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

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

13567…28

Comments

  • #62
    riffmongous
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,951 ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Godge wrote: »
    That is fantasy stuff. NI is not going to become part of Ireland this century and certainly not because of anything either of those terrorist organisations do so my point about minor political differences being immaterial still stands.

    That's a pretty simplistic viewpoint


  • #63
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Godge wrote: »
    That is fantasy stuff.
    Godge wrote: »
    NI is not going to become part of Ireland this century and certainly not because of anything either of those terrorist organisations do so my point about minor political differences being immaterial still stands.
    So simplistic. So naive. I love it. You keep dreaming pal. Don't let anyone tell you it's not possible! :)


  • #64
    Elmer Blooker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,249 ✭✭✭Elmer Blooker


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Just to be clear I dont buy into the argument about the killings of UDR or RUC as being sectarian.

    The guns used at Kingsmill were PIRA guns- we know that now. The Provisionals should come clean about that war crime as hardly anyone outside of their movement buys the story.
    Apparently the Republican Action Force was just a cover for the Provisional IRA so yes, the Provos were behind Kingsmill. But the reality was the Provos were under pressure to protect the Catholic population (like in Belfast in 1969) in an area that was known as the "murder triangle" where UDA/UDR/RUC gangs were operating with impunity.
    This is a very chilling read.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenanne_gang


  • #65
    first doyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 42 ✭first doyle


    Godge wrote: »
    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.

    Political mandates in Ireland pretty much went out the window once Britain gave the UVF terror group what they wanted against the wishes of the vast majority of Irish people.

    Anybody in Ireland can have a political mandate once they have enough fire power to back it up. That's Britains remaining legacy in Ireland.


  • #66
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    first doyle wrote: »
    Anybody in Ireland can have a political mandate once they have enough fire power to back it up. That's Britains remaining legacy in Ireland.

    That's just an excuse for terrorism tbh. It has nothing to do with British legacy, more an Unwillingness by certain political elements that the vast majority of people do not want them or their methods.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    tdv123 wrote: »
    Yes actually. It's just the shinners strategy to recognize it until the ultimate goal is met.
    No one is interested. That is the reality of the situation. The majority of people don't care for a United Ireland.


  • #68
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    maccored wrote: »
    Thats new history that is. I suppose you'll be telling me the rising had vast public support too. I hate this rose tinted boll0cks about how the 'old' IRA were really nice and friendly and never hurt anyone, but the 'new' IRA are all nasty terrorists. Absolute fairytales. Its like Liam Lynch or Tom Barry never existed.

    Yep it's a load of bollox that's why nearly all the elected Irish MP's of the time were in it or something to do with it in some shape or form. I hear that Collins fella was fairly hated around Dublin, there would be mobs in there 1000's going around each night looking to burn him at the stake.

    If you look my previous posts in here you'll see I was very fair to the new lads (imo) & did not think the old boyos were nice & friendly so stop reading things that are not there.


  • #69
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Elmer Blooker wrote: »
    Apparently the Republican Action Force was just a cover for the Provisional IRA so yes, the Provos were behind Kingsmill. But the reality was the Provos were under pressure to protect the Catholic population (like in Belfast in 1969) in an area that was known as the "murder triangle" where UDA/UDR/RUC gangs were operating with impunity.
    This is a very chilling read.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenanne_gang

    Wasnt the Glenanne gang UVF and linked to a particular UDR unit? An SDLP MP named the the key figures in Westminster I believe (they included if memory serves me correctly two of Willie Frazer's relatives) all of whom ended up dead. The massacre took place in 1976 when it was clear that there would be no British withdrawal in the short term. "Hitting back" indiscriminately in that manner was only going to increase support for the Loyalists and harden the fortress mentality.


  • #70
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,781 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    tdv123 wrote: »
    Yep it's a load of bollox

    Good to see you agree.
    If you look my previous posts in here you'll see I was very fair to the new lads (imo) & did not think the old boyos were nice & friendly so stop reading things that are not there.

    You;d be surprised how many try to sell that line, in that they were nice and loverly in comparison. Still though, they were as loved and as supported as the provos ever were so the idea they were accepted better is an untruth.


  • #71
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Banjo String wrote: »
    Agreed.

    I could be wrong here but has anybody from the Provisionals confirmed that he carried out any actual killings when he was the PIRA? A lot of his story doesnt make much sense- for instance if he was as leftist as he said he was why did he not stick with the Officials?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    tdv123 wrote: »
    Yeah there some good interesting points about the Brits. If it was there policy to terrorize the nationalist community to undermine support it didn't seem to work very well as the IRA attacks increased year by year from the late 80's until the 94 ceasefire. In all honesty the Provos gave them a good hiding on the battle fields.

    That's true also people who joined the Provos were motivated by a very different set of circumstances then the men of 1916 or the 1920's who didn't live in a sectarian divided state unlike the Northerners.

    Up to a point-by the mid to late 1970s the Provisionals seemed to be on their way out. It was the UK governments viciousness in the prisons and the hunger strikes which arose it that put a lot of new wind into the sails of the armed campaign. Part of me believes that the UK government deliberately kept the troubles once they had the violence relatively contained in order to give themselves a theatre to study urban warfare in the context of the cold war.


  • #73
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    No one is interested. That is the reality of the situation. The majority of people don't care for a United Ireland.

    Popularity for it ebbs & flows, once Celtic Tiger 2.0 hits the 26 counties they'll be cuing up the Fermanagh & Armagh borders to get in.


  • #74
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    No one is interested. That is the reality of the situation. The majority of people don't care for a United Ireland.

    Than why do all the parties in south outside of the Socialist Party have as their stated policy the ending of partition? Im sure if people thought that a united Ireland could be achieved in a few years by violence than the CIRA and RIRA would have much greater support than they do.


  • #75
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Than why do all the parties in south outside of the Socialist Party have as their stated policy the ending of partition? Im sure if people thought that a united Ireland could be achieved in a few years by violence than the CIRA and RIRA would have much greater support than they do.
    Its just something they are meant to say. Not that they really want it.


  • #76
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    maccored wrote: »
    Good to see you agree.



    You;d be surprised how many try to sell that line, in that they were nice and loverly in comparison. Still though, they were as loved and as supported as the provos ever were so the idea they were accepted better is an untruth.

    When I say support I don't mean support for actually going around killing people. Support for the objectives, I don't think much people on the island cared much for a Socialist Republic in the 80's or 90's, whereas in the 20's if the polls are anything go by there was a lot of support for what they were trying achieve.

    Obviously the Provisionals had very good support in there own communities or they wouldn't have been able to run a war for 30 years, but I don't think that's reflective of the whole island.


  • #77
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Up to a point-by the mid to late 1970s the Provisionals seemed to be on their way out. It was the UK governments viciousness in the prisons and the hunger strikes which arose it that put a lot of new wind into the sails of the armed campaign. Part of me believes that the UK government deliberately kept the troubles once they had the violence relatively contained in order to give themselves a theatre to study urban warfare in the context of the cold war.

    Oh I'd agree with that, the 75 ceasefire nearly destroyed them. The mid 80's to the ceasefire period was when they were at their most effective. Even with the setback of Loughgall they were destroying barracks left, right & center, downed 5 or 6 choppers & effectively made South Armagh a no-go area.


  • #78
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    tdv123 wrote: »
    Oh I'd agree with that, the 75 ceasefire nearly destroyed them. The mid 80's to the ceasefire period was when they were at their most effective. Even with the setback of Loughgall they were destroying barracks left, right & center, downed 5 or 6 choppers & effectively made South Armagh a no-go area.

    The IRA campaign had begun to stagnate by the late 1980s; while the organisation was more technologically capable they were unable to make enough gains to raise the intensity of the war to the level needed in order to make the British public call for withdrawal. They had a spike in activity after the Libyan weapons arrived but couldn't sustain this for longer than a year. The organisation was getting squeezed by a co-ordinated approach from the Brits that saw IRA activity largely being contained in many areas. They had an over-reliance on South Armagh which saw them entirely dependent on that area to launch operations in England. They were unable to down helicopters due to a lack of effective SAM equipment.

    I don't know where you got the figure of "6 choppers downed", as far as I'm aware the only one they ever managed to shoot-down was a fluke shot from an automated mortar clipping a rising helicopter during an attack on a barracks. They may have forced the odd landing with heavy-machine guns but that isn't the same to be honest.


  • #79
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    FTA69 wrote: »
    The IRA campaign had begun to stagnate by the late 1980s; while the organisation was more technologically capable they were unable to make enough gains to raise the intensity of the war to the level needed in order to make the British public call for withdrawal. They had a spike in activity after the Libyan weapons arrived but couldn't sustain this for longer than a year. The organisation was getting squeezed by a co-ordinated approach from the Brits that saw IRA activity largely being contained in many areas. They had an over-reliance on South Armagh which saw them entirely dependent on that area to launch operations in England. They were unable to down helicopters due to a lack of effective SAM equipment.

    I don't know where you got the figure of "6 choppers downed", as far as I'm aware the only one they ever managed to shoot-down was a fluke shot from an automated mortar clipping a rising helicopter during an attack on a barracks. They may have forced the odd landing with heavy-machine guns but that isn't the same to be honest.

    The Brits were tightening the net around them alright but provo attacks on security forces was increasing on a yearly basis from the late 80's until 94. Almost 300 attacks were carried out on security forces in 87, it was just under 400 in 1990 & 426 in 1992. So they could have kept up the campaign with pretty high intensity for atleast the foreseeable future had the ceasefire not been called.

    Well British didn't really seem to care if it was mortars or gunfire that brought them down a lost chopper was a lost chopper to them. There's 3 that were forced down by the PIRA , there's reference to a second one being shot down in 94 making 4 in total & I can't find a link to it but I'm positive there was another downed by the East Tyrone brigade in 88.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_British_Army_Lynx_shootdown

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_British_Army_Gazelle_shootdown

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_British_Army_Gazelle_downing


  • #80
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    There's 3 that were forced down by the PIRA , there's reference to a second one being shot down in 94 making 4 in total & I can't find a link to it but I'm positive there was another downed by the East Tyrone brigade in 88.

    Yeah, a few forced to make an emergency landing due to the DHsK machine guns they had. As I said above, the only time they properly managed to shoot one down was as a result of a fluke from a mortar shot.

    The amount of British Army casualties they were inflicting was dropping steadily and to be honest, while they could have maintained some sort of an armed campaign indefinitely; it certainly wasn't going anywhere.


  • #81
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    Its just something they are meant to say. Not that they really want it.

    Like how the British pretend the north is integral to the UK? The difference being that when the lads in the corridors of power in London get the chance to pull that thorn from their side they'll make it happen.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    FTA69 wrote: »
    Yeah, a few forced to make an emergency landing due to the DHsK machine guns they had. As I said above, the only time they properly managed to shoot one down was as a result of a fluke from a mortar shot.

    The amount of British Army casualties they were inflicting was dropping steadily and to be honest, while they could have maintained some sort of an armed campaign indefinitely; it certainly wasn't going anywhere.

    Yes, but the point is they would have been blows to British moral & huge propaganda boosts for Republicans.

    Right but the campaign was never going to go anywhere at any stage was it? It's not like they came close at any point in the 30 years to forcing the British to withdrawal from the North.


  • #83
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    Like how the British pretend the north is integral to the UK? The difference being that when the lads in the corridors of power in London get the chance to pull that thorn from their side they'll make it happen.
    Northern Ireland is a Constitutional part of the United Kingdom. They have no choice but to subsidize it and are signed up to the Good Friday Agreement. The Union is at an all time record high in terms of support in Northern Ireland.


  • #84
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    Northern Ireland is a Constitutional part of the United Kingdom.

    Nothing is set in stone. Whether you like it or not the north is alien to British people. I'd say the vast majority of ordinary British folk are bewildered by the antics of belligerent fleggers and bellicose Unionists.
    The Union is at an all time record high in terms of support in Northern Ireland.

    In the current climate people are content with the status quo. Don't mistake self-interest for some sort of emotional attachment to the concept of the UK on the part of Nationalists.


  • #85
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    Nothing is set in stone. Whether you like it or not the north is alien to British people. I'd say the vast majority of ordinary British folk are bewildered by the antics of belligerent fleggers and bellicose Unionists.



    In the current climate people are content with the status quo. Don't mistake self-interest for some sort of emotional attachment to the concept of the UK on the part of Nationalists.
    The Union will remain unless the people say otherwise. As it currently is and looks like it to be long into the future, there is nothing to say it will change. What people in the main land think is irrelevant.


  • #86
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    What people in the main land think is irrelevant.

    How naive. He who pays the piper calls the tune. If there's one thing truly predictable about the future it's that it's impossible to predict.
    main land

    Continental Europe is the mainland for the majority of people on this island.


  • #87
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    The Union will remain unless the people say otherwise. As it currently is and looks like it to be long into the future, there is nothing to say it will change. What people in the main land think is irrelevant.

    It really isnt at all (how could it be given they make up the bulk of the population under the UK state?????) but that comment in itself throws your Unionism into a pretty nasty light as it suggests that it comes from hatred of the rest of the Irish people rather any particular love for the English, Scots and Welsh.


  • #88
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    It really isnt at all (how could it be given they make up the bulk of the population under the UK state?????) but that comment in itself throws your Unionism into a pretty nasty light as it suggests that it comes from hatred of the rest of the Irish people rather any particular love for the English, Scots and Welsh.
    The English people would not get a vote if any referendum happens on a Untied Ireland. So what they think is irrelevant. My support is for Ulster, not England or Scotland or Wales.


  • #89
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    The English people would not get a vote if any referendum happens on a Untied Ireland. So what they think is irrelevant. My support is for Ulster, not England or Scotland or Wales.

    You mean your support is for Protestant Ulster?


  • #90
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    You mean your support is for Protestant Ulster?
    No. For the majority of Ulster to stay within the Union, regardless of faith. I don't care for that.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    No. For the majority of Ulster to stay within the Union, regardless of faith. I don't care for that.

    So you are for the Catholics who support the Union because they see more hope in the UK finally dealing with "Orange culture" than they do the Free State and indeed fear the Free State if unification comes allowing "Orange culture" to walk all over them? You are for those Catholics?

    The majority of Ulster votes for anti-partition parties by the way.


Advertisement