Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

KeithAFC · 09-12-2011 6:21pm

Some one said there was little Republican violence before 1972 and I posted a link which proved otherwise. I got no answer to it.

trendyvicar · 09-12-2011 6:43pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Some one said there was little Republican violence before 1972 and I posted a link which proved otherwise. I got no answer to it.

There was almost 250 killings prior to Bloody Sunday (Jan 72). The majority were carried out by Republicans.

Sunnyisland · 09-12-2011 7:58pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Some one said there was little Republican violence before 1972 and I posted a link which proved otherwise. I got no answer to it.

This would be after the 21 May 1966,when the UVF issued a statement:

From this day, we declare war against the IRA and its splinter groups. Known IRA men will be executed mercilessly and without hesitation. Less extreme measures will be taken against anyone sheltering or helping them, but if they persist in giving them aid, then more extreme methods will be adopted . . . we solemnly warn the authorities to make no more speeches of appeasement. We are heavily armed Protestants dedicated to this cause.

On 11 June 1966, the UVF shot and killed Catholic store owner John Patrick Scullion in west Belfast. On 26 June 1966, another UVF gun attack in west Belfast killed Catholic barman Peter Ward and seriously injured three others. On 30 March 1969 a UVF bomb exploded at an electricity station in castlereagh, resulting in widespread black-outs. A further five bombs were exploded at electricity stations and water pipelines throughout April.It was hoped that these attacks would be blamed on the IRA, forcing moderate unionists to increase their opposition to the reforms of terence o neills government etc etc

You also said this keithAFC

Its an interesting discussion. I think neither side will fully agree on the Troubles and the context of it.

And with that I am out of this one

KeithAFC · 09-12-2011 8:29pm

realies wrote: »

This would be after the 21 May 1966,when the UVF issued a statement:
From this day, we declare war against the IRA and its splinter groups. Known IRA men will be executed mercilessly and without hesitation. Less extreme measures will be taken against anyone sheltering or helping them, but if they persist in giving them aid, then more extreme methods will be adopted . . . we solemnly warn the authorities to make no more speeches of appeasement. We are heavily armed Protestants dedicated to this cause.
On 11 June 1966, the UVF shot and killed Catholic store owner John Patrick Scullion in west Belfast. On 26 June 1966, another UVF gun attack in west Belfast killed Catholic barman Peter Ward and seriously injured three others. On 30 March 1969 a UVF bomb exploded at an electricity station in castlereagh, resulting in widespread black-outs. A further five bombs were exploded at electricity stations and water pipelines throughout April.It was hoped that these attacks would be blamed on the IRA, forcing moderate unionists to increase their opposition to the reforms of terence o neills government etc etc

You also said this keithAFC

Its an interesting discussion. I think neither side will fully agree on the Troubles and the context of it.

And with that I am out of this one

I think you missed my point in regards to the Republican killings before 72.

Sunnyisland · 09-12-2011 8:43pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think you missed my point in regards to the Republican killings before 72.

Ok you explain to me what you mean.

trendyvicar · 09-12-2011 8:58pm

realies wrote: »

This would be after the 21 May 1966,when the UVF issued a statement:
From this day, we declare war against the IRA and its splinter groups. Known IRA men will be executed mercilessly and without hesitation. Less extreme measures will be taken against anyone sheltering or helping them, but if they persist in giving them aid, then more extreme methods will be adopted . . . we solemnly warn the authorities to make no more speeches of appeasement. We are heavily armed Protestants dedicated to this cause.
On 11 June 1966, the UVF shot and killed Catholic store owner John Patrick Scullion in west Belfast. On 26 June 1966, another UVF gun attack in west Belfast killed Catholic barman Peter Ward and seriously injured three others. On 30 March 1969 a UVF bomb exploded at an electricity station in castlereagh, resulting in widespread black-outs. A further five bombs were exploded at electricity stations and water pipelines throughout April.It was hoped that these attacks would be blamed on the IRA, forcing moderate unionists to increase their opposition to the reforms of terence o neillsgovernment etc etc

You also said this keithAFC

Its an interesting discussion. I think neither side will fully agree on the Troubles and the context of it.

And with that I am out of this one

Wasn't there Republican violence in every decade of NI's existence? Including the 'border campaign' which preceded The UVF campaign of '66?

Sunnyisland · 09-12-2011 9:14pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Wasn't there Republican violence in every decade of NI's existence? Including the 'border campaign' which preceded The UVF campaign of '66?

There were IRA campaigns in the 1920s, 1940s and 1950s But Throughout the centuries, insurrections and rebellions by the native Irish against British rule have been common .

irishh_bob · 09-12-2011 10:10pm

realies wrote: »

There were IRA campaigns in the 1920s, 1940s and 1950s But Throughout the centuries, insurrections and rebellions by the native Irish against British rule have been common .

yet the vicar claims the irish were handled ( in his words ) with kid gloves by the empire , no mass graves like featured in other countries where the natives and lower orders caused trouble , what could possibley make the peasants want to revolt :rolleyes:

trendyvicar · 09-12-2011 10:18pm

irishh_bob wrote: »

yet the vicar claims the irish were handled ( in his words ) with kid gloves by the empire , no mass graves like featured in other countries where the natives and lower orders caused trouble , what could possibley make the peasants want to revolt :rolleyes:

I was talking about during 'the troubles', not the twelfth century.

Chuck Stone · 09-12-2011 10:21pm

realies wrote: »

This would be after the 21 May 1966,when the UVF issued a statement:
From this day, we declare war against the IRA and its splinter groups. Known IRA men will be executed mercilessly and without hesitation. Less extreme measures will be taken against anyone sheltering or helping them, but if they persist in giving them aid, then more extreme methods will be adopted . . . we solemnly warn the authorities to make no more speeches of appeasement. We are heavily armed Protestants dedicated to this cause.
On 11 June 1966, the UVF shot and killed Catholic store owner John Patrick Scullion in west Belfast. On 26 June 1966, another UVF gun attack in west Belfast killed Catholic barman Peter Ward and seriously injured three others. On 30 March 1969 a UVF bomb exploded at an electricity station in castlereagh, resulting in widespread black-outs. A further five bombs were exploded at electricity stations and water pipelines throughout April.It was hoped that these attacks would be blamed on the IRA, forcing moderate unionists to increase their opposition to the reforms of terence o neills government etc etc

You also said this keithAFC

Its an interesting discussion. I think neither side will fully agree on the Troubles and the context of it.

And with that I am out of this one

Then the first year of the CAIN stats paints this picture.

14 July 1969 Francis McCloskey (67) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Died one day after being hit on head with batons during street disturbances, Dungiven, County Derry.

17 July 1969 Samuel Devenny (42) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Died three months after being badly beaten in his home, William Street, Bogside, Derry. He was injured on 19 April 1969.

14 August 1969 John Gallagher (30) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Ulster Special Constabulary (USC)
Shot during street disturbances, Cathedral Road, Armagh.

14 August 1969 Patrick Rooney (9) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Shot at his home, during nearby street disturbances, St Brendan's Path, Divis Flats, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Herbert Roy (26) Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: non-specific Republican group (REP)
Shot while part of Loyalist crowd, during street disturbances, corner of Divis Street and Dover Street, Lower Falls, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Hugh McCabe (20) Catholic
Status: British Army (BA), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
On leave. Shot during street disturbances while on the roof of Whitehall Block, Divis Flats, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Samuel McLarnon (27) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Shot at his home during nearby street disturbances, Herbert Street, Ardoyne, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Michael Lynch (28) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Shot during street disturbances, Butler Street, Ardoyne, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Gerald McAuley (15) Catholic
Status: Irish Republican Army Youth Section (IRAF), Killed by: non-specific Loyalist group (LOY)
Shot during street disturbances, Bombay Street, Falls, Belfast.

15 August 1969 David Linton (48) Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: non-specific Republican group (REP)
Shot during street disturbances at the junction of Palmer Street and Crumlin Road, Belfast.

08 September 1969 John Todd (29) Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: non-specific Republican group (REP)
Shot during street disturbances, Alloa Street, Lower Oldpark, Belfast.

11 October 1969 Herbert Hawe (32) Protestant
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: British Army (BA)
Shot during street disturbances, Hopeton Street, Shankill, Belfast.

01 December 1969 Patrick Corry (61) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Died four months after being hit on the head with batons, during altercation between local people and Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) patrol, Unity Flats, off Upper Library Street, Belfast. Injured on 2nd August 1969.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1969.html

But of course these deaths were just the 'security forces' trying to keep the two sides apart.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

irishh_bob · 09-12-2011 10:43pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

I was talking about during 'the troubles', not the twelfth century.

you referenced other parts of the empire where rebellions were put down using much greater force , presumabley india , , parts of africa etc , its interesting to read posts from people like yourself on boards , racial supremacists and imperilists are rare nowadays and you wear your disdain for percieved inferior ( tribes as you put it ) peoples with such pride , your not a phoney , your the real deal in terms of haters

trendyvicar · 09-12-2011 11:14pm

irishh_bob wrote: »

you referenced other parts of the empire where rebellions were put down using much greater force , presumabley india , , parts of africa etc , its interesting to read posts from people like yourself on boards , racial supremacists and imperilists are rare nowadays and you wear your disdain for percieved inferior ( tribes as you put it ) peoples with such pride , your not a phoney , your the real deal in terms of haters

Show me where I referenced The British Empire regarding rebellions etc. I only recall referencing assorted nations in recent years dealing with insurgencies.

As for imperialists being rare - I guess it depends on what you mean by imperialist.

irishh_bob · 09-12-2011 11:33pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Show me where I referenced The British Empire regarding rebellions etc. I only recall referencing assorted nations in recent years dealing with insurgencies.

As for imperialists being rare - I guess it depends on what you mean by imperialist.

page 23

post 343

trendyvicar · 09-12-2011 11:58pm

irishh_bob wrote: »

page 23

post 343

Nope. Quote the exact bit concerned.

Zombrex · 10-12-2011 2:19pm

K-9 wrote: »

I don't support the IRA, would have supported Hume always.

I'd agree that any military power should be accountable to civilian oversight, in principle, but how does that work in a guerilla style warfare situation? In NI or say Libya?

With difficulty I would say, depending on the circumstances.

Libya recognised the need for civilian over sight from the start, forming the NTC very early on in the civil war. While the rebel forces did seem to carry out war crimes (such as mass executions) I think the NTC provided a high level of control on the excesses of the rebel forces, and provided an international political face to the rebels.

K-9 wrote: »

As for democratic mandate, the 1916 Rising had no majority support but the War of Independence did through the 1918 election and the first Dail, yet it wasn't recognised internationally. Was the War of Independence acceptable to you?

Yes (the war of independence not the rising). Being recognized internationally, while good, is not as necessary as being recognized in the country you claim to represent.

trendyvicar · 10-12-2011 3:24pm

A democratic mandate for military action can be seen as desirable, but what is more important is that any military action follows the recognised rules of war such as wearing uniforms, openly displaying weapons, taking prisoners and treating them well, being careful to avoid civilian casualties, not using civilians as cover for operations, not co-opting civilians into military support roles, etc, etc, etc.

Democracy is a relatively new phenomena.

Zombrex · 10-12-2011 5:52pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

A democratic mandate for military action can be seen as desirable, but what is more important is that any military action follows the recognised rules of war such as wearing uniforms, openly displaying weapons, taking prisoners and treating them well, being careful to avoid civilian casualties, not using civilians as cover for operations, not co-opting civilians into military support roles, etc, etc, etc.

Democracy is a relatively new phenomena.

I would disagree. I think those things are important, but ultimately the biggest question is what mandate does any act of violence have.

You can dress up in a uniform, call yourself an army, follow all the rules of war etc, but unless you have legitimate authority to act in the manner you are acting it is all for naught

K-9 · 10-12-2011 5:55pm

Zombrex wrote: »

With difficulty I would say, depending on the circumstances.

Libya recognised the need for civilian over sight from the start, forming the NTC very early on in the civil war. While the rebel forces did seem to carry out war crimes (such as mass executions) I think the NTC provided a high level of control on the excesses of the rebel forces, and provided an international political face to the rebels.

It'll be interesting to see if any charges are brought against the rebels. I suppose the other side is that it seems rare that a conviction is brought against British Army or police forces involved in say, Bloody Sunday, so much for accountability there. I don't like Adams or whoever calling for some investigations when they really have immunity from investigations into some of their activities. So I suppose, people either accept terrible things happened and get on with it or have investigations on all sides, not an a la carte approach.

Yes (the war of independence not the rising). Being recognized internationally, while good, is not as necessary as being recognized in the country you claim to represent.

Which means that you are condoning 1916 to an extent as it eventually led to the War of Independence and democratic improvement. IIRC elections were delayed because of the war and large sections of society who couldn't vote now could, over 21 males and over 30 women.

laoch na mona · 10-12-2011 5:56pm

Zombrex wrote: »

I would disagree. I think those things are important, but ultimately the biggest question is what mandate does any act of violence have.

You can dress up in a uniform, call yourself an army, follow all the rules of war etc, but unless you have legitimate authority to act in the manner you are acting it is all for naught

self defense is a strong mandate

trendyvicar · 10-12-2011 6:12pm

Zombrex wrote: »

I would disagree. I think those things are important, but ultimately the biggest question is what mandate does any act of violence have.

You can dress up in a uniform, call yourself an army, follow all the rules of war etc, but unless you have legitimate authority to act in the manner you are acting it is all for naught

I see what you mean.

Of course PIRA had no democratic mandate, as the vast majority of those living in NI opposed their campaign. They also spat on the recognised rules of war.

Oh dear.

trendyvicar · 10-12-2011 6:18pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

self defense is a strong mandate

It is indeed and Loyalist paramilitaries offered it as one of the reasons for their existence.

Of course, most people see self defence as an immediate and reactive thing - but then again states take pre-emptive action and claim self defence, so...

laoch na mona · 10-12-2011 6:22pm

loyalists were never attacked by the police

irishh_bob · 10-12-2011 7:11pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

I see what you mean.

Of course PIRA had no democratic mandate, as the vast majority of those living in NI opposed their campaign. They also spat on the recognised rules of war.

Oh dear.

most people ( even opressed peoples ) dont have the stomach for violent conflict , the rebels of 1916 didnt have the support of the irish people at first or at least not the majority of them yet in time most people came to realise that someone had to strike a blow for the downtrodden , movements always start off being dismissed as a rag tag bunch of troublemakers by the apathetic majority , same the world over

trendyvicar · 10-12-2011 7:26pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

loyalists were never attacked by the police

I'm not sure about that. In any case 10 000+ of them ended up in prison. What about that for a kick in the teeth? LOL

trendyvicar · 10-12-2011 7:32pm

irishh_bob wrote: »

most people ( even opressed peoples ) dont have the stomach for violent conflict , the rebels of 1916 didnt have the support of the irish people at first or at least not the majority of them yet in time most people came to realise that someone had to strike a blow for the downtrodden , movements always start off being dismissed as a rag tag bunch of troublemakers by the apathetic majority , same the world over

Oh, I agree. History shows that majorities don't generally change history, minorities (particularly violent ones) do. Doesn't make it right though and shows how inadequate and imperfect democracy is.

A common technique is for those with a minority political view to hijack a political party that has popular support and get their cause promoted that way.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 10-12-2011 8:07pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

A democratic mandate for military action can be seen as desirable, but what is more important is that any military action follows the recognised rules of war such as wearing uniforms, openly displaying weapons, taking prisoners and treating them well, being careful to avoid civilian casualties, not using civilians as cover for operations, not co-opting civilians into military support roles, etc, etc, etc.

Democracy is a relatively new phenomena.

That essentially means the ones with the bigger guns/army will always stay in power no matter how rotten the regime is.

Were it not for nato Gaddafi would still be in power in Libya. They were the only reason the ntc could somewhat adhere to those rules. Had nato not supported them their only option would have been a similar campaign to the IRA.

Would that have made the uprising less legitimate? Seems illogical to me.

KeithAFC · 10-12-2011 8:18pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

loyalists were never attacked by the police

Loyalist communities got bombed by the PIRA and the UDA got set up and so on.

trendyvicar · 10-12-2011 9:57pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That essentially means the ones with the bigger guns/army will always stay in power no matter how rotten the regime is.

Were it not for nato Gaddafi would still be in power in Libya. They were the only reason the ntc could somewhat adhere to those rules. Had nato not supported them their only option would have been a similar campaign to the IRA.

Would that have made the uprising less legitimate? Seems illogical to me.

Of course, in some ways you are right. The option of clandestine insurrectionary violence is always an alternative. But remember, if you follow that path, as The IRA did, then there is always a price to pay. Unfortunately, the price is paid by the revolutionary's host community. The state may find it too difficult to kill the terrorist fish, so instead they may decide to poison the water in which said fish swim - the terrorist's host community. The responsibility lies with the revolutionary who rejected the rules of war.

In the case of NI, The UK State was very fortunate in having available Loyalist paramilitaries prepared to operate independently of The State. This has, of course, happened elsewhere, as in Iraq, with the Shiite death squads. Generally though, The State must provide it's own counter-revolutionary forces, as in central and south America in years past.

The IRA did not so much die for the nationalist community, as insure the nationalist community died for them. Strangely, said community still votes for them.

irishh_bob · 10-12-2011 10:07pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Of course, in some ways you are right. The option of clandestine insurrectionary violence is always an alternative. But remember, if you follow that path, as The IRA did, then there is always a price to pay. Unfortunately, the price is paid by the revolutionary's host community. The state may find it too difficult to kill the terrorist fish, so instead they may decide to poison the water in which said fish swim - the terrorist's host community. The responsibility lies with the revolutionary who rejected the rules of war.

In the case of NI, The UK State was very fortunate in having available Loyalist paramilitaries prepared to operate independently of The State. This has, of course, happened elsewhere, as in Iraq, with the Shiite death squads. Generally though, The State must provide it's own counter-revolutionary forces, as in central and south America in years past.

The IRA did not so much die for the nationalist community, as insure the nationalist community died for them. Strangely, said community still votes for them.

you have it arseways , you seem to believe the nationalist community suffered as a result of the IRA movement when in fact the IRA movement was a result of nationalist suffering

trendyvicar · 10-12-2011 10:33pm

irishh_bob wrote: »

you have it arseways , you seem to believe the nationalist community suffered as a result of the IRA movement when in fact the IRA movement was a result of nationalist suffering

The IRA movement (as you call it) may or may not have been as a result of Nationalist suffering, but that's not the point. The actual widespread slaughter of Nationalists was as a result of The IRA campaign.

Exile 1798 · 11-12-2011 8:10am

It’s good to have you back futurehope/historybuff.

KeithAFC · 11-12-2011 12:41pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

The IRA movement (as you call it) may or may not have been as a result of Nationalist suffering, but that's not the point. The actual widespread slaughter of Nationalists was as a result of The IRA campaign.

Good point. That is exactly what the PIRA did. They made the nationalist people suffer.

trendyvicar · 11-12-2011 1:18pm

The IRA made a fundamental strategic mistake in that they failed to distinguish between an operating environment in which they had at least the passive support of the majority of the population (as in The Irish War of Independence) and one in which they had only (at least) the passive support of a third of the population, as in Northern Ireland. Worse than that, within Northern Ireland they were aggressively opposed by two thirds of the population, who not only hated their methods, but also despised their goals. This was a recipe for disaster.

Fundamentally, of course, it came down to The IRA not having a majority mandate within Northern Ireland - in other words they failed the democratic test.

Tragically for Irish Nationalism, The IRA's campaign solidified Unionist opposition to any form of United Ireland, something that is unlikely to disappear anytime soon, if ever. Not only did The IRA fail to deliver Irish Unity, but they completely queered the pitch for moderate, non-violent Nationalism. No amount of votes on The Falls Road, or limited electoral success in The Irish Republic will change this reality.

Even better, from a Unionist point of view, is that SF continues to celebrate PIRA 'martyrs' and engages in other 'tribalistic' behaviour, continuously reminding Unionists of what they believe and why. This process is aided by rejectionist Republicans continuing to engage in violence.

Zombrex · 11-12-2011 1:43pm

K-9 wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see if any charges are brought against the rebels.

It will be, but we also shouldn't under-estimate how much didn't happen because of the existence of the NTC. It is not just punishing war crimes after the fact, civilian oversight of armies also stop them from happening in the first place.

K-9 wrote: »

Which means that you are condoning 1916 to an extent as it eventually led to the War of Independence and democratic improvement.

Not sure what you mean. Historical events lead to other historical events, that is just the nature of human interactions. You don't condone all events leading up to something by supporting that something.

If you did you would be condoning Gaddafi's brutal oppression for 40 years by supporting the Libyan rebels.

I don't condone the 1916 rebels (who had no democratic mandate for the rising, nor even popular support), nor the British response which was disproportionate and inconsiderate with view of civilians.

Zombrex · 11-12-2011 1:47pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

self defense is a strong mandate

Self defense is a justification for giving someone a mandate. So a group of people might give a mandate to a milita to protect them from outside raiders (say in 19th century America).

The Irish Army is largely only has a self defense mandate from the Irish people, who have traditionally rejected the notion of offensive action by the Irish Army.

So yes self defense can produce a very strong mandate. But you still require the actual mandate.

Do you understand what mandate means? It is power granted to a body to act in a particular fashion by the people. It can be granted for any reasons including self defense. But it has to be granted.

Zombrex · 11-12-2011 1:55pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That essentially means the ones with the bigger guns/army will always stay in power no matter how rotten the regime is.

Were it not for nato Gaddafi would still be in power in Libya. They were the only reason the ntc could somewhat adhere to those rules. Had nato not supported them their only option would have been a similar campaign to the IRA.

Would that have made the uprising less legitimate? Seems illogical to me.

The NTC didn't adhere to those rules because NATO allowed them to. They adhere to the rules because they believed they were the right thing to do, they recognized that legitimacy was the only way they could justify military action and provide democracy for Libya.

We will never know but I suspect they would have continued to adhere to those rules even if NATO had pulled out support for them and they had lost. They certainly continued to adhere to them (by and large, exceptions are to be expected in any rebel army) before NATO support and when things were not going their way.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 11-12-2011 7:39pm

Zombrex wrote: »

The NTC didn't adhere to those rules because NATO allowed them to. They adhere to the rules because they believed they were the right thing to do, they recognized that legitimacy was the only way they could justify military action and provide democracy for Libya.

We will never know but I suspect they would have continued to adhere to those rules even if NATO had pulled out support for them and they had lost. They certainly continued to adhere to them (by and large, exceptions are to be expected in any rebel army) before NATO support and when things were not going their way.

They didn't even adhere to them properly. Loads of black civillians were slaughtered because it was assumed they were pro-gaddafi.

You're missing the point though. Without nato support they would have been wiped out by Gaddafi forces if they'd adhered to the rules of war. They were using AKs with sellotape holding them together like. Even with nato support it dragged out a lot longer than expected.

Zombrex · 11-12-2011 9:40pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

You're missing the point though. Without nato support they would have been wiped out by Gaddafi forces if they'd adhered to the rules of war. They were using AKs with sellotape holding them together like. Even with nato support it dragged out a lot longer than expected.

They would have been wiped out anyway, adhering or not adhering. Without NATO support the rebels would have found it very difficult to win unless there was mass defections from the army, which seemed unlikely.

Again they didn't adhere to these things as a way of winning, they adhered to them (imperfectly as you point out) as a statement of legitimacy. They won because of NATO air support (something they probably wouldn't have gotten without legitimacy).

trendyvicar · 11-12-2011 10:27pm

Revolutionaries adhere to the rules of war because they wish to protect their civilian population from enemy reprisals. The Provos didn't give a monkeys about the Nationalist population, they only cared about winning.

irishh_bob · 11-12-2011 10:50pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Revolutionaries adhere to the rules of war because they wish to protect their civilian population from enemy reprisals. The Provos didn't give a monkeys about the Nationalist population, they only cared about winning.

thats one thing they had in common with you so

Bottle_of_Smoke · 11-12-2011 10:50pm

Zombrex wrote: »

They would have been wiped out anyway, adhering or not adhering. Without NATO support the rebels would have found it very difficult to win unless there was mass defections from the army, which seemed unlikely.

That's debatable really. And almost pointless because neither of us have any way of verifying how much support they may have had if there were a guerilla campaign instead. I certainly believe it possible large regions of the country could have been made no-go areas for Libyan troops. That's what the IRA never achieved - not even in South Armagh because the BA could still get around by helicopter. Once they did that it could have ended with gaddafi standing down eventually or even partition

Again they didn't adhere to these things as a way of winning, they adhered to them (imperfectly as you point out) as a statement of legitimacy. They won because of NATO air support (something they probably wouldn't have gotten without legitimacy).

To say they would have been utterly destroyed if they adhered to the rules of war is not to say they did it as a way of winning so you're misrepresenting me with that first sentence. I think they did it because they could but if they didnt have the nato backing they would have been wiped out or would have had to change methods. and I therefore ask if changing their tactics would have made their cause less legitimate?

and I don't agree at all about nato. I think those in charge of the big countries wanted rid of Gaddafi and would have assisted the ntc with any armed campaign - though perhaps not as openly so if it were a guerilla campaign. civillians being massacred in other nations you don't see any nato air strikes

To bring back to my original point - adhering to rules of war essentially means the ones in charge will win no matter how rotten the government. even trendyvicar who i posted it to accepted that somewhat

trendyvicar · 11-12-2011 11:04pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's debatable really. And almost pointless because neither of us have any way of verifying how much support they may have had if there were a guerilla campaign instead. I certainly believe it possible large regions of the country could have been made no-go areas for Libyan troops. That's what the IRA never achieved - not even in South Armagh because the BA could still get around by helicopter. Once they did that it could have ended with gaddafi standing down eventually or even partition

To say they would have been utterly destroyed if they adhered to the rules of war is not to say they did it as a way of winning so you're misrepresenting me with that first sentence. I think they did it because they could but if they didnt have the nato backing they would have been wiped out or would have had to change methods. and I therefore ask if changing their tactics would have made their cause less legitimate?

and I don't agree at all about nato. I think those in charge of the big countries wanted rid of Gaddafi and would have assisted the ntc with any armed campaign - though perhaps not as openly so if it were a guerilla campaign. civillians being massacred in other nations you don't see any nato air strikes

To bring back to my original point - adhering to rules of war essentially means the ones in charge will win no matter how rotten the government. even trendyvicar who i posted it to accepted that somewhat

You raise a number of points.

Firstly, you seem to indicate that the ends justify the means. Ditch the rules of war and win? Is that what you're saying regardless of all other factors?

Of course, evil has to be weighed in the balance. The Jews in Warsaw had a bit more of a right to ditch the rules of war than The Provos. I'm not an absolutist.

Ultimately, it comes down to the nature and magnitude of the evil you're opposing. To a degree, this influences what actions may be taken.

Unfortunately for PIRA, they failed this test as well.

Hannibal · 11-12-2011 11:07pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

The IRA made a fundamental strategic mistake in that they failed to distinguish between an operating environment in which they had at least the passive support of the majority of the population (as in The Irish War of Independence) and one in which they had only (at least) the passive support of a third of the population, as in Northern Ireland. Worse than that, within Northern Ireland they were aggressively opposed by two thirds of the population, who not only hated their methods, but also despised their goals. This was a recipe for disaster.

Fundamentally, of course, it came down to The IRA not having a majority mandate within Northern Ireland - in other words they failed the democratic test.

Tragically for Irish Nationalism, The IRA's campaign solidified Unionist opposition to any form of United Ireland, something that is unlikely to disappear anytime soon, if ever. Not only did The IRA fail to deliver Irish Unity, but they completely queered the pitch for moderate, non-violent Nationalism. No amount of votes on The Falls Road, or limited electoral success in The Irish Republic will change this reality.

Even better, from a Unionist point of view, is that SF continues to celebrate PIRA 'martyrs' and engages in other 'tribalistic' behaviour, continuously reminding Unionists of what they believe and why. This process is aided by rejectionist Republicans continuing to engage in violence.

The British Army, RUC, UVF, Unionist political parties etc all followed similar paths in alienating the other side of the community. Whether it was through the shooting dead of unarmed civilians, widespread collusion and in the case of the political parties they were putting out beliefs to their people that were rooted in hatred. Most unionists/loyalists always miss the point in why the IRA returned to military action in 1969 and the events in the previous years in the apartheid protestant state particularly in the period from 1966 to 1969.

You had a situation were loyalist secterian violence was targeted against nationalist communities and resulted in many nationalists being run out of their homes. Discrimination was widespread across the board on issues regarding housing, voting and getting jobs. There was the gerrymandering of electoral districts in order to make sure nationalists were under-represented. It was essentially as the slogan went a "Protestant state for a protestant people" and to hell with the then other third of the population.

SF may celebrate some IRA martyrs but for you critices them from engaging in tribalistic behaviour is beyond belief. This tribalistic behaviour you alledge from them is nothing compared to the secterian, triumphalist, supremacist and fascist beliefs that the orange order and the DUP have spit out. The change is voting demographs has unionists worried because they know the pendulam is swinging against them and it's coming sooner rather than later.

Border-Rat · 11-12-2011 11:14pm

The IRA showed restraint. They had/have the capacity to drench London with HCN-Warheads, they didn't. They had/have the capacity to remove half of London from the map with thermobaric bombs, they didn't. A 10,000lb bomb was debated for Birmingham in 1997 - that would've torn the heart out of that city - it was abandoned and the IRA chose peace - for the better of the people they were protecting and to unify the Country over a longer arc.

In the end, its primary concern were the Nationalists of the 06 Counties. Thats who the IRA protected, and the IRA was who they looked to for protection. When people are attacked, its okay to talk crap and pontificate, i.e. free staters or the OIRA, but it was the IRA whom the 06 Nationalists embraced because they didn't condescend from the safety of Wexford, they acted. Should there be a repeat of British aggression, it'll be the same quarters the Nationalist Community will look to - The IRA. Not Dissidents, not holier-than-though know-nothings, experienced less Southerners, not the British army, not the UN.... The IRA.

Like it or not, in the 06 we overwhelmingly voted for the IRA's political wing. Its a stupid question anyway. Is defending your house from burglary justifiable? What else do you do when a mob comes to burn your house? If the IRA has any lamentable tendencies, they certainly learned it from the 'Irish Republic' and its blood-soaked foundation.

round tower huntsman · 11-12-2011 11:32pm

the IRA wether its the old,official,provo,continuity,real ...........................derives its mandate from the british presence in ireland. so yes the provo campaign was justified. as long as britian violates irish soverignity then men will take arms against that violation.
thats not my opinion just a view of how the ira would see it.

trendyvicar · 11-12-2011 11:37pm

Dotsey wrote: »

The British Army, RUC, UVF, Unionist political parties etc all followed similar paths in alienating the other side of the community. Whether it was through the shooting dead of unarmed civilians, widespread collusion and in the case of the political parties they were putting out beliefs to their people that were rooted in hatred. Most unionists/loyalists always miss the point in why the IRA returned to military action in 1969 and the events in the previous years in the apartheid protestant state particularly in the period from 1966 to 1969.

You had a situation were loyalist secterian violence was targeted against nationalist communities and resulted in many nationalists being run out of their homes. Discrimination was widespread across the board on issues regarding housing, voting and getting jobs. There was the gerrymandering of electoral districts in order to make sure nationalists were under-represented. It was essentially as the slogan went a "Protestant state for a protestant people" and to hell with the then other third of the population.

SF may celebrate some IRA martyrs but for you critices them from engaging in tribalistic behaviour is beyond belief. This tribalistic behaviour you alledge from them is nothing compared to the secterian, triumphalist, supremacist and fascist beliefs that the orange order and the DUP have spit out. The change is voting demographs has unionists worried because they know the pendulam is swinging against them and it's coming sooner rather than later.

You seem to see PIRA as some form of militant civil rights campaigners.

There is no indication that voters in NI would support Irish Unity - none whatsoever. In Stormont it is meaningless who has the largest number of seats - The Belfast Agreement insured that - a double veto exists.

trendyvicar · 11-12-2011 11:42pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

The IRA showed restraint. They had/have the capacity to drench London with HCN-Warheads, they didn't. They had/have the capacity to remove half of London from the map with thermobaric bombs, they didn't. A 10,000lb bomb was debated for Birmingham in 1997 - that would've torn the heart out of that city - it was abandoned and the IRA chose peace - for the better of the people they were protecting and to unify the Country over a longer arc.

In the end, its primary concern were the Nationalists of the 06 Counties. Thats who the IRA protected, and the IRA was who they looked to for protection. When people are attacked, its okay to talk crap and pontificate, i.e. free staters or the OIRA, but it was the IRA whom the 06 Nationalists embraced because they didn't condescend from the safety of Wexford, they acted. Should there be a repeat of British aggression, it'll be the same quarters the Nationalist Community will look to - The IRA. Not Dissidents, not holier-than-though know-nothings, experienced less Southerners, not the British army, not the UN.... The IRA.

Like it or not, in the 06 we overwhelmingly voted for the IRA's political wing. Its a stupid question anyway. Is defending your house from burglary justifiable? What else do you do when a mob comes to burn your house? If the IRA has any lamentable tendencies, they certainly learned it from the 'Irish Republic' and its blood-soaked foundation.

Nice one! LOL. What if The UK had unleashed it's nuclear, biological and chemical arsenal against The Irish Republic? LOL

What if The UK had unleashed it's entire armed forces against The Nationalist population in NI with a view to expulsion/extermination?

Madness...

round tower huntsman · 11-12-2011 11:43pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

. Should there be a repeat of British aggression, it'll be the same quarters the Nationalist Community will look to - The IRA. Not Dissidents, not holier-than-though know-nothings, experienced less Southerners, not the British army, not the.[/QUOTE

if the provos support the cops and their bed fellows in british military intel how could they possibly be called on to help the irish in the 06
the ira didnt start or end with the provos. its been around since the war of independence and it continues to exist since the 1997 surrneder. the provos were right to attack british interests in ireland just like sean south and the men of the border campaign were right to attack the british and just like the lads of today are right to challenge the british establishment in ireland today.

trendyvicar · 11-12-2011 11:45pm

round tower huntsman wrote: »

the IRA wether its the old,official,provo,continuity,real ...........................derives its mandate from the british presence in ireland. so yes the provo campaign was justified. as long as britian violates irish soverignity then men will take arms against that violation.
thats not my opinion just a view of how the ira would see it.

They're not getting very far. Why do you think that is?

Bottle_of_Smoke · 12-12-2011 12:03am

trendyvicar wrote: »

You raise a number of points.

Firstly, you seem to indicate that the ends justify the means. Ditch the rules of war and win? Is that what you're saying regardless of all other factors?

Of course, evil has to be weighed in the balance. The Jews in Warsaw had a bit more of a right to ditch the rules of war than The Provos. I'm not an absolutist.

Ultimately, it comes down to the nature and magnitude of the evil you're opposing. To a degree, this influences what actions may be taken.

Unfortunately for PIRA, they failed this test as well.

To be honest I wasn't even arguing that point in the context of the IRA. Just the issue about rules of war and internal conflicts where the state is far more powerful than the insurgents

Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Comments