Old IRA compared to PIRA

Karl Stein · 29-08-2013 05:20PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the world's sixth largest economy brought to its knees because a few pubs and an Argos get blown up.

The February 1996 Canary Wharf and June 1996 Manchester CBD bombs cost the UK billions of pounds and were the tipping point for the British when it came to the north.

Not long after the above attacks, the parades commission was set up, the Garvaghy road march was banned and the message was given loud and clear to Unionists and Loyalists - your days of doing as you please backed, ultimately, by the British are over.

It's just a pity that while young people were killing each other in the north it seemed easily tolerated by the British (and Irish ftm) governments but when a couple of economically destructive bombs attack the heart of Britain the issue becomes urgent.

Fratton Fred · 29-08-2013 05:24PM

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

The February 1996 Canary Wharf and June 1996 Manchester CBD bombs cost the UK billions of pounds and were the tipping point for the British when it came to the north.

And?

Rubeter · 29-08-2013 05:26PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This is the really tragic thing about the shinners glorifying the PIRA, kids are growing up actually believing this sort of crap.

Economic targets ffs, the world's sixth largest economy brought to its knees because a few pubs and an Argos get blown up.

Jack, you seriously need to cop on.

10p to make a phone call that could shut down the London transport system or the motorway network, no bombs needed. I still smile to this day when I think of it.

seachto7 · 29-08-2013 05:32PM

scum

Karl Stein · 29-08-2013 05:37PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And?

Bombs with a wholly economic impact advanced the peace process from the perspective of the PIRA. PIRA bombs that killed civilians only ever hurt 'the cause', the Enniskillen bomb for example turned a lot of Nationalist people sympathetic to the PIRA away from it.

My main point is, though, that's it's a shame that when the ability to accumulate profit gets threatened, action takes place, rather than when young people are dying in the ditches and streets - be they Republican, Unionist, British soldier or civilians. I understand this isn't unique to the troubles fwiw.

.jacksparrow. · 29-08-2013 05:44PM

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.

I don't remember reading that either, can you post me where you read their into drug dealing please?

Really interested to read that.

Fratton Fred · 29-08-2013 05:53PM

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Bombs with a wholly economic impact advanced the peace process from the perspective of the PIRA. PIRA bombs that killed civilians only ever hurt 'the cause', the Enniskillen bomb for example turned a lot of Nationalist people sympathetic to the PIRA away from it.

My main point is, though, that's it's a shame that when the ability to accumulate profit gets threatened, action takes place, rather than when young people are dying in the ditches and streets - be they Republican, Unionist, British soldier or civilians. I understand this isn't unique to the troubles fwiw.

Exactly.

Contrast Canary Wharf with Warrington. Canary wharf at that time was fairly empty and is one of London's financial districts. That was an economic target.

In Warrington, the IRA placed a bomb outside McDonalds set to go off on a Saturday lunch time. There is no way that anyone could claim that was not targeting civilians and was an economic target. It was an act of pure terrorism.

I would also add that the reprisal murders in northern Ireland were as big an act of sheer brutality and should have received more press coverage than they did.

FTA69 · 29-08-2013 05:54PM

suchafunkymonke wrote: »

The original IRA were fighting an invasive Army (whose soldiers didn't even want to be there). That is an Army vs an Army. That is War.

The original IRA were predominantly fighting the police and killed twice as many policemen as they did soldiers. I think you'll find the Provisional IRA were also fighting an invasive army.

Fratton Fred · 29-08-2013 05:59PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Remember when I said this Of course you don't because I doubt you're even reading my posts. You're just seeing what you want to see and then coming out with one of your typical preset posts

Your quoting has gone awry here.

Answer me one thing, if civilians were not the target, why bomb those places when they are at their busiest?

FTA69 · 29-08-2013 06:04PM

BlatentCheek wrote: »

The IRA recognised by the first Dail was the national army of an occupied country,

The IRA had already started its campaign long before the it pledged allegiance to the Dáil, something which didn't take place until 1920. The Dáil itself didn't accept the IRA as a national army until a few weeks before the Truce. Hither to that Volunteers owed their allegiance solely to the IRA executive. Similarly this notion of the IRA being bound by a democratic mandate is b*llocks. They may have widespread political support but they certainly didn't predicate the justification for the armed struggle on that alone. Similarly the IRA had no mandate whatsoever in 1916.

The IRA didn't take part in 1916, that was the National Voulunteers.

Nonsense. The National Volunteers were Redmond's crowd and were off fighting in France at the time. The Rising was undertaken by IRB personnel within the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army; the two being then known as the Army of the Irish Republic.

BlatentCheek · 29-08-2013 06:17PM

FTA69 wrote: »

BlatentCheek wrote: »

The IRA had already started its campaign long before the it pledged allegiance to the Dáil, something which didn't take place until 1920. The Dáil itself didn't accept the IRA as a national army until a few weeks before the Truce. Hither to that Volunteers owed their allegiance solely to the IRA executive. Similarly this notion of the IRA being bound by a democratic mandate is b*llocks. They may have widespread political support but they certainly didn't predicate the justification for the armed struggle on that alone. Similarly the IRA had no mandate whatsoever in 1916.

Nonsense. The National Volunteers were Redmond's crowd and were off fighting in France at the time. The Rising was undertaken by IRB personnel within the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army; the two being then known as the Army of the Irish Republic.

Your right on both counts, my mistake. I'm not aware of the Irish Volunteers or ICA being referred to as the IRA, by themselves or others, as early as the Easter rising however.

I stick to my basic point that equating them with the PIRA or the dissidents, is inaccurate and unfair

tdv123 · 29-08-2013 07:00PM

In modern terns the name "Irish Republican Army" was used to describe the combined force of the Irish Volunteer rebel forces lead by Patrick Pearse & James Connolly's smaller Irish Citizens Army.

After a 2 year semi-successful guerrilla war with the British Army the IRA split into two factions over the Anglo-Irish treaty. The anti-treaty IRA fought it out with newly formed Free State Army (who actually committed more atrocities against Republicans than the British did). Loosing the fight against the Free State Army rather than surrender the anti-treaty IRA called a truce which the Free Staters accepted & the Republic of Munster was handed back to the provisional government.

After 3 failed campaigns the IRA put it's guns "away" & it's leadership decided to try out a marxist approach instead.

During the mid 60's peacemaker & sectarian killing maniac Gusty Spence reformed the Ulster Volunteer Force to destroy the non-existent IRA. Unable to find any IRA men the UVF killed random Catholics instead. These random killings were helped to look legit by the ramblings of anti-Catholic & sectarian bigot Ian Paisley.

Around this time a non-violent civil rights organization was formed in the North of Ireland with the aim of reforming the state & ending discrimination against Catholics. The civil rights marches were heavily cracked down on by the NI security forces. Loyalists opposed to reforms invaded Catholic areas & burned them out of their houses, the loyalists mobs were backed by the NI security forces. In response young nationalists started throwing petrol bombs at anything with wheels on it. This waved in a whole new generation of potential recruits for the IRA.

Also around this time the IRA split over two things.

1. On How to defend Nationalist areas from loyalist mobs.
2. Recognizing the Dublin government.

The more militants split to form the Provo IRA & the others the Sticky IRA.
The Provos support grew after the Battle of St. Matthews & was viewed by many as the nationalists sole defender.

The Provos & the INLA (another breakaway group) engaged British forces for 27 years & blew up civilian buildings. This all ended with the signing of the GFA. The CIRA, RIRA, ONH & The "New" IRA split from the Provos after the GFA.

In terms of effectiveness the Old IRA's 3rd Cork brigade could be compared to the Provo's South Armagh brigade.

tdv123 · 29-08-2013 09:18PM

FTA69 wrote: »

BlatentCheek wrote: »

The IRA had already started its campaign long before the it pledged allegiance to the Dáil, something which didn't take place until 1920. The Dáil itself didn't accept the IRA as a national army until a few weeks before the Truce. Hither to that Volunteers owed their allegiance solely to the IRA executive. Similarly this notion of the IRA being bound by a democratic mandate is b*llocks. They may have widespread political support but they certainly didn't predicate the justification for the armed struggle on that alone. Similarly the IRA had no mandate whatsoever in 1916.

Nonsense. The National Volunteers were Redmond's crowd and were off fighting in France at the time. The Rising was undertaken by IRB personnel within the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army; the two being then known as the Army of the Irish Republic.

They were not Redmond's crowd, They were set-up in 1913 by IRB men in respone to the Ulster Volunteers. They had around 200,000 members most of which were hijacked by Redmond for the British war effort & to secure Home Rule. Some 12,000 members were suppose to take part in a Rising sometime during the war but orders to strike on Easter Sunday were counter-maned by moderates.

markomuscle · 29-08-2013 09:29PM

I believe only the people who lived at the time can judge if they were 'bad' or 'good'.
A relative of mine was part of an ambush that killed a few police men in the 1920's.
Is he really that different to his brother that was in the British army (viewed as heroes) who most likely shot people before he died himself.

FTA69 · 29-08-2013 09:30PM

The National Volunteers were Redmonds crowd. They took that name when they split from the Irish Volunteers.

tdv123 · 29-08-2013 10:31PM

FTA69 wrote: »

The National Volunteers were Redmonds crowd. They took that name when they split from the Irish Volunteers.

Redmond just re-branded them. They were still the creation of IRB men.

Crooked Jack · 29-08-2013 10:32PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Your quoting has gone awry here.

Answer me one thing, if civilians were not the target, why bomb those places when they are at their busiest?

To create as much disruption as possible. your hatred of republicans is blinding you to objective fact. this was clearly not an attempt to kill civilians. A half hour warning was given to clear people from the area. the IRA cause has never been served or helped by killing civilians. your persistant refusal to accept the facts put in fron of you in favour of continuing to try and attempt to portray the IRA a mindless bloodthirsty killers will only serve to overshadow or water down any genuine and justified complaints you have about the IRA

tdv123 · 29-08-2013 10:53PM

markomuscle wrote: »

I believe only the people who lived at the time can judge if they were 'bad' or 'good'.
A relative of mine was part of an ambush that killed a few police men in the 1920's.
Is he really that different to his brother that was in the British army (viewed as heroes) who most likely shot people before he died himself.

The same police force who had a hand in watching beef & grain disappear from the island to English markets while a million native people of the island starved to death?

Yes, there is a difference. Your relative had greater morale justification for picking up a gun.

Busted Flat. · 29-08-2013 11:11PM

There was one IRA, they evolved over the years, the root is still there, just because some people over the years went different ways, has not diminished the root. Get a grip.

Fratton Fred · 29-08-2013 11:30PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

To create as much disruption as possible. your hatred of republicans is blinding you to objective fact. this was clearly not an attempt to kill civilians. A half hour warning was given to clear people from the area. the IRA cause has never been served or helped by killing civilians. your persistant refusal to accept the facts put in fron of you in favour of continuing to try and attempt to portray the IRA a mindless bloodthirsty killers will only serve to overshadow or water down any genuine and justified complaints you have about the IRA

Disruption? Disrupting who? Innocent people doing their Saturday shopping.

How the **** is that not targeting civilians. I understand you want to see these guys as romantic selfless heroes, but the truth is they were not, they were fanatics who were prepared to do anything to further their cause.

Your constant making excuses for them is sickening to be honest. What more justified and genuine complaint can there be than being disgusted by an organisation that sets off a bomb, without warning, outside a macdonalds on a Saturday lunchtime. There were two bombs, one would cause serious disruption, two were meant to kill and maim.

Give up son, you're making a fool of yourself, even the most ardent of republicans on here don't defend the Warrington bomb.

Busted Flat. · 29-08-2013 11:35PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Disruption? Disrupting who? Innocent people doing their Saturday shopping.

How the **** is that not targeting civilians. I understand you want to see these guys as romantic selfless heroes, but the truth is they were not, they were fanatics who were prepared to do anything to further their cause.

Your constant making excuses for them is sickening to be honest. What more justified and genuine complaint can there be than being disgusted by an organisation that sets off a bomb, without warning, outside a macdonalds on a Saturday lunchtime. There were two bombs, one would cause serious disruption, two were meant to kill and maim.

Give up son, you're making a fool of yourself, even the most ardent of republicans on here don't defend the Warrington bomb.

What is your opinion of the GB forces creating havoc in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries, would your opinion be that that they were lesser class of human beings.

Fratton Fred · 30-08-2013 12:00AM

Busted Flat. wrote: »

What is your opinion of the GB forces creating havoc in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries, would your opinion be that that they were lesser class of human beings.

But but but.

Start a thread if you like.

Busted Flat. · 30-08-2013 12:03AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But but but.

Start a thread if you like.

Like you have done before, run for cover, when the $hit gets close to home.
:cool: :cool:

tdv123 · 30-08-2013 12:16AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Disruption? Disrupting who? Innocent people doing their Saturday shopping.

How the **** is that not targeting civilians. I understand you want to see these guys as romantic selfless heroes, but the truth is they were not, they were fanatics who were prepared to do anything to further their cause.

Your constant making excuses for them is sickening to be honest. What more justified and genuine complaint can there be than being disgusted by an organisation that sets off a bomb, without warning, outside a macdonalds on a Saturday lunchtime. There were two bombs, one would cause serious disruption, two were meant to kill and maim.

Give up son, you're making a fool of yourself, even the most ardent of republicans on here don't defend the Warrington bomb.

In every war there are acts that can not be defended. Warrington, Bloody Sunday, Dublin & Monaghan, Eniskillen, Greysteel etc... nobody can justify things like that.

But who are the authors of the whole mess? Should we blame the Irish people for voting in a democratic election for an Irish Republic? If the British government had recognized the Irish peoples right to self determination there would be no conflict, there would be no IRA & there would be no people who try to justify things like Warrington.

If the people living in Scotland vote for Independence there will no partition of Scotland & no British soldiers will be sent to try & thwart the democratic wishes of the Scottish people because that would be criminal & insane. Just like it was criminal & insane here some 95 years ago.

Busted Flat. · 30-08-2013 12:18AM

tdv123 wrote: »

In every war there are acts that can not be defended. Warrington, Bloody Sunday, Dublin & Monaghan, Eniskillen, Greysteel etc... nobody can justify things like that.

But who are the authors of the whole mess? Should we blame the Irish people for voting in a democratic election for an Irish Republic? If the British government had recognized the Irish peoples right to self determination there would be no conflict, there would be no IRA & there would be no people who try to justify things like Warrington.

If the people living in Scotland vote for Independence there will no partition of Scotland & no British soldiers will be sent to try & thwart the democratic wishes of the Scottish people because that would be criminal & insane. Just like it was criminal & insane here some 95 years ago.

Excellent reply.

Crooked Jack · 30-08-2013 09:37AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Disruption? Disrupting who? Innocent people doing their Saturday shopping.

Disrupting business. Shutting down roads, town centres, high streets, shopping centres, just the general economy of the place.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How the **** is that not targeting civilians. I understand you want to see these guys as romantic selfless heroes, but the truth is they were not, they were fanatics who were prepared to do anything to further their cause.

I dont know how many times we need to go over the same stuff Fred. I mean, you clearly arent reading my posts. This is how a debate works. One of us makes a point, the other counters it. But what's happening here is I'm dispassionately presenting you with the facts and you're coming back with the same gibberish again and again.
The issue here is were civilians targeted.
The facts are; a detailed warning was given half an hour before the blast. The police chose to go and search for the bombs rather than immediately evacuate the area.
There were indeed two bombs. Most likely to either maximise damage and/or in case one bom was defused/failed. Both within a hundred yards of each other and both went off within seconds of each other. The distance puts them both well within what should have been the evacuated area and the almost simultaneous detonations mean there was clearly no effort or intention to catch people in any sort of follow up blast.
After it was revealed that two people had been killed the IRA issued a statement expressing deep regret at the tragedy.
Now what about any of that indicates the intention was to kill people out shopping?
That is not a justification or a glorification, those are the facts.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Your constant making excuses for them is sickening to be honest.

Where are the excuses? Go back, read my posts and you'll see where I condemned all civilian deaths and specifically said "I am not justifying what happened."
What I am, without apology justifying, is the IRA's economic campaign in Britain. British securocrats had a phrase Im sure you've no doubt heard before. They didnt want an end to the conflict so much as seeing it reduced to "an acceptable level of violence." The British government would be happy enough for us still to be killing each other here to this day, so long as we kept our grubby paddy dispute out of their lovely country. The IRA's economic campaign in Britain brought their government to the negotiating table and ended the conflict.
Now before you go off on another one of your holier-than-thou rants, I point out again (though I'm not sure why seeing as you probably wont read it) that that does not amount to a justification/excuse/glorification of any civilian deaths.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What more justified and genuine complaint can there be than being disgusted by an organisation that sets off a bomb, without warning, outside a macdonalds on a Saturday lunchtime. There were two bombs, one would cause serious disruption, two were meant to kill and maim.

Firstly, liar. Secondly, all other points have been addressed earlier in this post.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Give up son, you're making a fool of yourself, even the most ardent of republicans on here don't defend the Warrington bomb.

Yeah, I'm making a fool of myself. Im here presenting you with the facts, youre the one copying and pasting the same anti-republican rant in response over and over.
I suspect the truth is that you're just so bitter and twisted that you cant accept for even a second that there was even a shred of humanity in the IRA, lest that cut into your own narrative that it was the big bad scary monster that came out of nowhere and just started killing people for no reason.
It was ordinary men and women, in an extraordinary situation, not of their making, with little other choice but to fight back.
Now please, actually read my post and consider your response before replying or there really is no point continuing this wee roundabout.

Fratton Fred · 30-08-2013 01:20PM

The warning mentioned a bomb in Liverpool. It would be the equivalent of planting a bomb in Tallaght and giving a warning of a bomb in o'Connell street. It wasn't detailed.

The bombs would have caused the same level of disruption if they went off at 3am.

These are the facts.

Crooked Jack · 30-08-2013 02:12PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The warning mentioned a bomb in Liverpool. It would be the equivalent of planting a bomb in Tallaght and giving a warning of a bomb in o'Connell street. It wasn't detailed.

First there was no warning. Now there was an inadequate warning. You're all over the place Fred.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The bombs would have caused the same level of disruption if they went off at 3am.

That's just a daft statement.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

These are the facts.

Nope, the first statement is unclear and disputed. The second one is pure conjecture.
Im not going to go back over all the facts again because they are there for anyone to read but the overwhelming amount of evidence would indicate that the IRA had no interest in attacking civilians because above all, it knew that doing so would be massively counterproductive.

Despite Fred's foaming at the mouth hatred for all things republican I must say I at least respect his views on the basis that they are at least consistent.
There are few things worse than the double standards and hypocrisy of those who extol the virtues of "the good old" IRA while at the same time lambasting the Provos, an organisation that only came into existence due to the aggression of unionism/loyalism, the intransigence of Britain and the cowardice of the Free State.

Fratton Fred · 30-08-2013 02:33PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

First there was no warning. Now there was an inadequate warning. You're all over the place Fred.

That's just a daft statement.

Nope, the first statement is unclear and disputed. The second one is pure conjecture.
Im not going to go back over all the facts again because they are there for anyone to read but the overwhelming amount of evidence would indicate that the IRA had no interest in attacking civilians because above all, it knew that doing so would be massively counterproductive.

Despite Fred's foaming at the mouth hatred for all things republican I must say I at least respect his views on the basis that they are at least consistent.
There are few things worse than the double standards and hypocrisy of those who extol the virtues of "the good old" IRA while at the same time lambasting the Provos, an organisation that only came into existence due to the aggression of unionism/loyalism, the intransigence of Britain and the cowardice of the Free State.

You're putting words in my mouth, disliking the IRA or even Sinn Fein does not equal a hatred for all things republican. As an ideology it is sound, but I have no love for Marxism and a fairly general dislike for acts of wanton terrorism.

The IRA carried out a lot of acts that could be considered bonafide acts of war. As cowardly as I may think it was, I do not consider the deal barracks bombing in the same way I would Birmingham.

The hypocrisy of those who condemn the shootings in Gibralter But defend the shooting of (for example) William Davies is laughably typical though.

Capt'n Midnight · 01-09-2013 10:19AM

Just a reminder
Inan Bashir and John Jeffries were killed in the Canary Wharf bombing

and a lot of people injured
http://www.tobyharnden.com/banditcountry/

and don't forget it was during a ceasefire and in London so unexpected

All along the attitude towards civilians was hand washing because "we issued some sort of warning, it was the authorities fault"

It's the daily mail so scroll down to see the pictures
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2243951/The-astonishing-interactive-map-EVERY-bomb-dropped-London-Blitz.html

Old IRA compared to PIRA

Comments