Berserker wrote: » A class A1 terrorist. The DUP weren't mates with any illegal paramilitary groups. That was one of the issues with Unionism and Loyalism. On the nationalist/republican side, SF and the IRA were joined at the hip as we all know.
The Backwards Man wrote: » My point exactly, you just don't see it, or you just don't want to see it. It's not a competition, you support the slaughter of innocents, or you don't.
Berserker wrote: » The DUP weren't mates with any illegal paramilitary groups. That was one of the issues with Unionism and Loyalism. On the nationalist/republican side, SF and the IRA were joined at the hip as we all know.
The high horse brigade wrote: » One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
Berserker wrote: » A class A1 terrorist.The DUP weren't mates with any illegal paramilitary groups. That was one of the issues with Unionism and Loyalism. On the nationalist/republican side, SF and the IRA were joined at the hip as we all know.
6541 wrote: » 100 percent a supporter and proud. I know / knew bomb-makers, shooters, logistic men and agitators. The IRA beat the British Government and by extension Unionist into an uneasy truce. The one thing that people need to realize is, the majority if Unionist's hate you I mean really hate you. I recommend you go North and hang out a while, you will soon get the vibe.
archer22 wrote: » however they never upgraded the conflict to war
archer22 wrote: » instead just keeping it to a policing matter.
archer22 wrote: » They never once used their heavy weapons or air power.
The document, obtained by the Pat Finucane Centre, points to a number of mistakes, including internment and highlights what lessons have been learnt. It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".It concedes for the first time that it did not win the battle against the IRA - but claims to have "shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence".
Later, towards the end of the 98-page review, the three British army officers who were specially seconded to write the document, appeared to conform to the general modern analysis that one of the key reasons the "war" ended was that neither the British army/RUC nor the IRA could defeat each other.
brainfreeze wrote: » In name only. Even Tony Blair admitted it was a war. They behaved it was like a war, deploying soldiers, shoot to kill policies, interment. Not calling it a war was in name only, for propaganda purposes but also so they could justify themselves avoiding the Geneva Convention. The IRA didn't exactly follow the Geneva Convention either though so the British can use multiple reasons of why they didn't follow it. With Soldiers?? Yes because destroying your self-proclaimed own cities your trying to convince people you are protecting would make perfect sense. It worked out so well for them internationally when they did it in Dublin and Cork. They didn't shell London either in the mid 2000s with the rise if Islamist attacks, yet they still proclaimed it a war on terror. Shelling Belfast would be also shelling their own people. People loyal to the crown. That would be an awful tactic, how many unionists would be left after you carpet bomb them? They considered this a war on British soil, not some foreign land were they don't care if they make in uninhabitable. I get what you are trying to say but your logic is all wrong. Even British Intelligence state they would never be able to defeat the IRA through military means, so you are basically claiming you know something they don't. All analysis pointed to a stalemate, they would never outright win.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6276416.stmhttps://www.irishtimes.com/news/british-army-paper-illustrates-respect-for-ira-1.948685 And here is a single quote from ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair that debunks both your points, that 1) it wasn't a war. And 2) that they could have defeated them easily with the military if they wanted to.https://youtu.be/XhPMb0W9kJE?t=3180"No one won the war. The British and the Unionists were never going to be bombed out of the United Kingdom, and we were never going to be able by military force, to destroy the republicans. So no one won." - Tony Blair. This notion that the British could have destroyed the IRA if they just increased their game is just that, notions. They don't even think that.
Gadgetman496 wrote: » This really should have been a simple yes or no poll thread. No point in trashing out the whole scenario yet again. Time to move on.
Zebra3 wrote: » Utter scum the Rah. If only they’d had the moral compass of the Brits. Invading lands all over the world. Getting into the old genocide and ethnic cleansing. Castrating Africans, herding Africans into concentration camps. Bit of the old napalm dropping on Asian civilians.
whisky_galore wrote: » Not too different from some other Western countries so? USA/France/Belgium/Italy/Germany/Holland...etc?
Berserker wrote: » What would all the armchair republicans do? Mentioned before on AH but they need to have their own forum.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 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'. Never ceases to amaze me how seemingly reasonably imteligent people can call them abnormal or psychopaths. If they were they would not have been able to be stopped. In a very disciplined way, they did stop when then achieved something the SDLP could not achieve -a workable internationally binding agreement that once and for all removed the bigoted, religiously sectarian unionist state and forced them to share power. That battle goes on today with the unionists now hellbent on destroying the union and their place in it. It took them less than a 100 years to wreck it all.
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'.
Feisar wrote: » Yea I'll admit parts of me support some of what the IRA stood for. Can I ask why they are branded terrorists while groups in Europe during WWII are referred to as Resistance Movements?
Taytoland wrote: » The IRA was riddled with informers come the late 80s to early 90s. Brendan Hughes is on record saying Belfast was rotten with them. You had people moving into houses who worked for British intelligence in Belfast ratting on the provisionals. It was going nowhere.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Taytoland wrote: » The IRA was riddled with informers come the late 80s to early 90s. Brendan Hughes is on record saying Belfast was rotten with them. You had people moving into houses who worked for British intelligence in Belfast ratting on the provisionals. It was going nowhere. In fairness, the IRA bombed Manchester and Canary Wharf when the British stalled the process towards peace with demands for decommissioning. the British dropped their demands that decommission happen before talks. The British acted when it hurt them. Yet the propaganda (British Unionist) persists that the it was the IRA surrendered. Facts unfortunately say otherwise. The IRA decommissioned only when they got a signed deal.
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.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » Nope, never supported it or their campaign. Both sides were as bad as each other really. What really saddens me though is the number of armchair republicans that still seem to be lurking out there spreading the old hatred and still living in those bad old days. You see it here anytime a SF/IRA or "British" thread pops up. Then there's the whole thing of people gleefully hoping Brexit turns out to be such a disaster so that the UK will suffer from it and "we" will get a united Ireland from it. I have no interest in either.. I am on record here as having serious issues with the way the EU has evolved over particularly the last decade and fully support those who are questioning this direction rather than blindly accepting the narrative that it's the only way for Europe, and anything else is just impossible - if the UK actually comes through it and prospers in the next few years it'll be a disaster for the EU as many other countries will start to pull out IMO (and that's also why the massive campaign of discrediting the electorate's decision has been waged. The EU simply cannot afford for Brexit to succeed). As for Ireland... We have more than enough problems domestically as it is without taking on the significant problems that absorbing Northern Ireland would represent - economically, structurally and of course the very real possibility that it could result in significant security problems. Problems which thankfully have largely been put behind us. I think people's expression of a desire for a united Ireland is purely superficial without any real thoughts of the consequences it would bring - put bluntly, we can barely run the country we have (housing, health, the economic divides between Dublin and the rest of the country, the political incompetence and corruption and general half-assed approaches to pretty much everything) , are busy pulling more people out of the tax system each year (imagine if people were told they'd need to pay another 150 quid of their monthly wage towards a "unification/solidarity" charge - how many would still be supportive then??), and given the largely bloated and inefficient mess that is our public sector and state services, imagine trying to integrate the systems of the North into that (assuming anyone would actually rather the HSE over the NHS for example). The best thing that can happen is some sort of border arrangement that reasonably tries to accommodate both sides (if such a thing is even possible on an island with 2 jurisdictions that will be even further apart in some ways), but anything more is just fantasy IMO.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d3e92925f7bde702415f91ea088d4f7a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/19a7a778b727ad07a3bbcea8101c61b3.svg)
