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

Child Item

Is there a differance between the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA?

The who

I was wondering what was the difference between the two but I do the C.I.R.A split from the provo's in the eighties and the R.I.R.A split after the ceasefire in 1996. Also did they join up?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Manassas61

Both are terrorist groups, hate Protestants. That just about sums it up.

FTA69

The CIRA and Republican SF split from the Provos in 1986 after they decided to pursue a political strategy that would result in them taking seats in Leinster House. They claim to be the one and only "Republican Movement" based on legitimacy being passed to them by Tom Maguire, the last surviving member of the Second Dáil's anti-Treaty deputies. The Continuity IRA is generally regarded as militarily inept and RSF are pretty much dead in the water and have failed to gain any sort of political traction.

The Real IRA split from the IRA in 1997 and did so over disagreement with the "peace strategy" of the Adams leadership, after failing to push a return to armed struggle via the structures of the IRA they formed a rival group. Initially they attracted a number of capable and experienced operators but lost all credibility after Omagh which deterred people from joining them. They also attracted a number of recruits who were of extremely low calibre and this led to them entering a wilderness of inactivity and involvement in unsavoury activities. They have been undergoing a growth in activity and membership recently but still face accusations of involvement in crime etc.

Óglaigh na hÉireann is the newest armed group and it's backbone lies in former Provisional activists who stayed with that organisation until quite recently, they are believed to be linked with the Republican Network for Unity group which is largely Belfast-based.

jimmycrackcorm

Manassas61 wrote: »

Both are terrorist groups, hate Protestants. That just about sums it up.

Your maths is wrong.
Both would welcome protestants who hate the British.

Manassas61

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Your maths is wrong.
Both would welcome protestants who hate the British.

No. Terrorist is the only word which you can use to describe them.

Goat the dote

And I don't think any of them are the IRA of Collins' time

Godge

No difference really except to those who argue semantics.

They are both terrorist organisations who have split from the Sinn Fein/IRA terrorist organisation.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

Both are terrorist groups, hate Protestants. That just about sums it up.

Evidence of them hating Protestants?

SoulandForm

Godge wrote: »

No difference really except to those who argue semantics.

They are both terrorist organisations who have split from the Sinn Fein/IRA terrorist organisation.

Actually there is a huge difference in that the CIRA completely reject any legitimacy of the 26 counties government and also support the economic platform of Republican Sinn Fein (basically de-centralized market socialism) while the RIRA dont seem to have any politics outside of removing the border.

maccored

Goat the dote wrote: »

And I don't think any of them are the IRA of Collins' time

was that some kind of special, extra nice IRA?

Godge

SoulandForm wrote: »

Actually there is a huge difference in that the CIRA completely reject any legitimacy of the 26 counties government and also support the economic platform of Republican Sinn Fein (basically de-centralized market socialism) while the RIRA dont seem to have any politics outside of removing the border.

That is not a huge difference.

It would be more correct to say that they are both terrorist organisations who support killing and murder to oppress the vast majority view on this island and that any political differences are minor in the context of their illegitimate purpose.

Karl Stein

Godge wrote: »

split from the Sinn Fein/IRA terrorist organisation.

Who, themselves, were born of British/Unionist terrorism.

Godge

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Who, themselves, were born of British/Unionist terrorism.

Which is completely off-topic.

We are discussing whether there is a difference between varying bits of the IRA.

It seems that apart from some minor political differences (which are insignificant in the context of terrorist organisations - who cares whether there are doctrinal differences between Al Qaieda and other Islamic terrorists?) there is little difference between the two.

Maybe someone could outline differences in operational capability?

Banjo String

Manassas61 wrote: »

Both are terrorist groups, hate Protestants. That just about sums it up.

Lol.

You're not very knowledgeable on the old paramilitary groups are you?

I wasn't aware they had any beef with 'protestants'

[Deleted User]

Godge wrote: »

Which is completely off-topic.

We are discussing whether there is a difference between varying bits of the IRA.

It seems that apart from some minor political differences (which are insignificant in the context of terrorist organisations - who cares whether there are doctrinal differences between Al Qaieda and other Islamic terrorists?) there is little difference between the two.

Maybe someone could outline differences in operational capability?

I think you may have overlooked a very important point that arises from their 'minor political differences', according to the description above the RIRA would have no ideological basis if NI were to become a part of Ireland and be assimilated into the current government whereas in that situation the CIRA would still be active as they dont recognise the current government of Ireland

Manassas61

Banjo String wrote: »

Lol.

You're not very knowledgeable on the old paramilitary groups are you?

I wasn't aware they had any beef with 'protestants'

They certainly don't care for them and the group before them in the PIRA killed lots of them. Terrorist see terrorist do. No difference at all.

Banjo String

Manassas61 wrote: »

They certainly don't care for them and the group before them in the PIRA killed lots of them. Terrorist see terrorist do. No difference at all.

Have you any source/evidence that unequivocally links any 'dislike' by either paramilitary group to having a specific 'dislike' to protestants, or its this a fact solely dreamed up of your own imagination?

Howard Juneau

Banjo String wrote: »

Have you any source/evidence that unequivocally links any 'dislike' by either paramilitary group to having a specific 'dislike' to protestants, or its this a fact solely dreamed up of your own imagination?

Who do they kill then, our of curiosity?

SoulandForm

Banjo String wrote: »

Have you any source/evidence that unequivocally links any 'dislike' by either paramilitary group to having a specific 'dislike' to protestants, or its this a fact solely dreamed up of your own imagination?

There was a sectarian undercurrent to the Provos' campaign, hard not for there to be given the nature of Northern Ireland society however the Provos were not essentially driven by sectarianism. Loyalists have a belief that Republican-Separatism is a mirror image of themselves hence the presumption of the Provos' motives.

Banjo String

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Who do they kill then, our of curiosity?

I'm pretty sure their campaign wasn't 'a war on prods'.

I'm awaiting evidence that contradicts this.

Howard Juneau

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm pretty sure their campaign wasn't 'a war on prods'.

I'm awaiting evidence that contradicts this.

What percentage of deaths would have been Catholic?

SoulandForm

Howard Juneau wrote: »

What percentage of deaths would have been Catholic?

Was the UK's war in the 1940s a war of Anglicans against Lutherans?

Banjo String

Howard Juneau wrote: »

What percentage of deaths would have been Catholic?

What percentage was Jewish?

Their campaign/aim wasn't religious based. Or has this point sailed straight over your head

Howard Juneau

Banjo String wrote: »

What percentage was Jewish?

Their campaign/aim wasn't religious based. Or has this point sailed straight over your head

http://truthonsectarianism.blogspot.ie/2011/05/ira-are-sectarian.html?m=1

SoulandForm

Howard Juneau wrote: »

http://truthonsectarianism.blogspot.ie/2011/05/ira-are-sectarian.html?m=1

So you bring up as proof an article by Sean O'Callaghan (who was exposed as a sexual pervert among other things) in a far right American magazine that opposed intergration in the 1960s in the southern states of the USA?

Yes there was a sectarian undercurrent to the Provos campaign however if it had been in essence sectarian you would have seen something extremely different- they would have put much more store on gunning down Orange men than British Army soldiers and the local security services.

Ninap

You can read this debate every night of the year on politics.ie

Howard Juneau

SoulandForm wrote: »

So you bring up as proof an article by Sean O'Callaghan (who was exposed as a sexual pervert among other things) in a far right American magazine that opposed intergration in the 1960s in the southern states of the USA?

Yes there was a sectarian undercurrent to the Provos campaign however if it had been in essence sectarian you would have seen something extremely different- they would have put much more store on gunning down Orange men than British Army soldiers and the local security services.

Ah, attack someone for being a 'sexual pervert" not a murderer, interesting thinking there

Banjo String

Howard Juneau wrote: »

http://truthonsectarianism.blogspot.ie/2011/05/ira-are-sectarian.html?m=1

Ah a 'blog'.

That puts that whole debate to bed so. :pac:

Sean O'Callaghan. IRA Informant/Double agent.

He now lives relatively openly in England, having refused to adopt a new identity, and works as a security consultant, occasional advisor to the Ulster Unionist Party, and media pundit, usually whenever the IRA has made a major announcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_O%27Callaghan#Present_occupation

He was so high up the IRA heirarchy that he claimed murdered solictor Pat Finucane was a member.
A claim rubbished, by both the IRA, and by the RUC at the time.

You'll have to do better than that Howard.

Howard Juneau

Banjo String wrote: »

Ah a 'blog'.
From his own book
That puts that whole debate to bed so. :pac:

Sean O'Callaghan. IRA Informant/Double agent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_O%27Callaghan#Present_occupation

Poacher turned gamekeeper

first doyle

Goat the dote wrote: »

And I don't think any of them are the IRA of Collins' time

Irish Republicanism is just as much about opposing the southern state as it is about opposing the northern state.

If you look at the formation of the Freestate you will see how much it was about hunting down Irish republicans and murdering them in cold blood.

Ireland/The Republic of Ireland/The Freestate Government or whatever you want to call it rapped itself up in this myth that Ireland achieved independence in 1922 and through this process it invented a history which detached itself from a traditional path of national separatism.

The only reason why republicans didn't take on the southern government in the second half of the 20th century was because it did not make military sense. It doesn't take away the fact that in many republican eyes the Freestate/26 county government in the south is an imposter state just like its northern counterpart and that's how republicans see it and that is the main reason why the CIRA exists.

This video is very informative and offers an accurate portrayal of how things were played out in the 1920s then what people are thought of as 'their history'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id--z0RQQ_c

FTA69

Sean O'Callaghan has zero credibility. He's a raging alcoholic and has told packs of lies in order to cover up other actions he was involved in. You're simply attempting to stamp a crude sectarian label upon a very complex political conflict and scraping the barrel in order to provide "evidence" in order to do so.