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

Silent Running · 02-07-2018 09:42AM

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.

Incorrect! The DUP have links to the UVF and UDA, through their Ulster Resistance movement. Remember the red berets?

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2018 09:48AM

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.

You can have a view of our history which understands what and why it happened.

The politics of condemnation is a patent waste of time and energy
You have to advocate doing the right thing and the right thing was done in forcing the government's to accept that it was they who has to ensure proper equality.
The most responsible government paid lip service to equality for the first 50 or 60 years of an irresponsible partition and then when it went inevitably up in flames tried to support the bigoted unionist authority.
The 'right' thing to do and the only option open was to force them to do the right thing.

Like all wars and conflicts; too many died and it was hard to get it stopped.
The GFA was a triumph and has to be allowed to survive.

Zebra3 · 02-07-2018 10:06AM

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 DUP were besties with a lot of criminal organisations and sure didn’t Robbo show his true colours with the attack over the border?

realdanbreen · 02-07-2018 10:12AM

I always felt, and it's as true today as it was then, that the unemployed/working class/ poor-take your pick, Catholic/Nationalist guy had more in common with an unemployed/working class/poor Protestant/Unionist guy than he had with well heeled Catholics/Nationalists and vice versa.

sbsquarepants · 02-07-2018 10:24AM

The high horse brigade wrote: »

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

This exactly.

The IRA was a necessary evil. Like practically every other paramilitary organisation the world over it was an uneasy mix of high minded political idealists and murderous thugs, and like practically every other paramilitary organisation it descended into pure criminality once it's purpose was served.

The "republican" and "loyalist" organisations on the go now are basically nothing but organised crime gangs.

02-07-2018 10:31AM

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.

Odhinn · 02-07-2018 11:05AM

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.

No, no, not at all, at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMpV5jnZhq8

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=53lIQqHz&id=3085B5DA1BDD14430B4BB3F784C00763B6A044F3&thid=OIP.53lIQqHzMqB-slvqNN8-5AHaF4&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fl7.alamy.com%2fzooms%2fe4d1fbd548d54263a8825dd3f002e2be%2f1972-rev-ian-paisley-watches-his-private-army-of-third-force-marching-f66r1t.jpg&exph=509&expw=640&q=ian+paisley+third+force&simid=607987515477198945&selectedIndex=2&ajaxhist=0

https://www.google.ie/search?q=willie+mccrea+billy+wright&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin79rpnIDcAhUrLcAKHT0NAR4Q_AUICigB&biw=1536&bih=841#imgrc=5f0LU00YgawjGM:

02-07-2018 11:15AM

Bring back Cú Chulainn and Na Fianna

02-07-2018 11:15AM

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.

No, they don't, a lot though not all have a belligerent/ siege mentality it more evident in working-class areas, but at least that is honest instead of hiding it in a mask of politeness in a more middle-class area.

It was and is more of a class war thing via religion.

brainfreeze · 02-07-2018 11:19AM

archer22 wrote: »

however they never upgraded the conflict to war

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.

archer22 wrote: »

instead just keeping it to a policing matter.

With Soldiers??

archer22 wrote: »

They never once used their heavy weapons or air power.

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.stm

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".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/british-army-paper-illustrates-respect-for-ira-1.948685

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.

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.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2018 11:27AM

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.stm

https://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.

What Tony neglected to admit to is that republicans came out of the conflict/war in a better more equal place than it was before.
That is an huge achievement and enabled the peace that we have seen.

Now, though the British wish to meddle with that again precisely because the likes of Blair gilded the lily and didn't publicly state that the republican/nationalist side did achieve something - did force the British and Unionists to dismantle the sectarian bigoted authority.

Gadgetman496 · 02-07-2018 11:31AM

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.

02-07-2018 11:35AM

Thre is triumphalism on both sides, that the one that looks weird to outsiders plus the holding a grudge for generations meanwhile the vast majority get on with their lives while a small minority continue with a game of ever decreasing circles.

Epic

I have lived in important places, times
When great events were decided, who owned
That half a rood of rock, a no-man's land
Surrounded by our pitchfork-armed claims.
I heard the Duffys shouting "Damn your soul!"
And old McCabe stripped to the waist, seen
Step the plot defying blue cast-steel -
"Here is the march along these iron stones."
That was the year of the Munich bother. Which
Was more important? I inclined
To lose my faith in Ballyrush and Gortin
Till Homer's ghost came whispering to my mind.
He said: I made the Iliad from such
A local row. Gods make their own importance.
Patrick Kavanagh

Berserker · 02-07-2018 11:36AM

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.

What would all the armchair republicans do? Mentioned before on AH but they need to have their own forum.

ronano · 02-07-2018 11:43AM

Supporting the IRA is difficult, I don't support military/terrorism for United Ireland ends. I'd support them during the late 60s, early 70s on the basis of gerrymandering, brutalisation and murder of the nationalist section of society. The british state collusion and the various judicial whitewashes. If a state does all the above, what recourse is there then to undertake military/terrorist actions. Even with that I feel deeply uncomfortable because of the cluster **** that was northern Ireland breathing life into the IRA

con___manx1 · 02-07-2018 11:55AM

I supported there attacks on crown forces but not on civillians.

whisky_galore · 02-07-2018 12:04PM

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.

Not too different from some other Western countries so? USA/France/Belgium/Italy/Germany/Holland...etc?

Donald Trump · 02-07-2018 12:05PM

whisky_galore wrote: »

Not too different from some other Western countries so? USA/France/Belgium/Italy/Germany/Holland...etc?

I blame the Greeks

They invented gayness

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2018 12:14PM

Berserker wrote: »

What would all the armchair republicans do? Mentioned before on AH but they need to have their own forum.

Maybe if you stopped trying to demean your now equals there wouldn't be any need for that.

What would the equivalent of an 'armchair republican' be...'chaise longue Loyalists'?

Feisar · 02-07-2018 12:17PM

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 · 02-07-2018 12:24PM

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.

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.

Mutant z · 02-07-2018 12:28PM

If the Brits had never ruled this country would the IRA have ever come into existence highly doubtful now that doesnt mean everything they did was right but it was the circumstances at the time and unionist dominance with the sidelining of the nationalist community who were treated like garbage in their own land which allowed the IRA to come about its as simple as that.

Zebra3 · 02-07-2018 12:32PM

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?

Hypocrisy.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2018 12:39PM

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.

Donald Trump · 02-07-2018 12:44PM

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.

Heaven kicked you out
You wouldn't wear a tie

Taytoland · 02-07-2018 12:46PM

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.

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.

archer22 · 02-07-2018 12:47PM

It seems to be forgotten, but the RUC and British army saved the lives of hundreds of Catholics as well.

And the Catholics who informed on the IRA (although villified in republican circles) also saved hundreds of lives.
It's a pity those people don't get the credit they deserve.

FrancieBrady · 02-07-2018 12:50PM

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.

corks finest · 02-07-2018 12:52PM

_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.

Easy to say,judge and comment,when one was not living in the 6 counties then

Mutant z · 02-07-2018 12:53PM

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.

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

Comments