections of society.
Has the campaign sped all of us towards a United Ireland in the next 20 years? Not sure about this. In my mind it is not much of a goal and certainly not something worth much effort (admittedly I am not a patriot or believe in nationalism). By the time a majority in the North would vote for a United Ireland a EU-state may have made the entire thing fairly redundant.

shltter

1) Was the IRA justified in carrying out its campaign.

yes their were grievances that people could see no other way out


2) Did the IRA carry out its campaign in an acceptable way.

yes and no
it is virtually impossible to agree or defend every IRA action
however I do not believe that the IRA in general targetted innocent civilians
i know there are exceptions to this an we can all name some but in general over the 25 years it did not go out of its way to kill civilians.


3) Has the IRA's campaign led to an improvement in the state of NI.

yes it has probably by making it worse for along time but better in the long run

Chaos-Engine

The pro IRA sentiment that exists on these boards in the mainly pre-25 age groups as most over that age remember the endless killings.

I believe that Irish school textbooks are partly to blame... Let us burn all the school history text books and get some balance.

Stabshauptmann

Sparks wrote:

a) is irrelevant to the questions you originally asked, as are b) and c).

No there not.


v. jus·ti·fied

1)Having demonstrated sufficient reason for an action taken.
-I think thats a) summed up pretty nice

2)To free (a human) of the guilt and penalty attached to grievous sin.
- and theres b) and c)

That they killed innocents is very relevent to question 2), a subject I thought would take up most of this thread (but I want to answer question 1 satisfactorlly first), but not relevent to question 1.
The action taken was an armed campaign so part a) was there suffecient grievences/ reasons

The PIRA was set up in 1969 in response to increased loyalist intimidation and attacks on catholic an nationalist areas. There was widespread support in this area for armed defence commities (as demonstrated in the huge increase in volunteers and civilian rioting) and it was felt yhat the IRA (later OIRA) hadnt the weapons or the will in leadership circles to do this.

That is why the PIRA split from the OIRA.

At that time the civil rights movement was in full swing and they had many grievences
Discrimination in employment, housing, education, voting and all walks of life. PPl felt a martain luther type of approach was the way to go. These were not reasons the PIRA was founded.

It was the immediate physical threats to the lives and property of nationalist comunities and not civil issues that lead to the founding of the PIRA.
So to part a) I say yes they had sufficent grievences.

These communities were innocent, they had done nothing wrong - peacefull civil rights movements were being met with extreme violence by the state and loyalist paramilitaries.

To stop loss of life is more than enough justification to destroy property so to part b) I say yes

Part c) the loss of life, was there enough justification for that?
How do you justify the taking of a life?
The principal undertaken the PIRA was to target its enimes, those responsible for the loss of nationalist life and property. In principal, those ppl forfeited their right to life already -- could a real tangible benifit be achieved from executing these ppl. They had to be taken out of the system; the alternative to executing them would be for the state to imprison them but instead the state supported them.

Killing the guilty was the only way to make the innocent safer since the state refused to exercise its responsibilities.

But of course the principal and the practise are often different, innocents did die and that I believe brings us on the question number two, but before that anybody any more thoughts on question one

gdiddy361

Sparks wrote:

1) No, because they killed innocent people;
2) No, because they killed innocent people;
3) No, because all the advances in civil rights were made through the courts and legitimate government, not through killing innocent people.

Just a quick question... Has there ever been a just cause where innocent people were killed? What about WWII? Just because there is collateral damage, it is not enough to damn a whole movememt. Just a thought....

OfflerCrocGod

NO. tbh, imho.

gdiddy361

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

NO. tbh, imho.

Let me get this straight... You are saying that no war is just if it kills innocent civilians? So, by this you're saying that no war is just, for there are civilians that die in every war. Thus, you must not think that the Irish War for Independence was just.... Is this true or have I misconstrued your statements?

Sparks

Tell you what gdiddy, when the families of kids who were killed "for the cause" all come out and say they fully supported the actions of those who killed them, then I'll reconsider where I stand on this.

KdjaCL

1) Was the IRA justified in carrying out its campaign.
No, noone deserves to die over a pointless cause based on religous hypocrisy.

2) Did the IRA carry out its campaign in an acceptable way.
No killing people in pubs is not acceptable in anyway, these people were innocent and only reason they were targets was because of their nationality.


3) Has the IRA's campaign led to an improvement in the state of NI.
No SFs actual copping on after 20 years of violence that they were1, never going to get a united ireland, 2 would have some power in a coalition.
Odd it took that long for them to figure that out.

People in Northern Ireland are Northern irish , they are not irish , to force them to live in our country is wrong. They should control their own state if they wish, people who live in the south have no right to dictate how they should live and should get out of their business.

I have seen the terror inflicted upon Uk people by (shall refrain from calling the ira ****) the IRA, and was in town right accross the street from the Widows Scallan , seeing everything unfold (seriously sickening) those people would have died whilst having a pint for what ?
Nooone can justify killing 30 odd people in a pub.
Was in manchester the week after the shopping centre bomb (bad timing all round)


If Muslims suicide bomb a pub we all denounce it yet 60% of irish people would cheer if it was an IRA bomb in a Uk pub.

kdjac

KdjaCL

gdiddy361 wrote:

Just a quick question... Has there ever been a just cause where innocent people were killed? What about WWII? Just because there is collateral damage, it is not enough to damn a whole movememt. Just a thought....

Innocents get killed in war when the enemy is targetted, to use that as an excuse really shows your view on things.
So targetting say a pub with no british army or ruc oficers, is that ok? I mean its for the cause?

Ironic how a nutter with 2000 pounds of semtex can blow up what they like for the cause, but a palestinian suicide bomber is a nutcase.



kdjac

gdiddy361

Sparks wrote:

Tell you what gdiddy, when the families of kids who were killed "for the cause" all come out and say they fully supported the actions of those who killed them, then I'll reconsider where I stand on this.

That's not what I'm saying. My point was that there needs to be more to denouncing a war than just the fact that innocent civilians were killed, for they are in every war....

OfflerCrocGod

gdiddy361 wrote:

Let me get this straight... You are saying that no war is just if it kills innocent civilians? So, by this you're saying that no war is just, for there are civilians that die in every war. Thus, you must not think that the Irish War for Independence was just.... Is this true or have I misconstrued your statements?

Read the first post in the thread.

Necromancer wrote:

So here it goes, I would like to discuss:

1) Was the IRA justified in carrying out its campaign.

2) Did the IRA carry out its campaign in an acceptable way.

3) Has the IRA's campaign led to an improvement in the state of NI.

Terror solves sh*t. It just increases hate, strife and division.

is_that_so

1) Was the IRA justified in carrying out its campaign.

This is the age-old argument about freedom fighter versus terrorist. If you perceive yourself as British/non Republican then they are terrorists otherswie they were fighting for our freedom.
Personally never accepted their justification but reluctantly acknowledge that some people saw them as the only hope.

2) Did the IRA carry out its campaign in an acceptable way.

There is no acceptable way to dispose of so called enemies. "For us or against us" is simplistic but then you know who makes the enemy is

3) Has the IRA's campaign led to an improvement in the state of NI.

This is a paradox. They have benefitted financially themselves but more imporantly their direct involvement has led to the emergence of "credible" individuals - e.g. Gerry Kelly and Martin McGuinness that having converted will move the peace process to its ultimate aim. Or maybe that is wishful thinking on my part. And paradoxically they make their own laws whereby you they select you for punishment.

But go read some of the books on the whole thing. This topic is always subject to volatile and instransigent positions. Understand first .

The Troubles Robert Kee
The IRA Ed Moloney

come recommended . But there are many more.

Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them

Tommy Vercetti

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Terror solves sh*t. It just increases hate, strife and division.

It also led to the creation of the PIRA. None of these questions are simple yes/no affairs. We could debate this forever and still not move beyond the first step.

OfflerCrocGod

Tommy Vercetti wrote:

It also led to the creation of the PIRA. None of these questions are simple yes/no affairs. We could debate this forever and still not move beyond the first step.

PIRA as in the Physics Instructional Resource Association? I don't see how they were helped by the IRA blowing people up, you can't be talking about the provos because no sane person would argue that they are anything but the scum of the earth, I really don't see what there is to debate Drug Dealers/Terrorists == Utter Sh*t of Mankind. I don't care what side they claim to be on - once they start beating and killing innocents they are not on my side.

FTA69

Necromancer wrote:

1) Was the IRA justified in carrying out its campaign.

2) Did the IRA carry out its campaign in an acceptable way.

3) Has the IRA's campaign led to an improvement in the state of NI.

1) Was the IRA justified in carrying out its campaign?

Yes, absolutely, both in the broad and specific circumstances of the conflict. In my opinion the British prescence in this country is wholly illigitimate and wrong and as such it is the right of any Irish person to resist the British state and its war machine in Ireland and as such the IRA from 1916 to 2004 are perfectly justified in their actions. To examine more specific instances though, the question referred to the Provisional IRA resurgence in 1969. It is important to remember the context in which the recent spate of violence grew out of, namely the apartheid state in the 6 Counties and the British military repression that was employed to prop up that state. In 1969 the IRA was a small fringe group regarded as dogmatic fanatics by the majority of Northern nationalists, the Republican Movement was largely bypassed in the drive for social justice and equality that was launched by such figures as Bernadette Devlin and John Hume. However, any example of peaceful protest was repressed by the machinations of the Unionist state as well as Loyalist extremists. Nationalists were ethnically cleansed from their homes (the biggest forced movement of people since WW2 at the time) and they came under consistent attack. On top of this, the British Army was sent in to stabilise and secure the area under British and Unionist rule once more. By 1970 the political scenario had changed from one of governmental grievance to one of military oppression and as such the Provisional IRA reacted accordingly in seeking to break the source of injustice, the British prescence in Ireland.

2) Did the IRA carry out its campaign in an acceptable way?

Again I say yes, they targeted the military, infrastructural and economic fibre of the Unionist state as well as its British patron. While mistakes were made in certain operations eg Birmingham etc this does not to me undermine the righteousness and validity of the cause for which the IRA fought. It seems flippant and harsh to refer to civilian casualties as "collatoral damage" etc but the question must be asked, are legitimate wars to be abandoned because of the inevitable civilian casualties? That is an unrealistic take on things and again I say the only way to have lasting peace is to remove the root source of the conflict.

3) Has the IRA's campaign led to the improvement of the 6 County state?

To an extent yes, it smashed the ascendant Unionist control of the state but it failed in its goal to liberate this country. While it has created the ground upon which equality and social justice can be built, it must be remembered that nothing short of a 32 County united Ireland can be acceptable to Republicans.

gdiddy361

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

PIRA as in the Physics Instructional Resource Association? I don't see how they were helped by the IRA blowing people up, you can't be talking about the provos because no sane person would argue that they are anything but the scum of the earth, I really don't see what there is to debate Drug Dealers/Terrorists == Utter Sh*t of Mankind. I don't care what side they claim to be on - once they start beating and killing innocents they are not on my side.

One, saying that no sane person would argue that they are anything but the scum of the earth is a completely ridiculous argument. It just shows ignorance. That might be your opinion that they are sh*t, however there are many very intelligent folks who happen to support their cause and the group itself. I believe that Necromancer was wanting to engage in intellectual debate, not a bout of petty namecalling.

Again, why is it that so many people think that the endgame for all conflicts is the killing of innocent civilians. Do you not realize that in 4 days alone in Dresden, Germany during World War II the British and Americans killed over 100,000 civilians? Does that make the Allies evil and abominable? I would hope not.....

You can not judge a conflict based on one statistic.

Sleepy

Necromancer wrote:

So here it goes, I would like to discuss:

1) Was the IRA justified in carrying out its campaign.
2) Did the IRA carry out its campaign in an acceptable way.
3) Has the IRA's campaign led to an improvement in the state of NI.

1) Whilst I feel the defenderist roots of the movement acted in a justifiable way, they lost that justification from the moment they carried out an attack (as opposed to defending themselves).

2) Not in the least. Guerilla style warfare as carried out by the IRA is rarely justifiable because it leads to too many "mistakes". Bombs should never have been placed in any position where they could take a civilian casualty.

3) This is impossible to argue really as it calls entirely for speculation. I'd imagine that had the IRA not begun a bombing campaign and had they stuck to being purely a defending force, the international community would have been swifter to drag the British government to a negotiating table. However, that's just my opinion, and it's no more/less valid than anyone elses.

FTA69

Sleepy wrote:

1) Whilst I feel the defenderist roots of the movement acted in a justifiable way, they lost that justification from the moment they carried out an attack (as opposed to defending themselves).

Surely when a group attacks a foreign, occupational army in Belfast, Derry or wherever that can be considered defensive? Look at the ethos of both sides in the war, on one hand the IRA were fighting to remove a repressive prescence from their own country, the British were fighting to preserve the status quo and prop up and apartheid state. The IRA's campaign by its very nature was defensive.

Sleepy

Sorry FTA, the British Army were occupying their own country, therefore you can't really consider them to be foreign (however much you'd like to believe it, for the purposes of any debate on the matter of Northern Ireland, it must be accepted as a separate state to the Republic as it's recognised as being so by the UN who tend to have the authoritive voice on matters of national borders).

Defending their own from attacks is an acceptable, justifiable and imho honourable activity. Planting bombs in pubs that British soldiers were known to drink in, is not.

Car bombs, incediary devices and mortar attacks are agressive strategies, not defensive except in extremely unusual circumstances (which I don't think can be argued for in anything other than a military battlefield, certainly not in an urban environment that's densely populated by civilians.

FTA69

The British Army were not "occupying their own country", that statement itself is an oxymoron. The British prescence here is rejected by the vast majority of Irish people both north and south, but to address your defenderist statement, the IRA resurgence in 1969 was forged amongst massive pogroms and ethnic cleansing by Loyalist mobs, when the British Army first came here they immediately targeted Nationalists as the root of the problem. They were and are here to put down any resistance to the status quo and as such attacking them is a defensive action in one's own country.

bonkey

FTA69 wrote:

The IRA's campaign by its very nature was defensive.

No, it wasn't.

The IRA were (and are?) seeking to re-obtain control of the 6 counties from the British, not prevent the British from seizing them. So, at best, their campaign was insurgent or rebellious, but it certainly wasn't defensive.....

Not only that, but considering that the IRA were (and are?) not seeking to re-establish what came before, they most certainly aren't defending our old national structure either.

The IRA, under the notion of fighting for a "Free" Ireland are seeking to establish a political structure which never existed before. They are seeking to create a new nation, with a new government. That is not defensive in any way, shape or form.

And while it might be convenient to argue that the IRA were protecting the people from a system which discriminated based on religion or political leanings, the simple truth is that this was never the goal of their actions. The goal was to overthrow the existant system, with a mind to bringing about a new vision for the country.

Indeed, I should go further and point out that the IRA typically refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the government of the Republic of Ireland, so it would be more correct to say that (were this always the case) the IRA operated with a mind to overthrowing two existant systems, with a mind to bringing about a third new vision.

Sorry, but thats just not defensive. Individual actions may be construed as defensive in nature, but the overall campaign, aims, and so on cannot honestly be.

hc



jc

FTA69

bonkey wrote:

The IRA, under the notion of fighting for a "Free" Ireland are seeking to establish a political structure which never existed before. They are seeking to create a new nation, with a new government. That is not defensive in any way, shape or form.

And while it might be convenient to argue that the IRA were protecting the people from a system which discriminated based on religion or political leanings, the simple truth is that this was never the goal of their actions. The goal was to overthrow the existant system, with a mind to bringing about a new vision for the country.

The IRA does not seek to create "a new nation", nations consist of people and the Irish nation cannot be changed by anyone. However you are correct in your assertion that the IRA seek to create a new system of administration in Ireland, ie one that includes the entire Irish nation.

You are however incorrect in your assertion that no governmental precedent for this has ever existed, the Dáil of 1918 was elected by the Irish people as a unit and the core Republican principle is that of national self-determination ie the Irish people acting as one in order to determine their own political destiny. The goal of the Republcian Movement is indeed what you stated it is, but this goal stems from a defensive reaction to remove the British prescence.

Stabshauptmann

bonkey wrote:

No, it wasn't.

The IRA were (and are?) seeking to re-obtain control of the 6 counties from the British, not prevent the British from seizing them. So, at best, their campaign was insurgent or rebellious, but it certainly wasn't defensive.....

The PIRA was founded after a split within what we know call the OIRA because the defence of nationalist communities had been so neglected under the Goulding (sp?) era. Its early life consisted entirely of defence so it is fair to call them a defensive organisation.

Not only that, but considering that the IRA were (and are?) not seeking to re-establish what came before, they most certainly aren't defending our old national structure either.
The IRA, under the notion of fighting for a "Free" Ireland are seeking to establish a political structure which never existed before. They are seeking to create a new nation, with a new government. That is not defensive in any way, shape or form.

Of course they arent defending the ROI from british invasion, noone is claming they are, but thats a very narrow interpretaion of defence you are taking.

And while it might be convenient to argue that the IRA were protecting the people from a system which discriminated based on religion or political leanings, the simple truth is that this was never the goal of their actions. The goal was to overthrow the existant system, with a mind to bringing about a new vision for the country.

Well that would all depend on who you asked wouldnt it, whether you are talking about the leadership or the grass roots volunteers, the bulk of the oranisation for whom it was simply a matter of defence. Im basing this claim on the links between periods of increased rioting and unionist agitation and increases in membership of the PIRA and also on statements by volunteers in "A secret history of the IRA".

Indeed, I should go further and point out that the IRA typically refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the government of the Republic of Ireland, so it would be more correct to say that (were this always the case) the IRA operated with a mind to overthrowing two existant systems, with a mind to bringing about a third new vision.

Your information is slightly out of date. This was the case certainly with the OIRA and for a while with the PIRA but since Adams joined the army council this position has been reversed, hence SF participation in the Dáil.


Strangly enough I was expecting the Shinners to ruin this thread but I was very much mistaken.

OfflerCrocGod, the reason I break down the subject is to stop one blagrent NO because I believe that through a rational debate based on departmentalisation and logic most ppl will come to a high level of agreement (but not a total one).
You refuse to participate fully, why? Is it because you are simply going on gut here and dont actually have a rational reason for your stance. If you dont want to do this rationally, fine, but please dont ruin it for those of us who do.
One point you made was that terror solves nothing and I think is_that_so but it perfectly, what Im trying to do here is win ppl over to the paradim of freedom fighter not terrorist, and to do that Ive a lot to say about the histoy of war and comparing the PIRA's record to that of the British and american armies.

Sparks, I see you havent really been able to refute my last post, I rather expecte you would, there are holes in my arguement, but if you are happy with my answers ti question one would you like to move onto question 2?

Sleepy

It's not an oxymoron in this sense as Northern Ireland is a colony of the British Empire. The British presence north of the border is hardly rejected by the majority of the Northern Irish people (or else they'd have gone home long ago) and to be honest what those of us residing in the Republic of Ireland feel about their presence is largely irrelevant.

dictionary.com wrote:

Nation: A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.

The IRA may seek to create one nation out of two, but at present there are two nations on this island.

You are however incorrect in your assertion that no governmental precedent for this has ever existed, the Dáil of 1918 was elected by the Irish people as a unit

The Dáil of 1918 was a government without a country (from the point of view of the UN and the international community) and therefore not a legal government. I know the IRA claim their tenuous link to being an "army" (rather than a well organised gang) from this fabled government but ungortunately, when a "government" doesn't possess a country, it can't be claimed to be legal.

FTA69 wrote:

The IRA's campaign by its very nature was defensive.

Re-itterating this will not make it true.

It has been pointed out to you a number of times at this stage that the campaign displays few, if any, of the traits of a defensive action yet you still peddle this line. Are you that attached to your organisation's dogma or simply incapable of tackling the arguments that dismiss it?

Sleepy

Necromancer wrote:

The PIRA was founded after a split within what we know call the OIRA because the defence of nationalist communities had been so neglected under the Goulding (sp?) era. Its early life consisted entirely of defence so it is fair to call them a defensive organisation.

No. It's fair to say that their early life was as a defensive organisation. They lost that title when they first attacked others.

Well that would all depend on who you asked wouldnt it, whether you are talking about the leadership or the grass roots volunteers, the bulk of the oranisation for whom it was simply a matter of defence. Im basing this claim on the links between periods of increased rioting and unionist agitation and increases in membership of the PIRA and also on statements by volunteers in "A secret history of the IRA".

Funny, my reading of the same book gave me the impression that after the intial issue of defense in the late 60's those involved were carrying out their attacks from the position of ignorance, blood-lust and revenge.

Your information is slightly out of date. This was the case certainly with the OIRA and for a while with the PIRA but since Adams joined the army council this position has been reversed, hence SF participation in the Dáil.

Necromancer's right on this issue, Bonkey.

Stabshauptmann

Sleepy wrote:

No. It's fair to say that their early life was as a defensive organisation. They lost that title when they first attacked others.


Funny, my reading of the same book gave me the impression that after the intial issue of defense in the late 60's those involved were carrying out their attacks from the position of ignorance, blood-lust and revenge.


Necromancer's right on this issue, Bonkey.

What I got from that post was that you agree that for most origionaly it was a matter of defence and then it progressed onto something more? Id agree to that, but what I want to establish that it was at first a defensive organisation (for the vast majority) and I want to link this to question one.

Then to move onto question two, you would immediatly say no because they went after a fight? And also because their strategies factored into civilian loss of life, that in a lot of cases it was intentional as a means to an end?

Have I taken this up right (my next post will be based on these assumption)?

FTA69

Sleepy wrote:

It's not an oxymoron in this sense as Northern Ireland is a colony of the British Empire. The British presence north of the border is hardly rejected by the majority of the Northern Irish people (or else they'd have gone home long ago) and to be honest what those of us residing in the Republic of Ireland feel about their presence is largely irrelevant.

The IRA may seek to create one nation out of two, but at present there are two nations on this island.

The Dáil of 1918 was a government without a country (from the point of view of the UN and the international community) and therefore not a legal government. I know the IRA claim their tenuous link to being an "army" (rather than a well organised gang) from this fabled government but ungortunately, when a "government" doesn't possess a country, it can't be claimed to be legal.

Re-itterating this will not make it true.

It has been pointed out to you a number of times at this stage that the campaign displays few, if any, of the traits of a defensive action yet you still peddle this line. Are you that attached to your organisation's dogma or simply incapable of tackling the arguments that dismiss it?

So on one hand you declare that the British Army were simply stationed in "their own country" ie implying the 6 Counties was exactly the same country as England but on the other hand you declare that the 6 Counties is a "colony of the British Empire". Which is it? Because those two statements are two very different things. Were the British justified in sending troops into India as it was a "British colony"? Or Kenya? Or Cyprus? Or any other country they invaded and subsequently brutalised?

The fact that a local majority in the 6 Counties wish to retain the status quo is irrelevant, partition was forced on the Irish people against their democratic wish and remains today against the wishes of the Irish people. What if Leitrim voted to set up its own independent state? Would the wishes of the rest of the Irish people become "irrelevant"?

Regards the Dáil, I don't understand your assertion that it "didn't have a country", it very much so "had a country". That country was Ireland, a country whose people voted overwhelmingly for the establishment of an independent Republic. You somehow seem to think that the remit of a foreign, colonial government with no democratic mandate from the people of Ireland was somehow "legitimate" and that the democratically elected representation of the Irish people themselves was "illegal", how can you justify this?

Finally, you claim the IRA campaign displays no examples of defensive action, what about the defence of the Short Strand from Loyalist mobs throughout the war? Or the establishment of barricades to keep out the British Army and RUC? The British Army and RUC's raison d'etre was to subjugate the Nationalist people so any targeting of them was by its nature, a defensive action?

Oggy Doggy

Sleepy wrote:

3) This is impossible to argue really as it calls entirely for speculation. I'd imagine that had the IRA not begun a bombing campaign and had they stuck to being purely a defending force, the international community would have been swifter to drag the British government to a negotiating table. However, that's just my opinion, and it's no more/less valid than anyone elses.

Actually the international community could not enter into the conflict because as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Britain vetoed any involvement in the matter. This was their right and they did it!

Sleepy

Necromancer wrote:

What I got from that post was that you agree that for most origionaly it was a matter of defence and then it progressed onto something more? Id agree to that, but what I want to establish that it was at first a defensive organisation (for the vast majority) and I want to link this to question one.

Then to move onto question two, you would immediatly say no because they went after a fight? And also because their strategies factored into civilian loss of life, that in a lot of cases it was intentional as a means to an end?

Have I taken this up right (my next post will be based on these assumption)?

You have me right entirely.

Sleepy

FTA69 wrote:

So on one hand you declare that the British Army were simply stationed in "their own country" ie implying the 6 Counties was exactly the same country as England but on the other hand you declare that the 6 Counties is a "colony of the British Empire". Which is it? Because those two statements are two very different things. Were the British justified in sending troops into India as it was a "British colony"? Or Kenya? Or Cyprus? Or any other country they invaded and subsequently brutalised?

A colony of a country means it's their property. Therefore it was their "own" country to occupy.

FTA69 wrote:

The fact that a local majority in the 6 Counties wish to retain the status quo is irrelevant

So because they don't agree with you their opinion is irrelevant?

What if Leitrim voted to set up its own independent state? Would the wishes of the rest of the Irish people become "irrelevant"?

Quite frankly, I think it would. People have a right to self-determination or at least a say in how their future is determined. Your statements above clearly indicate that you don't respect that right.

Regards the Dáil, I don't understand your assertion that it "didn't have a country", it very much so "had a country". That country was Ireland, a country whose people voted overwhelmingly for the establishment of an independent Republic. You somehow seem to think that the remit of a foreign, colonial government with no democratic mandate from the people of Ireland was somehow "legitimate" and that the democratically elected representation of the Irish people themselves was "illegal", how can you justify this?

Because, at the time, Britain were the legal rulers of Ireland and had been for centuries.

Finally, you claim the IRA campaign displays no examples of defensive action

Find where I said "the IRA campaign displays no examples of defensive action" and I'll retract it.

The British Army and RUC's raison d'etre was to subjugate the Nationalist people so any targeting of them was by its nature, a defensive action?

I think you know how stupid a statment this is yourself by the very fact you placed a question mark after your own point.

Stabshauptmann

FTA69 wrote:

So on one hand you declare that the British Army were simply stationed in "their own country" ie implying the 6 Counties was exactly the same country as England but on the other hand you declare that the 6 Counties is a "colony of the British Empire". Which is it? Because those two statements are two very different things. Were the British justified in sending troops into India as it was a "British colony"? Or Kenya? Or Cyprus? Or any other country they invaded and subsequently brutalised?

The proportions of the populations considering themselves british is the key difference between NI and your examples.

The fact that a local majority in the 6 Counties wish to retain the status quo is irrelevant, partition was forced on the Irish people against their democratic wish and remains today against the wishes of the Irish people. What if Leitrim voted to set up its own independent state? Would the wishes of the rest of the Irish people become "irrelevant"?

Peoples republic of Cork, LNA ?

FTA69

Sleepy wrote:

A colony of a country means it's their property. Therefore it was their "own" country to occupy.

So because they don't agree with you their opinion is irrelevant?

Quite frankly, I think it would. People have a right to self-determination or at least a say in how their future is determined. Your statements above clearly indicate that you don't respect that right.

Because, at the time, Britain were the legal rulers of Ireland and had been for centuries.

Find where I said "the IRA campaign displays no examples of defensive action" and I'll retract it.

I think you know how stupid a statment this is yourself by the very fact you placed a question mark after your own point.

First of all you stated that the "IRA campaign displays few if any traits of a defensive action".

Secondly, I ask you do you suscribe to the notion of "ownership of countries"? As when a stronger country dominates another does the weaker subject become the "property" of another? What I see in that scenario is the right to self-determination being trampled, a concept later on in your post you state people "have a right to". If your answer to the above is "no" well the you are contradicting your support for the status quo in Ireland to remain.

"Irrelevant" was perhaps the worng word to use when refferring to Unionism, it is relevant as it forms 20% of the Irish nation but it certainly does not have the right to transcend the wish of the rest of country.

Regards the Dáil, Britain was not the "legal" ruler of Ireland as we never elected them as our rulers did we? By your logic the USSR was the legal ruler of Afghanistan, Poland, Hungary and East Germany. Simply because a super-power dominates a region for centuries does not equate with it being right. The only legitimate government to claim jurisdiction over Ireland was the Dáil as that was the only body with a democratic mandate, again you are contradicting your own statement that "everyone had a right to self-determination."

Regards the IRA campaign, the question mark was a typo. Are you then denying that the British Army and RUC's role was to suppress the rebellious part of the colony? Or do you suscribe to the myth that the poor brits were piggy in the middle between the mad warring paddies?

OfflerCrocGod

Necromancer wrote:

OfflerCrocGod, the reason I break down the subject is to stop one blagrent NO because I believe that through a rational debate based on departmentalisation and logic most ppl will come to a high level of agreement (but not a total one).

I came to a level of agreement. NO.

You refuse to participate fully, why? Is it because you are simply going on gut here and dont actually have a rational reason for your stance. If you dont want to do this rationally, fine, but please dont ruin it for those of us who do.
One point you made was that terror solves nothing and I think is_that_so but it perfectly,

There is very little to participate in - you believe slaughtering and terrorizing and drugdealing etc.. are all fine activities - I don't. The rest I can't even understand.

what Im trying to do here is win ppl over to the paradim of freedom fighter not terrorist, and to do that Ive a lot to say about the histoy of war and comparing the PIRA's record to that of the British and american armies.

I call a spade a spade. Don't compare scumbags to the Allied armies during WWII it's disrespectful to those people who fought and died in WWII. Also don't compare the Brits to Hitler and Fascism; it's like comparing George Bush to Hitler - absolute and total rubbish.

Sparks, I see you havent really been able to refute my last post, I rather expecte you would, there are holes in my arguement, but if you are happy with my answers ti question one would you like to move onto question 2?

There is no argument here, you just want to tell the politics forum that the [STRIKE]Irish mafia[/STRIKE] IRA are fine by you. That trying to bring down two democratic goverments and replacing them with your own socialist goverment by means of brutal terror and crime is just fine.
Go and have a family member blow up for no reason.
Go and have a family member shot for no reason.
Go and have a family member savagely beaten for no reason.
Go and have a family member exiled from the country for no reason.
Then come back and tell me how fantastic they are. Freedom fighters my fat ass.

gdiddy361

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

.I call a spade a spade. Don't compare scumbags to the Allied armies during WWII it's disrespectful to those people who fought and died in WWII.

Actually you could easily compare the IRA to the Allied armies. You seem to state that killing people for no reason is wrong, have I misconstrued your statements here?

If you DO in fact believe this, then you must hold the Allied armies to the same standards as you do the IRA, for the Allied armies attacked Dresden and killed over 100,000 innocent civilians. And the US attacked Hiroshima, a city of little to no military importance, killing over 100,000 innocent civilians.

Taking what you have said into account, then the Allied armies must be scumbags because they killed innocent civilians for no reason.

Now this is not my opinion at all. I'm just trying to make sense of yours.

Johnny_the_fox

gdiddy361 wrote:

And the US attacked Hiroshima, a city of little to no military importance, killing over 100,000 innocent civilians.

did Japan not bomb Pearl Harbor first.. which got the US involved in the world war in the first place??????

JohnK

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

did Japan not bomb Pearl Harbor first.. which got the US involved in the world war in the first place??????

That’s irrelevant. There is no justification for attacking civilian targets.

is_that_so

I find it unsurpising that these conversations are still so heavily couched in either proto-socialist garbage or anachronistic 19th century temrinology. Proof yet again that we are incapable of moving beyond antiquated notions. Reminds me of a quote appropriate here , alas I forget who from , which says, "we remember well our history but little understand it".

Johnny_the_fox

JohnK wrote:

That’s irrelevant. There is no justification for attacking civilian targets.

irrelevant as in.. a loyalist group leaving a bomb outside a gaa ground or attacking a chapel then??

OfflerCrocGod

gdiddy361 wrote:

Actually you could easily compare the IRA to the Allied armies. You seem to state that killing people for no reason is wrong, have I misconstrued your statements here?

I hope you are kidding me. If it is a joke then it's a bad one. You need to brush up on your WWII history if you think the allies decided to assault Europe "for no reason". That is possibly the single dumbest statement I have ever read on the Internet. The Brits aren't jackbooted Nazis - although you would love them to be as it would help hatred spread quicker and easier. The IRA is simply a collection of criminal gangs that's all - drugs, arms, robbery, intimidation etc. they are not "freedom fighters". Violence will not achieve anything good, even Mr Adams now knows this.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams has now reportedly told senior party colleagues that they should accept the latest proposals to revive power-sharing .[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]......[/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A Downing Street spokesman said it is significant that Mr Paisley has said he is prepared to go into government with Sinn Féin if decommissioning were addressed.[/font]

Doesn't sound much like [STRIKE]terrorist[/STRIKE] freedom fighter talk to me.

is_that_so wrote:

I find it unsurpising that these conversations are still so heavily couched in either proto-socialist garbage or anachronistic 19th century temrinology. Proof yet again that we are incapable of moving beyond antiquated notions. Reminds me of a quote appropriate here , alas I forget who from , which says, "we remember well our history but little understand it".

Yes..........and what are you suggesting instead? Oh wait nothing. Well other then some well known aphorisms. " Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them" - who's writing the garbage?