Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

To the people who say the troubles was not a war

2456712

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    See this is more fanciful uneducated rubbish, the old IRA killed far more civilians percentage wise than the provos did and maybe more civilians altogether (it's hard to be exact on the numbers).

    The old IRA only managed to kill about 240 British soldiers in the whole of Ireland while the provos killed more than that in just 6 counties in the same amount of time 72-74.

    The IRA exploded 1800 bombs in 1972 on economic targets almost all of these had no casualties due to 30 minute warnings but on bloody Friday the IRA made a huge mistake and placed too many bombs and the security forces couldn't completely clear the areas in time.



  • Posts: 14,769 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You list off this stuff like killing and maiming is justifiable and something to be proud of. It isn’t, and it’s sickening.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    Ridiculous statement, this country celebrates the old IRA who killed hundreds of civilians men, women and children a far higher percentage of people killed by the old IRA were civilian deaths compared to the PIRA.

    Then you have uneducated people like you who make ridiculous statements like this due to lack of knowledge and romantic views of the past simply because civilian deaths by the old IRA are not shoved down our throats in the media every couple of days in an attempt to hurt Sinn Féin.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,031 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Are you seriously arguing "Well, a lot of the bombs we planted against civilian targets don't count because we warned them?" or "It's OK that we killed more civilians, because we killed more soldiers?"

    The practical difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism is the choice of target. There are no exceptions for 'proportions' or 'warnings.' If you can't understand that, there's little wonder you don't understand why the campaigns had little popular support. And if 21 July 1972 (22 bombs) was a mistake, what was 14 April 1972 (24 bombs). An accident?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,044 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Of course the "troubles" were a war.

    You have conflicting sides in a period of combat. That's what you call a war. There may be very unsavoury aspects to it, but I cannot recall any conflict where such a thing doesn't exist.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 188 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    What difference if it was a 'war', 'insurrection' or 'terrorist campaign' ...?

    People died. There were wrongs on both sides - the ONLY positive thing to come out of it is that it is now in the past. Leave it there and stop trying to claim the moral high ground. There isn't any.

    Learn the lessons and move on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 468 ✭✭Shao Kahn


    If the British leadership had treated the troubles as an actual "war" in the true sense, they could have easily just carpet bombed our entire island into oblivion within a few weeks. They could have easily wiped out our entire population at various points throughout history.

    As much as we might complain about the Brits, and with justification in some respects, there were actually far worse empires that could have conquered our country in world history. Brutal ruthless dictatorships, that showed zero humanity towards anyone who got in their way.

    We benefited from the fact that the Brits did like to see themselves as being somewhat civilized in how they conducted themselves. You could argue just how civilized some of their leaders and soldiers were in many instances, of course, as they did commit some atrocities without question.

    But there have been many examples of genocides involving millions of people in different parts of the world. And the Brits could very easily have done the same to our small population if they wanted to.

    "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives, and it puts itself into our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." (John Wayne)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,999 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    This is bizarre, because there was trouble in Northern Ireland the Brits could have bombed the republic? Just how do you think the rest of Europe would have reacted if they bombed a neighbouring country due to troubles in their own country?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 468 ✭✭Shao Kahn


    There is many examples throughout world history.

    Even the fact that they gave us back the 26 counties, they didn't have to do that. They could have crushed any rebellion with overwhelming military force if they wanted to. (as many other nations have in the past)

    Even recently, Russia annexed Crimea without any major power stepping in to stop them. Many nations wagged their finger and condemned Russia, but nobody actually stepped in and stopped them.

    In all likelihood, China could grab Taiwan tomorrow morning, and kill millions of their people in the process. Most likely the rest of the world will just wag their finger at China, and say "naughty boy, that's very bold"... and do very little else about it.

    The Brits could have wiped us out at many points in our history. There's no question about that.

    "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives, and it puts itself into our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." (John Wayne)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    Well this is a good laugh, the Brits should also be saying the same thing then about the IRA, the Manchester bomb in 1996 or the docklands bomb could have killed thousands of civilians if warnings were not given or how about the other thousands of bombs that went off that the IRA gave warnings for.

    What kind of childish moronic post is this? It's like saying why don't the Americans just nuke the **** out of Iraq or Afghanistan and how great and civilised they are for having not done so.

    According to your logic we should all be very thankful to the IRA for not wiping out thousands of English civilians just because they could have done.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    So there you have it folks, the war of independence is officially a terrorist campaign.

    How exactly do you mean? The overwhelming majority of IRA targets were security forces (70%) far higher than their predecessor of the old IRA, for guerrilla armies them statistics are as good as good as it gets.

    So you're telling me as soon as a guerrilla army kills or targets a civilian they become terrorists? So basically there an no Guerilla armies ever in history? All terrorists?



  • Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭ Jaelynn Little Timer


    Sinn Féin the political wing of the IRA which is now the most popular party both north and south of the border.


    are they? since when? Is that why they’re not in government and probably never will be? 😂



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    According to literally every single poll Sinn Féin are the most popular party both North and South by far, they got the most votes in the last election but the next election they are going to have so many votes there will be no way that they can be kept out of government.

    Have you been living in a cave the last few months? Have you not seen the polls?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 468 ✭✭Shao Kahn


    Just giving you a dose of reality.

    Britain didn't have to give back any of our country. Nobody internationally would have stepped in to force their hand in that regard. And IRA bombing campaigns would not have stopped them, if they were determined enough to keep the 26 counties.

    They chose to give them back, just like they chose NOT to give back the 6 counties.

    If Hong Kong or Taiwan or Ukraine tried something similar, what would happen to them? Tanks would roll through the streets and many people would be killed. Like I said, there are many examples in history of uprisings and rebellions being crushed much more ruthlessly than anything the Brits did on our island.

    You think bloody sunday was bad? Look at what other nations and armies did in other parts of the world. Mass genocide of millions of people.

    You have far too high an opinion of the IRA or their capabilities to wage any sort of war against a large nation. If they were killing 1,000's of civilians on mainland Britain, that would be a green light for the Brits to invade the whole island and stamp everything out. They could have done this easily at many points in history.

    Many republicans are very wide-eyed and simple when it comes to their view of history and particularly global history. We are actually very lucky that the Brits mostly tip-toed around us for much of their occupation. Very lucky indeed, as many smaller nations have been flattened ruthlessly by bigger nations throughout history.

    "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives, and it puts itself into our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." (John Wayne)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,466 ✭✭✭landofthetree


    If it was a war the IRA lost.

    Almost 30 years after surrender no UI.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    Is anyone actually seeing what I'm seeing here? We should be thankful to the Brits for not commiting genocide against us all these years?

    As I said before childish point of view It's like saying why don't the Americans just nuke the **** out of Iraq or Afghanistan and how great and civilised they are for having not done so.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 468 ✭✭Shao Kahn


    I never said anything about thanking the Brits.

    Obviously it would have been better if we weren't occupied by a foreign power. But yes, there are many examples in history of far worse nations that we could have been occupied by.

    You're making my point by highlighting America in the middle east. Look at what they did to Japanese civilians in WW2. Look at what Britain and America did to Dresden in WW2 - carpet and fire bombing, killing 25,000 civilians.

    What was stopping Britain from doing similar things to us throughout history? Plenty of empires did far worse to small nations.

    The reality is that the Brits never really saw us as their enemy. More like an annoying torn in their side, who wouldn't keep quiet and play ball. And just like America in the middle east, they cared about their public image globally. They didn't want to be seen as some uncivilized savages who just wipe out millions in a genocide.

    This need to be perceived as very civilized and sophisticated, actually spared our population from suffering some of the worst consequences that could have befallen us. Like what the Nazis did to the Jews in WW2, for example. The Brits could very easily have done the same to us. Or like the millions of people that Stalin murdered and used to build the foundations for roads in siberia.

    So in a sense, yes we were actually somewhat fortunate when you look at things in a global historical context.

    "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives, and it puts itself into our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." (John Wayne)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    Does the OP consider the lads that murdered all those people watching a rock show in Paris, or the other chaps that blew themselves up in the metro station beneath the building where I work to be invovled in a "war", too?

    Or does murdering civilians only count as a "war" when it is done by people he agrees with?

    TIA



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    So now you've gone to comparing WW2 (the biggest war in the history of the world) when the enemy was literally wanting to take over Britain and put them under occupation, to a small armed group fighting a Guerilla war to get 6 counties of their nation back? Clutching at straws here a bit now aren't we? Obviously more drastic action would be justified in those circumstances.

    At the end of the day all sides of war generally have some sort of ''decency'' if you can call it that, even if the Brits did decide to just carpet bomb Catholic areas into oblivion which realistically wouldn't have worked as at least half of the IRA didn't even live in Northern Ireland and came from across the border to launch attacks and if they decided to carpet bomb the Republic as well which was a member of the EU there would have been massive consequences.

    At the end of the day the IRA acted with some sort of restraint as did the British maybe for moral reasons or more likely because of far reaching consequences for their actions, both sides could have bombed civilians into oblivion but they didn't, that does not mean either side should be ''thankful''

    You seem to also be forgetting consequences to actions, if they did decide to do that what do you think would have happened?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,681 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    The Troubles is just a fancy way of saying a British Civil War. Since technically it's in their country.


    Glad that sh1te is behind us.

    Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 14,769 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Totally agree, it’s a UK problem with a UK solution. Nothing to do with us south of the border, both sides can **** off and keep their problems to themselves.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭TheW1zard


    Gerry Adams was never in the IRA



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    ''nothing to do with us South of the border'' ignoring that most of the IRA were from South of the border including the whole leadership in the first few years of the troubles and that during the troubles Northern Ireland was disputed territory claimed by both the UK and Republic of Ireland.

    The partionists are out in force today, who is this ''us'' you are referring to?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭Sunny Disposition


    This is the kind of argument you got in the 80s, about the validity of the IRA and the comparison with the War of Independence.


    The big difference is legitimacy. The old IRA were entirely legitimate, the support for independence from the UK was overwhelming and was reflected in the support for Sinn Féin in the 1918 general election.


    The Provos never had anything like the support SF had. There was anger at the State and a certain understanding of how it started, but relatively little support.

    SF probably wouldn't want to admit it, but the fact the Troubles went on so long has delayed reunification. If it happens within ten years it'll be troublesome almost exclusively because of the residual bitterness left by that campaign.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭Sunny Disposition


    Now, I don't sympathise with the IRA, I genuinely don't and think the campaign was appalling, but I don't think they can be sensibly equated with Muslim extremists. In fact doing that is so stupid it could give the Provos a credibility they don't deserve.

    The Provos killed civilians, but that was generally what is called "collateral damage" in conventional war. Not defending what they did, because I abhor it, but it is necessary to keep the condemnation sensible.

    Some of the atrocities by the IPLO and the loyalist paramilitaries are quite comparable with the Muslim extremists though, those groups killed civilians solely because of their religion.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,031 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Yet again, you have completely chosen to miss the point of the type of target and talk instead about numbers, an argument to be soundly rejected, as if war is just a numbers game.

    The civilians targeted by the IRA in the War of Independence generally had some connection to the 'occupying power'. They worked for the enemy as spies, government officials, and the like. Such an argument would not fly under today's laws of war, but it would be unfair to apply them to the 1920s before modern sensibilities existed. There is no such nexus, even under 'old' principles, for many of the targets of the PIRA bombing campaign of the 1970s-1990s.

    Attack an Army border post? Sure. Snipe at soldiers? OK. Lob mortars at #10 Downing Street? Why not? Leave a bomb in a pub? Shopping center? Gas station? There you go from being a guerilla warrior to becoming a terrorist.

    Sorry, but "collateral damage" are civilians killed when you're trying to hit a legitimate target and they get caught up in it. When the civilians are the target, it's no longer collateral, by definition. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collateral%20damage#:~:text=Definition%20of%20collateral%20damage,casualties%20of%20a%20military%20operation



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    The UDA was a legal organisation until 1992 even though for 20 years it was deeply embroiled in sectarian murder, arson, extortion and blackmail. Under pressure from nationalists and the Irish government, Sir Patrick Mayhew, the then Northern Ireland Secretary, eventually outlawed the organisation.

    It's said the UDA was made up almost entirely of British/agents informers, during the Stevens Inquiry (an official British government inquiry set up to investigate collusion due to overwhelming international pressure) Stevens arrested 210 top ranking UDA members all but 4 of them were agents/informers, Stevens claimed ten years later that the British government and MI5 had no intention of letting him investigate collusion and investigation was merely a propaganda piece, Stevens later claimed his offices were burnt down by the FRU and MI5 though this was never proven.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭Sunny Disposition


    I know.

    Collateral damage is a terrible phrase, but it's as justifiable for most of the IRA civilian victims as for civilians killed in Iraq. The IRA usually sought to attack what it considered military or economic targets. I abhor that they did so, but it was their approach. The Irish People's Liberation Organisation and various loyalist groups targeted people by their religion solely, and deliberately sought to kill civilians. That's why I feel the Muslim extremist comparison is more suited to them. But the Provos were still despicable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    But the Brits did, the famine was a genocide. Over 1million killed while the English increased army numbers to protect the food exports to GB. it was a potato blight, but otherwise Ireland during those yrs was full of food. We should rename it to the great genocide.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 14,769 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The people were able to afford the beef, pork etc being exported? The reason of course why so many died was that there was an over reliance on the cheap and plentiful potatoes, when blight occurred, people’s main food source was no longer available. To call that genocide is a stretch.



Advertisement