Old IRA compared to PIRA

Galwayguy35 · 28-08-2013 07:23PM

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

No difference between the old ira the pira and the new ira, their aims remain the same.

Really?

Don't recall reading about the men and women who fought for our independance being into drug dealing etc in their spare time.

Scrag · 28-08-2013 07:24PM

Sadly partition of Ireland did not work. There is a peace wall in Belfast that makes the old Berlin wall look insignificant, I think about 15 Kilometres long and up to 10 metres high. The main difference is that no one wants it removed. Well worth a trip to Belfast to see it or even a visit on Google.

Busted Flat. · 28-08-2013 07:37PM

Its like any army, you have old soldiers and young soldiers, now most of the young Volunteers of the seventies are getting old. Is that simple enough ?.

Busted Flat. · 28-08-2013 07:39PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Really?

Don't recall reading about the men and women who fought for our independance being into drug dealing etc in their spare time.

Your right, they made Poiten at the time.

Galwayguy35 · 28-08-2013 07:42PM

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Your right, they made Poiten at the time.

Mighty stuff, you should try it sometime.

Busted Flat. · 28-08-2013 07:46PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Mighty stuff, you should try it sometime.

Always keep a bottle in the press for emergency, It's made in Clare, top of the range, you should slip over the border and try some, it beats the Galway stuff hands down.

Galwayguy35 · 28-08-2013 07:49PM

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Always keep a bottle in the press for emergency, It's made in Clare, top of the range, you should slip over the border and try some, it beats the Galway stuff hands down.

I heard that before, hard to get the good stuff these days.

Rubeter · 29-08-2013 09:17AM

FTA69 wrote: »

It is. I said those who declare the 1916 men patriots and deride the Provos as criminals are engaging in duplicitous revisionism. Which is true.

Stating something is true doesn't make it so, that is no more than an opinion of yours, and I disagree.
My disagreement comes not from whether the PIRA were right or wrong in their actions but because your statement is too simplistic and doesn't take into account the actual situations, whether someone is a hero or not is determined by what they did and the situation of the time and not on the actions of people decades earlier.
Both "events" must be looked at individually.

Dyr · 29-08-2013 09:34AM

Grayson wrote: »

The difference is that one of them fought a war that targeted enemy soldiers. Whereas the other one threw nailbombs into crowded london resteraunts.

The old IRA werent averse to shooting non combatants though.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 29-08-2013 09:42AM

Grayson wrote: »

The difference is that one of them fought a war that targeted enemy soldiers. Whereas the other one threw nailbombs into crowded london resteraunts.

That's actually not true the old IRA dragged people out of hospital and shot them on the street, they shot people for as little offence as paying their dog licences, they shot plenty of non combatants in cold blood.
That fact that this state to decided to rewrite history afterwards does not less the atrocities that were carried out.

jalan8984 · 29-08-2013 09:53AM

There is fundamentally no difference between the originals and the provos.

Sacksian · 29-08-2013 10:01AM

Scrag wrote: »

Sadly partition of Ireland did not work. There is a peace wall in Belfast that makes the old Berlin wall look insignificant, I think about 15 Kilometres long and up to 10 metres high. The main difference is that no one wants it removed. Well worth a trip to Belfast to see it or even a visit on Google.

Some of the peace lines are really, really tall but the Berlin wall was 96 miles in length!

Crooked Jack · 29-08-2013 10:12AM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Really?

Don't recall reading about the men and women who fought for our independance being into drug dealing etc in their spare time.

Neither were the Provos. The 'dissident' clowns you see out and about now are merely using the name IRA to provide cover for their own criminal acts. They are undeserving of the name and should not be referred to as such.
The IRA, or Óglaigh na hÉireann to give them their proper title, existed from 1919 (1913 if we're counting the Irish Volunteers) until 2005.
Im sure somebody will bring up the Defence Forces and while I have the greatest respect for them and the work they do, Óglaigh na hÉireann refers to Soldiers of Ireland (depending on how it's translated) not Soldiers of the Free State, or Soldiers of a lot of Ireland.
I'd also contest their record as "Defence" forces but I fear that would drag the thread off topic and that sort of criticism is really best reserved for their political masters as opposed to the soldiers themselves.

Grayson · 29-08-2013 10:38AM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

That's actually not true the old IRA dragged people out of hospital and shot them on the street, they shot people for as little offence as paying their dog licences, they shot plenty of non combatants in cold blood.
That fact that this state to decided to rewrite history afterwards does not less the atrocities that were carried out.

Bambi wrote: »

The old IRA werent averse to shooting non combatants though.

Any links to them dragging random civilians out of hospitals? If it was a high ranking military official say, i don't think it matters if he's in a hospital or in his house or an army barracks. The location doesn't matter as much as the act. And I'm not denying that both the old and newer IRA killed people, I'm just saying that one was far more discriminate in choosing it's targets.

My point was that they didn't kill indiscriminately. well, not as a rule anyway (I'm sure that in a crossfire an occasional innocent got killed. I'm not excusing that. I'm just saying they didn't target them.)
The provo's ran a bombing campaign in london in the 70's where they threw nail bombs into restaurants. They might say they weren't targeting the civilians, but that's like saying poisoning a water supply to get one person is ok because you're not actually targeting everyone else.

And civilian is loosely defined sometimes. For example someone who's informing is technically a civilian. For my purposes I'm stating that non combatants are people who aren't involved. Someone who'd not part of the actual organisation on either side and who isn't contributing some integral support.

(BTW, I'm a complete pacifist. So I'm not excusing either side. I just pointed out one difference that I perceived and I'm explaining it)

FTA69 · 29-08-2013 10:45AM

Rubeter wrote: »

Stating something is true doesn't make it so, that is no more than an opinion of yours, and I disagree.
My disagreement comes not from whether the PIRA were right or wrong in their actions but because your statement is too simplistic and doesn't take into account the actual situations, whether someone is a hero or not is determined by what they did and the situation of the time and not on the actions of people decades earlier.
Both "events" must be looked at individually.

Simplistic my arse. Half of the people moaning about the Provos being terrorists with no mandate have zero problem lauding the likes of Pearse or Plunkett who were also armed terrorists with no mandate. That is hypocrisy. Lauding armed struggle because it was a suitable time period ago and because you have a misty-eyed view of that campaign is also hypocrisy. You can babble on about "different contexts" all you want but the fact is that the contexts weren't that different and the motivation behind Republicans of both periods was exactly the same.

Is Bobby Sands who died on hunger strike any less of a hero than Terence MacSwiney who did the same? If you have an opinion on the above matter then by all means share it, it'd be more productive than sniping at me over non-existent contradictions in my posts.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 29-08-2013 10:46AM

Grayson wrote: »

Any links to them dragging random civilians out of hospitals? If it was a high ranking military official say, i don't think it matters if he's in a hospital or in his house or an army barracks. The location doesn't matter as much as the act. And I'm not denying that both the old and newer IRA killed people, I'm just saying that one was far more discriminate in choosing it's targets.

My point was that they didn't kill indiscriminately. well, not as a rule anyway (I'm sure that in a crossfire an occasional innocent got killed. I'm not excusing that. I'm just saying they didn't target them.)
The provo's ran a bombing campaign in london in the 70's where they threw nail bombs into restaurants. They might say they weren't targeting the civilians, but that's like saying poisoning a water supply to get one person is ok because you're not actually targeting everyone else.

And civilian is loosely defined sometimes. For example someone who's informing is technically a civilian. For my purposes I'm stating that non combatants are people who aren't involved. Someone who'd not part of the actual organisation on either side and who isn't contributing some integral support.

(BTW, I'm a complete pacifist. So I'm not excusing either side. I just pointed out one difference that I perceived and I'm explaining it)

Sorry Grayson, but they routinely shot civilians, they dragged people out of hospitals and indeed churches and shot them.
I suggest you look up how they killed two innocent Protestant brothers in Collacrease as a for instance.

FTA69 · 29-08-2013 10:52AM

Grayson wrote: »

The provo's ran a bombing campaign in london in the 70's where they threw nail bombs into restaurants.

No they didn't. There were a few stupid operations in the early-1970s where they targeted pubs frequented by soldiers, something which discontinued quite early on. They never went around throwing nail bombs into restaurants with a view to killing civilians.

RobFowl · 29-08-2013 10:57AM

FTA69 wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

No they didn't. There were a few stupid operations in the early-1970s where they targeted pubs frequented by soldiers, something which discontinued quite early on. They never went around throwing nail bombs into restaurants with a view to killing civilians.

So the "civilians" were only "collateral damage".
Phew thats ok then.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 29-08-2013 11:00AM

FTA69 wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

No they didn't. There were a few stupid operations in the early-1970s where they targeted pubs frequented by soldiers, something which discontinued quite early on. They never went around throwing nail bombs into restaurants with a view to killing civilians.

The Balcombe Street lads targeted civillians, particular favourite of theirs wqas pubs / restaurants.

Stereomaniac · 29-08-2013 11:09AM

It doesn't really matter about any of this now though, does it? It can't be undone, it's all history.

Grayson · 29-08-2013 11:10AM

FTA69 wrote: »

No they didn't. There were a few stupid operations in the early-1970s where they targeted pubs frequented by soldiers, something which discontinued quite early on. They never went around throwing nail bombs into restaurants with a view to killing civilians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balcombe_Street_Siege

The Balcombe Street siege started after a chase through London, as the Metropolitan Police pursued Hugh Doherty, Joe O'Connell, Eddie Butler and Harry Duggan through the streets after they had fired gunshots through the window of Scotts Restaurant in Mount Street, Mayfair. They had thrown a bomb through the restaurant window a few weeks before on 12 November 1975, killing one person and injuring 15 others.

FTA69 · 29-08-2013 11:11AM

The Balcombe Street lads targeted civillians, particular favourite of theirs wqas pubs / restaurants.

I think the only restaurant they ever attacked was Scotts in Mayfair which was frequented by politicians and other members of the British elite. I'm not defending that by the way, that type of operation is stupid and indiscriminate however the notion that they went out of their way to kill as many civilians as possible is a load of nonsense. If they wanted to do that all they needed to do was leave a bomb on a Tube somewhere.

Grayson · 29-08-2013 11:14AM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Sorry Grayson, but they routinely shot civilians, they dragged people out of hospitals and indeed churches and shot them.
I suggest you look up how they killed two innocent Protestant brothers in Collacrease as a for instance.

I just tried googling that and couldn't find anything. Do you have a link? (BTW, I'm not saying it dodn't happen, jsut maybe you know better keywords for googling

)

Grayson · 29-08-2013 11:17AM

FTA69 wrote: »

I think the only restaurant they ever attacked was Scotts in Mayfair which was frequented by politicians and other members of the British elite. I'm not defending that by the way, that type of operation is stupid and indiscriminate however the notion that they went out of their way to kill as many civilians as possible is a load of nonsense. If they wanted to do that all they needed to do was leave a bomb on a Tube somewhere.

Or in a street in warrington? The provo's definition of a legitimate target was very, very loose.

handlemaster · 29-08-2013 11:18AM

Its all about drugs and filli g their pockets now. The notion of a unitied ireland is just wish wash

Crooked Jack · 29-08-2013 11:20AM

Grayson wrote: »

Any links to them dragging random civilians out of hospitals? If it was a high ranking military official say, i don't think it matters if he's in a hospital or in his house or an army barracks. The location doesn't matter as much as the act. And I'm not denying that both the old and newer IRA killed people, I'm just saying that one was far more discriminate in choosing it's targets.

The provos were by far the most selective of any group in the north. About 30 per cent of their victims were civilians, largely people caught up in explosions or crossfires. Unacceptable, but it still hardly means they targeted them. The term civilians also extended to people like judges (hardly uninvolved given the sentences they handed out to people on evidence that was clearly made up or confessions that were beaten out of them) informers, criminals etc... Compared to the British Army, half of whose victims were civilian, ditto for the RUC. Then the victims of various loyalist paramilitaries were anywhere between 85 and 95 per cent civilian.

Grayson wrote: »

My point was that they didn't kill indiscriminately. well, not as a rule anyway (I'm sure that in a crossfire an occasional innocent got killed. I'm not excusing that. I'm just saying they didn't target them.)

It could hardly be said that the Provos killed indiscriminately as a rule either. I mean look at the weapons and technical capabilities they had. If the aim had been to slaughter civilians en masses do you not think the numbers would have been much higher. Do you not think issuing bomb warnings and apologies when civilians were killed would run counter to this aim. Im not saying that makes it ok, Im saying they're hardly the actions of a group bent on killing or targeting civilians.
I cant find figures for civilians killed by the "Old" but civilian casualties for the whole conflict number around 750.

Grayson wrote: »

The provo's ran a bombing campaign in london in the 70's where they threw nail bombs into restaurants. They might say they weren't targeting the civilians, but that's like saying poisoning a water supply to get one person is ok because you're not actually targeting everyone else.

Cant find that here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London
There's one incident where a bomb was thrown into a pub frequented by soldiers and a soldier was killed. Hardly points to a campaign of IRA men merrily running around london lobbing nail bombs into restaurants.
It is wikipedia though, so it's entirely possible the list isnt comprehensive.

Grayson wrote: »

And civilian is loosely defined sometimes. For example someone who's informing is technically a civilian. For my purposes I'm stating that non combatants are people who aren't involved. Someone who'd not part of the actual organisation on either side and who isn't contributing some integral support.

Indeed.

Grayson wrote: »

(BTW, I'm a complete pacifist. So I'm not excusing either side. I just pointed out one difference that I perceived and I'm explaining it)

Really? You'd never resort to violence for any reason?

Crooked Jack · 29-08-2013 11:26AM

RobFowl wrote: »

FTA69 wrote: »

So the "civilians" were only "collateral damage".
Phew thats ok then.

Ugh, this is the typical moral posturing response you get from some when this issue comes up.
The question is wether civilians were targeted. Nobody is talking about the morality of the issue.
Clearly civilians were not the target. Targeting civilians was counter productive to the IRA's aims and abilities.

Rubeter · 29-08-2013 11:42AM

FTA69 wrote: »

Rubeter wrote: »

Simplistic my arse. Half of the people moaning about the Provos being terrorists with no mandate have zero problem lauding the likes of Pearse or Plunkett who were also armed terrorists with no mandate. That is hypocrisy. Lauding armed struggle because it was a suitable time period ago and because you have a misty-eyed view of that campaign is also hypocrisy. You can babble on about "different contexts" all you want but the fact is that the contexts weren't that different and the motivation behind Republicans of both periods was exactly the same.

Is Bobby Sands who died on hunger strike any less of a hero than Terence MacSwiney who did the same? If you have an opinion on the above matter then by all means share it, it'd be more productive than sniping at me over non-existent contradictions in my posts.

Very simplistic indeed, simplistic to the point of naivety really, what is suitable for one time period may not be suitable for another, I'm sure you have heard the expression "The past is a different country", there is a lot of sense in those words.
With your idea where do you stop? You can't judge the actions of someone by the standards of a different time, which time period do you pick? Situations and more importantly standards change.

The bomber pilots of WWII were considered heroes, would the same attitude be expressed today with the carpet bombing of cities?

Ignoring the context of an action is quite simply ridiculous. Whether Terence Mc can be considered a hero or not depends on his actions at a certain time and place and the same for Sands. Their actions may be the same, they may have had similar motivations but the contexts were different and the times were different, these must be taken into account in determining the validity of an action.

FTA69 · 29-08-2013 11:51AM

But the contexts in which armed struggle with no mandate took place were largely the same. If anything the Provos had more justification for their insurrection in 1969 as they were responding to pogroms. Again you're not making any semblance of a point on the issue at hand, which is whether there was a moral discrepancy between the IRA of the 1920s and the IRA of the 1970s+. Saying there was a different context between 1916 and 1970 is fair enough; trying to say there was a moral justification for armed struggle in Ireland in 1916 (heroes) while portraying a later generation of Irish Republicans as gangsters isn't fair however.

How was did the context in 1916 warrant an insurrection with no mandate whatsoever from the Irish people?

Rubeter · 29-08-2013 12:02PM

FTA69 wrote: »

But the contexts in which armed struggle with no mandate took place were largely the same. If anything the Provos had more justification for their insurrection in 1969 as they were responding to pogroms. Again you're not making any semblance of a point on the issue at hand, which is whether there was a moral discrepancy between the IRA of the 1920s and the IRA of the 1970s+. Saying there was a different context between 1916 and 1970 is fair enough; trying to say there was a moral justification for armed struggle in Ireland in 1916 (heroes) while portraying a later generation of Irish Republicans as gangsters isn't fair however.

How was did the context in 1916 warrant an insurrection with no mandate whatsoever from the Irish people?

You see I am not making a judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the actions here, (it gets too messy and I couldn't be arsed).
All I am saying is holding differing opinions of people doing similar things distanced by 80 odd years is not necessarily hypocritical because of one big difference and that difference is, the times. The times in which things happen is a very important variable, and if there is a variable then things are not the same.

Old IRA compared to PIRA

Comments