nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

To the people who say the troubles was not a war

Harryd225

To the people who are still falling for the British propaganda line the troubles were just as if not more intense than the ''war'' of independence, the IRA were hitting right at the heart of the British establishment killing top politicians and members of the Royal family, it was routine for British politicians to check under their car with a mirror for car bombs everytime they went to drive their car.

There were at some years of the troubles 30,000 soldiers stationed in Northern Ireland making it the most militarised zone in the planet almost completely confined to the areas of the Catholic minority which makes the claim that soldiers were there to ''keep the peace'' irrelevant.

Also the British army took nearly twice as many casualties in northern Ireland in the 25 years up to the ceasefire than they lost in 20 years in Afghanistan.

Not to mention all the bombs that were taking out infrastructure regularly in England also in 1972 the IRA exploded 1800 bombs taking out infrastructure giving 30 minute warnings before the bomb went off, the war in Northern Ireland probably had the biggest impact on Britain by far since WW2.

Here is a typical day in 1972 northern Ireland I picked this because no one even died on this day.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DkK3Ff4ivkJA&ved=2ahUKEwjtsMeU_7v0AhVRTsAKHZp1BBAQwqsBegQIChAE&usg=AOvVaw0OOWHoQ0IonXdQeehON_d3

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

corner of hells

Well worth researching the judges murdered , a couple murdered attending church or bringing their kids to school.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256773#Comment_118256773

https://irishpeaceprocess.blog/

The IRA also murdered Resident Magistrate Martin McBirney, a Protestant, at his home in front of his family.



Judge Martin McBirney murdered at home in his kitchen by the IRA

He was standing in the back kitchen of his home when an IRA killer burst in and shot him dead.

Martin McBirney was a prominent member of the Northern Ireland Labour Party.

McBirney had married a Catholic and, while a barrister, had acted for the defence in civil rights’ cases and had represented socialist activist Eamon McCann.

AckwelFoley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118256773#Comment_118256773

Right thinking people don't see prison guards , politicians (as unpalatable as many are) etc as a legitimate target.

People absolutely have the right to resist British rule and they still do to this day. But that doesn't mean you're given a mandate to plant a bomb in a street in Enniskillen or Omagh or a pub in England.

Terrorism is not democracy

I abhor the actions of the British, and their history in Ireland is checkered at Best. . But I like the overwhelming majority of Irish people don't support the actions of militant Irish republicanism.

You can't murder people and call it a war. You can't murder your neighbours because you think he's a tout. You don't have that right.

Harryd225

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118255675#Comment_118255675

I didn't claim that the victims were not innocent I claimed that not all of the civilians listed as being killed by the IRA were innocent people with no part in the conflict, many were politicians, judges, prison guards any innocent civilians killed by members of the IRA was despicable, the IRA were responsible for about 25% of civilian deaths during the troubles.

You will find hardly anyone who supported SF/IRA during the troubles who would support the killing of any innocent people, the main point being in supporting the IRA is believing that the Irish people had the right to resist and fight against British rule.

facehugger99

The IRA killed more Catholics than the British Army, the UVF, the UDA or the UFF.

The IRA were not Freedom Fighters protecting the rights of Catholics.

They were scumbags, psychopaths and criminals.

They achieved absolutely nothing other than prolonging the conflict.

Thankfully in the end they were riddled with informants and were left with no option but to surrender.

Patrick2010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118255629#Comment_118255629

IRA killed more Catholics than the British army

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118255557#Comment_118255557

Unfortunately what is disparagingly called 'whataboutery' is necessary to have any understanding.

Actually many people think the British army are fantastic, that's just reality. Men who served in the North are seen as heroic in the UK, there is very strong, almost overwhelming support for murders they committed not being investigated or prosecuted. I don't know how you missed that.

There was very strong support for loyalists in certain areas too, although there's no question they were less popular than the Provos were in theirs. There are reasons why people supported the loyalist paramilitaries as well, of course.

In my experience the best people in Belfast in the 70s, when i was there, stayed away from the paramilitaries. A lot of the very soundest tried to help young people avoid them.

corner of hells

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118255629#Comment_118255629

The 600 is actually closer to 650 , I've a neighbour murdered by the IRA and a friend whose sister was murdered, neither with any connection to security forces or anything to do with terrorism .

Tell us about the Australian tourists or maybe the victims in Warrington.

AckwelFoley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118255629#Comment_118255629

You're appearing to be so ignorant it's laughable.

But of course you're not ignorant. You know well. You couldn't be as stupid as you're appearing to be

Disgusting and vile how you would remark that victims of terrorism were "not exactly innocent"

How the likes of you and your ilk can with a straight grubby face support how so countless many were made "dissappear" countless men women and children and then believe in your perverted rational that's its OK or part of some "war" never ceases to amaze me.

Now Jog off

Harryd225

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118255587#Comment_118255587

Who are their ''own people'' that you are referring to? The Ira killed about 600 civilians (which includes a vast array of people not exactly innocent) and about 1,100 soldiers and police.

Loyalists killed about 1,000 people so what are you even on about can you elaborate? Or are you just another baffoon spouting complete nonsense on a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

Only cared about their own pockets? Get a grip and stop reiterating crap from the mouth of Ryan Tubridy from the late late show <mod snip>

AckwelFoley

Unsurprised there's still a good few die-hard thick savages that support terrorism and the murder of other people

Republican terrorist scum have butchered more of their own people than any prod has. Funny thing about these child molesting diesel washing vermon is that they couldn't care less about Ireland. Their own pockets is all they care about.

And let this not be description specific to the Republican terrorist, the Loyalists are absolutely no better.

El Tarangu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250359#Comment_118250359

I don't understand your need to indulge in whataboutery, in this instance; I haven't really seen anyone on boards (or IRL) saying that either the Brits of the loyalist paramilitaries were a great bunch of lads. Whereas people say that in relation to the PIRA and their atrocities all the time.

Harryd225

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118249196#Comment_118249196

I think I get what your saying but I don't really understand the point you're trying to make, so we should be grateful about how the Brits treated us because they could have decided to treat us even worse? Is that the point here?

Should the Brits be grateful to the IRA because they could have killed far more soldiers and politicians if it wasn't for them trying to minimise civilian casualties? Should they be grateful to the IRA for not deciding to wipe out thousands of English civilians which they could have easily done if they wanted? Because that's the exact point you are making from the opposite side of the spectrum.

Your posts are quite bizarre, do you also think victims of domestic abuse should be grateful to their abuser because it could have been far worse if they wanted it to be?

[Deleted User]

The IRA gets a lot of fully deserved criticism.

Bit it shouldn’t be forgotten that the British side was quite despicable too. Here’s a case of its agents murdering Catholic children in 1994.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/12/01/news/family-of-murdered-teenager-to-sue-psni-mod-and-secretary-of-state-2523257/?fbclid=IwAR3zVPamF2ZECPetQS1THX_VLdBJRqnwlpztlh8NWr4Nw9te_DXwXUrzNZw

Again, strong criticism of the IRA is fully justified, but is important not to just leave it at that. Loyalists/UK agents deliberately killing children at play on the basis of their religious background is unforgivable. IMO it’s not that disimilar to Islamic extremism.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118241008#Comment_118241008

Mandela was listed as a terrorist up until 2008 by the US.

Shao Kahn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118244354#Comment_118244354

From an international perspective, Britain has owned the 6 counties for how many centuries now? Compare this with how long they have claimed ownership over the Falkland Islands by comparison.

Practically nobody is putting international pressure on them to give back those islands to Argentina. And they can theoretically go in as hard and heavy as they wish to protect their sovereignty. The fact they planted 1,000's of loyal Brits on the islands is a moot point, as they did this everywhere they conquered. The Argies would quite happily do the same if they ever managed to get them back. So the right to self-determination argument is a bit hollow really.

In terms of land and sovereignty disputes, it's very much a case of what you have you hold. Possession is 9 tenths of the law. Whether we like it or not, the fact that Britain has had a presence on our island for such a very long time would be viewed internationally as proof of ownership to a large degree.

You've said yourself, that much of the IRA were coming from the south. Britain and the US invaded Afghanistan because they were harboring terrorists within their borders. Who stopped them?

I stand by my point. I think the Brits could have come in far more heavy handed against us at many points throughout our history. And that's not taking away or trying to diminish any of the bad things they did do. But we were somewhat lucky to be conquered and occupied by the Brits rather than some of the far worse regimes that have existed around the world throughout human history.

Even if you look at the war of independence. At no point did the Brits commit the scale of forces that they were actually fully capable of. Even with heavy losses from WW1, Britain still had one of the largest standing armies in europe. Some of the best trained, with excellent equipment. If they wanted to, they could have easily crushed us with overwhelming military power in that war.

But instead, they had a maximum of roughly 50,000 forces here at the height of that conflict. Less than half of these were fully professional British army forces. The rest were a rag-tag assortment of disorganized and unprofessional groups like the RIC, black & tans, Auxiliaries etc.

If you think other large nations or regimes in history, would have taken the same hands off approach to quell an uprising or independence movement, you're seriously mistaken. (or just ignorant to world history)

Even in modern times, if Ukraine tried the same approach as Ireland over Crimea, there's not a hope in hell that the Russians would send in a bunch of dad's army unprofessional drunks like the black and tans to sort it out. They would go in hard and heavy with massive military strength to flatten them.

And Britain's approach back then was not a mistake either, it was an intentional strategy. They had very little desire to hold onto our island. We were lucky in that regard. Very lucky when viewed in the wider context of global history.

I don't like that we were conquered and occupied by a foreign power for hundreds of years, just like you. And I am very proud that we gained our independence, just like most Irish people. But, I think too many people have a blinkered and ill-informed view of our history with the British. There's a lot of crap that gets passed off as historical fact when it comes to our conflicts with the old enemy. It sets off my bullsh!t detector, and I cannot help reacting to it sometimes.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118248272#Comment_118248272

Logistics.

Esel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118248236#Comment_118248236

Just a food distribution problem, really...

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118248164#Comment_118248164

The Great Famine wasn’t a famine at all?

Gerry T

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118247231#Comment_118247231

I never said GB caused blight, they most likely were a contributing factor. Ireland did not have a food shortage, far from it, so hardly a famine. GB did escort the food out of Ireland and a million (approx) died. At the time we were British citizens, but obviously not as important as our English friends and Westminster. It's obviously a tender subject, so look at what GB did in India/Pakistan, again 1 million dead and 15million displaced, a GB folly.

The empire was in charge and under their watch if you weren't English it didn't look good for you, certainly not in Ireland. Genocide clear and simple, it was planned, a decision was made, ship the food to the main land and let the Irish die.

Esel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118244971#Comment_118244971

Andrew Marr absolutely nailed it a couple of years ago when he asked Gerry:

"Mr Adams, why did you never join the IRA?"

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118247185#Comment_118247185

There are still people in Ireland who can only afford the cheapest foodstuffs available. Saying the UK caused blight and that it was genocide is just partisan bolllix.

Gerry T

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118247063#Comment_118247063

GB came and conquered. It threw people from the land and setup their own landlords. Even today the UK can't produce enough food to feed its people where Ireland could do that several times over for it's own people. To simply say the Irish couldn't afford the food would not recognise the fact it was GB that placed the Irish people in that position. In 1870 only 3% of Irish farmers owned the land they worked, the rest were tenants, Ireland has always been GB's food basket. The small pieces of land left for the Irish to grow food for themselves was so small it was only crops such as potatoes that could yield a meal for the family. It was a genocide, clear and simple.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118246942#Comment_118246942

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.

Gerry T

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118243207#Comment_118243207

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.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118245804#Comment_118245804

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.

Harryd225

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118243891#Comment_118243891

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.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118243724#Comment_118243724

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.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118245542#Comment_118245542

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

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

Harryd225

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118244897#Comment_118244897

''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?