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

Most effective IRA brigade

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    fasttalkerchat wrote: »
    East Tyrone were becoming very active before the Loughgall Massacre.

    Even afterwards. Attacks in that area didnt drop of after Loughall.
    The Belfast Brigade, particularly in West Belfast, was hugely effective in the 70s before infighting, paranoia and informers damaged it.
    The Monaghan IRA were also involved in an unusually high number of attacks for a southern unit.

    While the 1950s border campaign was a failure arms raids on barracks, in particular Gough in Armagh, displayed a certain level of ingenuity and tactical skill. However I believe units at that time were made up of volunteers from all over the country and people didnt necessarily belong to one specific brigade.

    Overall I believe there are a remarkable number of similarities between the PIRA south Armagh brigade and Tom Barry's West Cork Brigade


  • Options
    #33
    fasttalkerchat
    Registered Users Posts: 5,652 ✭✭✭fasttalkerchat


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    And after that?
    Well both settled for some sort of comprimise. The PIRA comprimise (hopefully) cant be judged yet.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Do you have a source for that?
    Different eras so its hardly camparable, there were no helicopters in 1921, etc.
    That's why I'm saying that the enemy were better armed. On saying that the PIRA were better armed too. SAM missiles and AK47s and professional explosives.


  • Options
    #34
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    We have had the discussion on whether the old and new IRA can be compared and we do not agree on this but we can look at them independently.

    What were their (South Armagh PIRA) aims then specifically from 1969 until 2005. And what did they achieve for the South Armagh area? On another note did Armagh play any role of significance in WoI?

    A number of significant battles and actions took place in Armagh during and shortly after the WoI but by and large it was not at the centre of the conflict.
    In fact south Armagh was not a particularly radical or republican area up until the most recent conflict.
    During the 1918 elections it was one of the few districts not to return a Sinn Fein candidate.


  • Options
    #35
    whitelines
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 159 ✭✭whitelines


    fasttalkerchat wrote: »
    In terms of bringing the enemy to the negotiation table to gain independance both the old IRA and the provos got to the same stage. The Provos operated against a stronger force (helicopters make a huge difference) and also operated in a more heavily occupied territory (the North was more militarised that Cork)

    Helicopters can make a huge difference. I've always wondered why one wasn't used to fire missiles at that farm house in South Armagh where PIRA's brigade commander lived? What with it being a 'war' between the mighty British Army and the elite Provisional IRA and everything.


  • Options
    #36
    fasttalkerchat
    Registered Users Posts: 5,652 ✭✭✭fasttalkerchat


    whitelines wrote: »
    Helicopters can make a huge difference. I've always wondered why one wasn't used to fire missiles at that farm house in South Armagh where PIRA's brigade commander lived? What with it being a 'war' between the mighty British Army and the elite Provisional IRA and everything.

    Probably because they liked to say that dead brits were "murdered by terrorists". Nonetheless, didn't stop them killing Dessie Grew at a remote farmhouse while unarmed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    whitelines wrote: »
    Helicopters can make a huge difference. I've always wondered why one wasn't used to fire missiles at that farm house in South Armagh where PIRA's brigade commander lived? What with it being a 'war' between the mighty British Army and the elite Provisional IRA and everything.

    The point about the helicopter is well made. It was not valid nor common for them to target the IRA in this way during the troubles. In 1919-22 leading individuals were often targeted when they could be found, if not their property would be targeted.


  • Options
    #38
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    whitelines wrote: »
    Helicopters can make a huge difference. I've always wondered why one wasn't used to fire missiles at that farm house in South Armagh where PIRA's brigade commander lived? What with it being a 'war' between the mighty British Army and the elite Provisional IRA and everything.

    probably because that house you refer to is half in the south and the british army firing missiles into the free state would probably constitute an act of war.


  • Options
    #39
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    The point about the helicopter is well made. It was not valid nor common for them to target the IRA in this way during the troubles. In 1919-22 leading individuals were often targeted when they could be found, if not their property would be targeted.

    Yes, and by comparison in 1969 - 1998 leading individuals were often targeted when they could be found, if not their property would be targeted.
    No shortage of evidence of the brits raiding the homes of IRA men and their relatives, ransacking them in the process.

    There is no reason whatsoever for not being able to compare the effectiveness of WoI and more recent brigades. The question is not about comparing equipment or weapons, it's about effectiveness.
    Ability to strike at the enemy, the number of successful actions against failed ones, the number of causalities and arrests suffered. You can even compare adaptability, for example the IRA in South Armagh adapted to take on helicopters in the same way the IRA in Cork took on armoured vehicles.
    I really dont see how you dont grasp that, I think it's more a reluctance on your part to draw any comparison between WoI and the "troubles."


  • Options
    #40
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    I really dont see how you dont grasp that, I think it's more a reluctance on your part to draw any comparison between WoI and the "troubles."

    The many differences have been highlighted through the thread. It is interesting why some people wish to make the comparison and insist on trying to make tentative links- surely their campaign is strong enough on its own but maybe you think its not?

    In anycase I asked earlier "
    What were their (South Armagh PIRA) aims then specifically from 1969 until 2005. And what did they achieve for the South Armagh area?" and I think that should be looked at in more detail if people propose them as effective. One answer was that they brought about negotiations but the length of the campaign makes it difficult to link actions in the 1970's with peace talks in the 1970's. So how should ones effectiveness be judged in this length of time?


  • Options
    #41
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    The many differences have been highlighted through the thread. It is interesting why some people wish to make the comparison and insist on trying to make tentative links- surely their campaign is strong enough on its own but maybe you think its not?

    In anycase I asked earlier "
    What were their (South Armagh PIRA) aims then specifically from 1969 until 2005. And what did they achieve for the South Armagh area?" and I think that should be looked at in more detail if people propose them as effective. One answer was that they brought about negotiations but the length of the campaign makes it difficult to link actions in the 1970's with peace talks in the 1970's. So how should ones effectiveness be judged in this length of time?

    But the "many" differences havent been highlighted. Irrelevant things like weapons and helicopters have been brought up, things that have nothing to do with the original question, which was "By effective I mean capacity to carry out attacks etc on British forces/infrastructure."
    It is not "interesting" that people make the comparison, it is unavoidable that people make the comparison because there are so many comparisons to make.
    And links are far from tentative. Same country, same cause, same enemy, same tactics, in many cases the same families involved. Direct links between both eras, even Tom Barry, mentioned here several times, gave his support to the PIRA saying "there has only ever been one IRA," not only making a comparison between the eras but calling them one and the same.

    You ask what their aims were and what they achieved for south Armagh. Firstly this isnt what the OP asked, again if you look above you can see he explained exactly what he meant by effective, but sure we'll talk about it anyway.
    The South Armagh PIRA aim was the same as any IRA brigade's aim at any time in the past 90 years, to drive the British out of the area and leave the Irish people free to command their own destiny.
    What did they achieve for south Armagh? They drove an unwanted, hostile and murderous foreign force, and their Irish lackies, out of the area, or at the very least drove them back behind the walls of their concrete monstrosities.
    For 25 years they showed them that the people of South Armagh would not be bullied and along with the rest of the IRA they showed the British Government that if they wanted peace they would have to compromise.

    Did the PIRA outright achieve all their goals through force? No, just like the "old" IRA, they did not. Just like the "old" IRA they fought the brits to a stalemate where it became clear that neither side could claim an outright victory and just like the "old" IRA they reached a compromise.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    What did they achieve for south Armagh? They drove an unwanted, hostile and murderous foreign force, and their Irish lackies, out of the area, or at the very least drove them back behind the walls of their concrete monstrosities.
    For 25 years they showed them that the people of South Armagh would not be bullied and along with the rest of the IRA they showed the British Government that if they wanted peace they would have to compromise.

    Wrong.
    They were a small part of a movement that achieved political representation and equal rights in NI. This was the same aim for the most part that the civil rights movement had before them.
    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    The South Armagh PIRA aim was the same as any IRA brigade's aim at any time in the past 90 years, to drive the British out of the area and leave the Irish people free to command their own destiny.
    Yes. So I find it hard to accept them as 'most effective IRA brigade'. Furthermore if Armagh was a 'no go' area for the British army then how could the most effective IRA brigade be located in this same area- there would be noone for them to attack!
    ?


  • Options
    #43
    whitelines
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 159 ✭✭whitelines


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    probably because that house you refer to is half in the south and the british army firing missiles into the free state would probably constitute an act of war.

    I see what you mean (I think). Still, they could have killed him anytime they liked as he came out of the pub. Why didn't they do that?


  • Options
    #44
    fasttalkerchat
    Registered Users Posts: 5,652 ✭✭✭fasttalkerchat


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    probably because that house you refer to is half in the south and the british army firing missiles into the free state would probably constitute an act of war.

    They shot people who had crossed the border before and a few weeks ago British agents tried to blackmail a known republican on a train on the way to Dublin and got off at Dundalk.


  • Options
    #45
    Fenian Army
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭Fenian Army


    The British recognized that if they brazenly acted as they wished, such as in Ballymurphy and on Bloody Sunday, just as before, Irish people would emerge from their cocoons and take up arms. Instead, by and large, they engaged in a "dirty war" and got loyalists to carry out their assassinations thus allowing themselves a tenuous claim of "moral superiority"

    Martyrs have always been Britain's greatest enemy.

    Just to point out, if I asked which was more military effective, the PIRA or the "terrorists" in South Africa I doubt we would have this bare faced refusal to compare them. Even if you insist on subscribing to the myth that the IRA's of different generations were totally different that doesn't stop you from comparing their military effectiveness.

    Someone mentioned it, but after Loughall attacks actually increased, with the Ballygawley bus bombing being regarded as direct "payback" for Loughall by republicans and supporters.
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhH_okiTZ8HJEbMat3aFIWPtWmCk2zJxc96bZgFBOW2df9sVUi5KDMWUrg

    I still think South Armagh brigade were the most effective... mainly based on the fact that they made the area in a no go zone and inflicted serious casualties on their enemies, despite their vastly superior training and equipment, such as helicopters. You don't need to support them to see that, you can look at any army/insurgency the world over and evaluate them based on their military effectiveness with agreeing, or disagreeing, with their politics.


  • Options
    #46
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    whitelines wrote: »
    I see what you mean (I think). Still, they could have killed him anytime they liked as he came out of the pub. Why didn't they do that?

    Probably because he doesnt drink and wouldnt have been in a pub to come out of it.


  • Options
    #47
    fasttalkerchat
    Registered Users Posts: 5,652 ✭✭✭fasttalkerchat


    Fenian Army wrote: »
    I still think South Armagh brigade were the most effective... mainly based on the fact that they made the area in a no go zone and inflicted serious casualties on their enemies, despite their vastly superior training and equipment, such as helicopters. You don't need to support them to see that, you can look at any army/insurgency the world over and evaluate them based on their military effectiveness with agreeing, or disagreeing, with their politics.

    It is certainly hard to argue with the South Armagh brigade not just on military strength but on ingenuity. In belfast the conflict was looked on as a series of street battles driving the army out of individual areas but in South Armagh they saw it as a traditional war as saw the whole region as theirs this stretched as far as blowing helicopters out of the sky and destroying empty barracks.


  • Options
    #48
    fasttalkerchat
    Registered Users Posts: 5,652 ✭✭✭fasttalkerchat


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Probably because he doesnt drink and wouldnt have been in a pub to come out of it.

    :D Was just about to say this! Quite well known for being totally tee-total.


  • Options
    #49
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Wrong.
    They were a small part of a movement that achieved political representation and equal rights in NI. This was the same aim for the most part that the civil rights movement had before them.

    Wrong. They were a rather large part of the movement that forced the British government to the negotiating table and forced them to recognise that the north was not "as British as Finchley." That got them to recognise that people in the north were not "equal ni citizens" but that half of them were indeed Irish and that the Irish couldnt be beaten out of them with military might.
    What the end result of the 1998 settlement will be nobody knows, it's simply far too early to tell. Took nearly 30 years for the 1921 settlement to inch by inch turn the free state into a (sort of) republic.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Yes. So I find it hard to accept them as 'most effective IRA brigade'. Furthermore if Armagh was a 'no go' area for the British army then how could the most effective IRA brigade be located in this same area- there would be noone for them to attack!
    ?

    Most effective compared to other IRA brigades. Sure no IRA brigade from any era achieved all their aims. Also, once again, you're talking about negotiations and end results here when the OP clearly stated he meant most effective in terms of military capabilities.
    I believe "no-go" areas refers to areas where the brits could not move freely. Helicopters and barracks could still be attacked. Also the south Armagh IRA was largely responsible for constructing, transporting and detonating bombs in Britain, well outside of the "no-go" area. Another interesting comparison, much like the Kilmichael ambush, these bombings in the financial heart of Britain shocked the british establishment and hastened their moves to the negotiating table.


  • Options
    #50
    Fenian Army
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭Fenian Army


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Wrong.
    They were a small part of a movement that achieved political representation and equal rights in NI. This was the same aim for the most part that the civil rights movement had before them.


    Yes. So I find it hard to accept them as 'most effective IRA brigade'. Furthermore if Armagh was a 'no go' area for the British army then how could the most effective IRA brigade be located in this same area- there would be noone for them to attack!
    ?

    Think about what you have asked.


  • Options
    #51
    fasttalkerchat
    Registered Users Posts: 5,652 ✭✭✭fasttalkerchat


    Fenian Army wrote: »
    Think about what you have asked.

    Domestos is useless on a clean toilet :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    whitelines
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 159 ✭✭whitelines


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Probably because he doesnt drink and wouldnt have been in a pub to come out of it.

    Did he go to the shops?

    Are you seriously trying to tell people that The UK State couldn't have killed this clown practically at will? The only thing that saved his life was that the security forces were acting within the civil law (with few aberrations). Had they been fighting a 'war' against PIRA he'd have been as dead as Irish Unity.


  • Options
    #53
    whitelines
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 159 ✭✭whitelines


    fasttalkerchat wrote: »
    It is certainly hard to argue with the South Armagh brigade not just on military strength but on ingenuity. In belfast the conflict was looked on as a series of street battles driving the army out of individual areas but in South Armagh they saw it as a traditional war as saw the whole region as theirs this stretched as far as blowing helicopters out of the sky and destroying empty barracks.

    Did they? How the hell did they work that out? In a 'traditional war' you spend half the time sh*ting yourself waiting for the next enemy assault - not twiddling your thumbs waiting for the next diesel consignment to arrive.


  • Options
    #54
    whitelines
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 159 ✭✭whitelines


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Wrong. They were a rather large part of the movement that forced the British government to the negotiating table and forced them to recognise that the north was not "as British as Finchley." That got them to recognise that people in the north were not "equal ni citizens" but that half of them were indeed Irish and that the Irish couldnt be beaten out of them with military might.

    That's because it wasn't tried. The UK State didn't deploy it's 'military might' in an aggressive manner. Had it done so, it could have ethnically cleansed NI of Nationalists in the same way The Serbs did to The Muslims in Bosnia.


  • Options
    #55
    fasttalkerchat
    Registered Users Posts: 5,652 ✭✭✭fasttalkerchat


    whitelines wrote: »
    That's because it wasn't tried. The UK State didn't deploy it's 'military might' in an aggressive manner. Had it done so, it could have ethnically cleansed NI of Nationalists in the same way The Serbs did to The Muslims in Bosnia.

    You really think that would have been tolerated by the USA? Also the Provos weren't as friendly as some would like to think. If genocide was to begin here there would have been killings all over England in retribution.


  • Options
    #56
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    whitelines wrote: »
    Did he go to the shops?

    Are you seriously trying to tell people that The UK State couldn't have killed this clown practically at will? The only thing that saved his life was that the security forces were acting within the civil law (with few aberrations). Had they been fighting a 'war' against PIRA he'd have been as dead as Irish Unity.

    Well that's the thing, he obviously wasnt a clown or they would have. Very rarely would you get IRA commanders "going to the shops." In order to assassinate somebody you need to compile information on them. Information is very difficult to compile when your spies and squaddies cant even come into an area without being shot at.
    Why you're clinging to this notion that the british state acted within civil law I have no idea, perhaps you have/had friends or relatives in the British Army and dont want to face the awful truth as to what they actually are/were, but your moral defending of the british state in the face of overwhelming evidence is just self deluding.
    Only yesterday we were given another example of the british contempt for civil law. A mans 40 year old murder conviction (and original death sentence) were overturned after the courts finally accepted that not only was he totally innocent but that he was tortured by the brits and ruc before being taken to a field where a gun was put to his head and he was told he would be shot if he didnt confess.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18525631


  • Options
    #57
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    whitelines wrote: »
    Did they? How the hell did they work that out? In a 'traditional war' you spend half the time sh*ting yourself waiting for the next enemy assault - not twiddling your thumbs waiting for the next diesel consignment to arrive.

    Read Bandit Country by Toby Harnden, I think you'll find the brits did sit around ****ting themselves waiting for the next enemy assault.
    In the above post you made a jibe about Irish reunification, now one about diesel. It seems you have nothing constructive to add, your argument is floundering so you're resorting to petty name calling.
    For someone with such strong opinions on this issue you seem to know very little about it. Sounds as if a lot of your info is coming from English tabloids.


  • Options
    #58
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    whitelines wrote: »
    That's because it wasn't tried. The UK State didn't deploy it's 'military might' in an aggressive manner. Had it done so, it could have ethnically cleansed NI of Nationalists in the same way The Serbs did to The Muslims in Bosnia.

    South Armagh was the most militarised area in western Europe, with the busiest heliport in all of europe. The british constructed massive steel and concreted barracks in practically every town and village. They placed giant spy posts on hill and mountaintops. They poured thousands of soldiers into a relatively small and sparsely populated area. The deployed their "elite" SAS into the area as well as their proxy murderers in the guise of loyalist paramilitaries.
    Yeah, all this really screams of the "gently, gently" approach.
    As for why they didnt ethnically cleanse the area, well, aside from the fact that it's extremely worrying you seem to think ethnic cleansing is the answer to a problem, they didnt because they couldnt.
    Not only would it have caused international outrage and lead to a possible UN intervention in the north, but it would have radicalised the sizeable Irish population living in Britain.
    Also, there is the very simple fact ethnically cleansing south armagh or indeed the north, would not have been as straightforward an operation as they might have liked because you can bet your life every IRA volunteer from every brigade, north and south, would have been out on the streets and fields with everything they could muster, making them pay dearly for their efforts.


  • Options
    #59
    mattjack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,389 ✭✭✭mattjack


    fasttalkerchat wrote: »
    It is certainly hard to argue with the South Armagh brigade not just on military strength but on ingenuity. In belfast the conflict was looked on as a series of street battles driving the army out of individual areas but in South Armagh they saw it as a traditional war as saw the whole region as theirs this stretched as far as blowing helicopters out of the sky and destroying empty barracks.

    How many helicopters were shot down ? I always thought it was no more than three or four with one fatality.


  • Options
    #60
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    In the above post you made a jibe about Irish reunification, now one about diesel. It seems you have nothing constructive to add, your argument is floundering so you're resorting to petty name calling.
    For someone with such strong opinions on this issue you seem to know very little about it. Sounds as if a lot of your info is coming from English tabloids.

    Are they jibes? There are ongoing cases that are quite unsavoury rather than being made up by 'English tabloids'. Here is an Irish papers view on same http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/the-good-republican-who-has-become-lord-of-bandit-country-1503201.html .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Are they jibes? There are ongoing cases that are quite unsavoury rather than being made up by 'English tabloids'. Here is an Irish papers view on same http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/the-good-republican-who-has-become-lord-of-bandit-country-1503201.html .

    Wow. That's a hack job from start to finish.
    As someone who lives in south Armagh Im disgusted by that article and the way it attempts to portray my home.
    As a journalist I must say that is one of the most badly written, maudlin, sensationalist and agenda-driven articles I've ever read, based largely on rumour, assumption and some good old fashioned Indo makey-uppy.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement