FrancieBrady wrote: » Didn't they try to at one stage?
imme wrote: » Try?
FrancieBrady wrote: » An attempt was made to use Exchequer funds to arm the IRA. Of course all and sundry washed their hands of it and the truth might never be known. Some are currently looking to have their names cleared in relation to it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Crisis
mynamejeff wrote: » your either confused , badly educated or intentionally trying to mislead are you saying the arms crisis was in relation to the provisional IRA ?
imme wrote: » Yes of course, that would have ended every problem that existed. I wasn't involved in the scheme myself. Does it come under the title contingency planning or was it a fully fledged plan to deepen the troubles.
imme wrote: » You think the Irish government should have funded the IRA
FrancieBrady wrote: » I am off the view that the Irish government was constitutionally mandated to protect Irish people at that time, having basically ignored the plight of Catholics and nationalists since partition. That view leads me to believe that the Irish government created the vacuum into which the IRA was always going to step. Not a popular view among those who preferred the doff the hat and carry on ignoring approach, but there you have our tragedy.
imme wrote: » The constitution also said and still says that women should be chained to the kitchen sink. Does that make it so. What should Free State/ROI have done since the establishment of NI.? Fought NI? That seems to be what you're suggesting. That would have been a weird continuation of the war of independence.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You have my view...I don't think that the Irish government should have stood idly by. Some of the government thought the way to do it was to arm the IRA. I.E. They all knew the IRA would come into the picture, some of them even wanted that. By doing nothing they allowed it to happen. Had they taken the lead in protecting those calling for protection the IRA would have stayed the fringe group they were at that time.
imme wrote: » That sounds like an international conflict to me. What about the 1920's, the 1930's etc should Free State/ROI have stood idly by as you say. Your reading of the Arms Crisis /Arms Trial is your own particular reading of it. Physical conflict seems to be the only solution here with many contributors.
blanch152 wrote: » It could be in this thread or perhaps the Northern Ireland one where an elaborate and fantastical case is made for the invasion of the UK by the Irish Army in 1969, and that, wait for it, the UN (unvetoed by the UK!) would step in and provide protection. Oh, and the Russians and Chinese wouldn't exploit it and that a nuclear power in the middle of the cold war would allow part of their country to be taken over. Best not to get into the discussion.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Physical contact should be avoided at all costs. But it can't always be and fear of it can not excuse doing nothing. Not interested getting into this further tbh. Been there done that before on here.
mynamejeff wrote: » this is a clear lie there was a meeting between government members and members of the Offical ira the provo scum that sf support are unconnected and barely existed if at all at the time
Solutionking wrote: » Well that is a lot of rubbish which is incorrect on so many levels. Do people actually believe this rubbish?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Oh please, I never supported the IRA but the 'Good 'RA' and the 'Bad 'RA' only works for viewers of a Netflix cheapo film on the subject.
Solutionking wrote: » A quick review of your posts and you ain't fooling anyone. You glorify what the PIRA got up to.
mynamejeff wrote: » your posting history aside this new assertation that the use of the name IRA refers to the same organisation since its inception displays frankly a childish level of misunderstanding besides its been discussed in this thread and many others of which you were apart , I expected more from you tbh
FrancieBrady wrote: » What are you on about Jeff? Members of the Irish government made attempts to arm the IRA with taxpayers money...true or false? It's true. TO save you some time. That is what I said. I never referred to different versions of the IRA.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I'll tell you what was incorrect: 1. Recognising that people needed protection. 2. Assessing ways of giving that protection. 3. Publicly announcing that we wouldn't stand idly by. 4. Doing nothing at all for a finish. 5. Whinging when somebody did step in to do the job you recognised needed doing.
mynamejeff wrote: » im sure everyone else can figure it out which ira do you want me to answer about ? or are you saying there is only one ?
FrancieBrady wrote: » The IRA the Irish government tried to arm. That would be the IRA that split in two over abstentionism. I think the one that emerged still holding abstentionism as a core principle would be the one that could rightly claim to be the legitimate titleholder, regardless of what you think of them.
mynamejeff wrote: » so not the provos then , not the Gerry Adams MLM Story group , and nothing to do with them , so your claim is again debunked your diversion attempt has bought you two pages of leeway though lol
Deleted User wrote: » Where is the difference though.....virtually all anti-treaty old ira in my area,went on to endorse the provos?? Wasnt the last remaining WOI vetern a raging dissident,who retained support for militant republicanism well into his 2nd century?
