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?

1…34689…28

Comments

  • #152
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    Against terrorists. They killed Gardai. Decent law abiding people doing a job.


    If members of the Gardaí were conducting torture then they were neither decent nor law abiding.


  • #153
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    Despite your moving of the goalposts from '300 Orangemen' to a particular attack I have no problem condemning acts such as that.

    I recently told you that I suspected you'd spend a lot of your time on boards.ie engaging in moral equivocation and whataboutery - I'd like to add 'moving the goal posts' to the list.

    I wonder should you add in sneaking regarding?


  • #154
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    I wonder should you add in sneaking regarding?

    Huh?

    Edit: Got it. So we've arrived at the victim blaming now?

    How depressing.


  • #155
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Manassas61 wrote: »

    Most people remember them as cowardly murderous thugs.

    Do they really?

    Manassas61 I can imagine very easily an actually anti-Protestant nationalist or communal movement emerging in the north east of Ireland and place descending into an out and out sectarian blood bath. Your demonization of the Provos shows a great lack of imagination. There could easily be much worse around the corner if the place isnt sorted out.


  • #156
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    Huh?

    Sneaking regarder= someone who sympathized strongly with Paramilitaries but would never admit up front.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    Huh?

    Edit: Got it. So we've arrived at the victim blaming now?

    How depressing.

    I dont think he has got there yet but I see a certain subtext- I could be wrong though.


  • #158
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Do they really?

    The British Army didn't see them as cowards anyway.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/calculating-professional-enemy-that-faces-kosb-1.598672
    A senior military officer said: "They are murdering bastards, but they are not cowards. This team actually pressed home a ground attack right into the heart of the compound. That takes guts when there are people firing back.''


  • #159
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    tdv123 wrote: »
    The British Army didn't see them as cowards anyway.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/calculating-professional-enemy-that-faces-kosb-1.598672

    The IRA carried out numerous cowardly attacks against civilians, members of the RUC, members of the UDR and members of the British army. The amount of times they actually engaged the BA in head on assaults was rare and if they did, and lost, then they cried shoot to kill and demanded an enquiry.


  • #160
    Painted Pony
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Painted Pony


    There is a familiar approach here from those who criticise the IRA (in all its modern guises) which is to (understandably) focus on innocent victims (Enniskillen, Warrington etc.). There is also a less used line being pushed here, which is that the IRA were as bad as the loyalists.

    Unfortunately this plays right in to the hands of those who would defend the IRA. The latter point is plainly not true, the loyalist were much more abhorrent. As to the former argument, well they can credibly point out that when violence is utilised, by anyone, there is an inevitable likelihood that innocents will be killed.

    The focus should be on the willingness by republicans to use violence in the first place. Resorting to force is a very extreme course of action and anyone who does so should have considerable justification. The IRA’s purpose and their reason for using violence was political, to end the British “occupation” of Ireland, as they would put it. And certainly the vast majority of Irish nationalists agreed with this end but they made is abundantly clear that they did not favour violence means to bring this end about.

    But the IRA, with a blatant disregard of the very notion of what republicanism is about, decided that the Irish people didn’t really know what was best for them and they could be simply ignored. (Interestingly, while they engaged in this behaviour they simultaneously decried British imperialism!).

    There is a lot of debate about attitudes to republicans with some bizarre accounts for the distrust some of us have for them. But the oft repeated mantra from the troubles era of “not in my name” neatly explains the reason for this distrust.


  • #161
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    I really dont understand the will of some people to make believe that the Provos were worse than actually were as if the troubles as they happened were not brutal and nasty enough.

    The objection I have is that there is a genuine attempt to portray the IRA as a benevolent team of swasbucklers who only took on military targets. They carried out numerous terror attacks which many posters will claim were bonafide acts of war.

    I challenged a poster on this, which he has chosen to ignore.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Rubeter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Rubeter


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    The IRA carried out numerous cowardly attacks against civilians, members of the RUC, members of the UDR and members of the British army. The amount of times they actually engaged the BA in head on assaults was rare and if they did, and lost, then they cried shoot to kill and demanded an enquiry.
    Why do soldiers wear Camoflage gear in battle?
    What is the purpose of a Tank?
    What was the 50mm sniper rifle invented for?
    Why were Drones invented?
    What is artillery for?

    Head on assaults my arse. Get real.


  • #163
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    The IRA carried out numerous cowardly attacks against civilians, members of the RUC, members of the UDR and members of the British army. The amount of times they actually engaged the BA in head on assaults was rare and if they did, and lost, then they cried shoot to kill and demanded an enquiry.

    Yeah, you'd want to be a right pussy to risk death and imprisonment fighting one of the most effective armies in the world. :rolleyes:

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BATTLE-ANNUAL-1983-84-FLEETWAY-action-boys-book-world-war-II-soldier-german-UK-/200963118080

    Is this where you're getting your perspective on war from Fred?


  • #164
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Painted Pony wrote: »
    There is a familiar approach here from those who criticise the IRA (in all its modern guises) which is to (understandably) focus on innocent victims (Enniskillen, Warrington etc.). There is also a less used line being pushed here, which is that the IRA were as bad as the loyalists.

    Unfortunately this plays right in to the hands of those who would defend the IRA. The latter point is plainly not true, the loyalist were much more abhorrent. As to the former argument, well they can credibly point out that when violence is utilised, by anyone, there is an inevitable likelihood that innocents will be killed.

    The focus should be on the willingness by republicans to use violence in the first place. Resorting to force is a very extreme course of action and anyone who does so should have considerable justification. The IRA’s purpose and their reason for using violence was political, to end the British “occupation” of Ireland, as they would put it. And certainly the vast majority of Irish nationalists agreed with this end but they made is abundantly clear that they did not favour violence means to bring this end about.

    But the IRA, with a blatant disregard of the very notion of what republicanism is about, decided that the Irish people didn’t really know what was best for them and they could be simply ignored. (Interestingly, while they engaged in this behaviour they simultaneously decried British imperialism!).

    There is a lot of debate about attitudes to republicans with some bizarre accounts for the distrust some of us have for them. But the oft repeated mantra from the troubles era of “not in my name” neatly explains the reason for this distrust.

    This is disingenuous in the extreme. The IRA did not collaborate to start a war that nobody wanted. War was upon them. The Stormont regime had been waging war on the nationalist population for 50 years. Loyalists were burning nationalist homes. The RUC were beating people off the streets, that's when they werent beating them to death. The writing was on the wall - IRA - I Ran Away. The people needed defending and with the British government blustering as usual and the free state government wallowing in their shame faced silence, the IRA stepped in to do so.
    War was already a reality.
    The IRA went on to carry out a 30 year campaign against British occupation of Ireland, that simply could not have been done without the support of the community.
    I would suggest, particularly in the early days of the conflict, that while not everybody would have supported the IRA, most nationalists, even those who identified with an SDLP line of thinking, accepted that the IRA was a necessary evil.


  • #165
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Rubeter wrote: »
    Why do soldiers wear Camoflage gear in battle?
    What is the purpose of a Tank?
    What was the 50mm sniper rifle invented for?
    Why were Drones invented?
    What is artillery for?

    Head on assaults my arse. Get real.

    I used the term head on assaults to distinguish between engaging an armed soldier who is able to defend themselves and shooting an unarmed unsuspecting RAF officer and his six month old daughter in Germany, or two unarmed unsuspecting New recruits at a Lichfield train station.

    Then there's the numerous RUC officers, judges, politicians etc shot in front of their families.


  • #166
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    FTA69 wrote: »
    Yeah, you'd want to be a right pussy to risk death and imprisonment fighting one of the most effective armies in the world. :rolleyes:

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BATTLE-ANNUAL-1983-84-FLEETWAY-action-boys-book-world-war-II-soldier-german-UK-/200963118080

    Is this where you're getting your perspective on war from Fred?

    I genuinely thought you were better than that.


  • #167
    Rubeter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Rubeter


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I used the term head on assaults to distinguish between engaging an armed soldier who is able to defend themselves and shooting an unarmed unsuspecting RAF officer and his six month old daughter in Germany, or two unarmed unsuspecting New recruits at a Lichfield train station.

    Then there's the numerous RUC officers, judges, politicians etc shot in front of their families.
    Because death is death, personally I prefer the limitations of a surgical strike taking out someone as an individual rather than taking out a whole building containing many people just to get the one.
    Of course you could think it better to loose many more individuals on both sides for some 17th century code of "honour" or some sense of "fair play" gotten from reading too many Biggles books.

    War is hell Freddy and the point is to get rid of the enemy at the least cost to yourself, Stalin would be proud of your "cannon fodder" ideals.


  • #168
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I genuinely thought you were better than that.

    No its actually a fair point; compared to the PIRA the UK government had massive resources at its disposal so of course conventional warfare wasnt a serious option for them.


  • #169
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Rubeter wrote: »
    Because death is death, personally I prefer the limitations of a surgical strike taking out someone as an individual rather than taking out a whole building containing many people just to get the one.
    Of course you could think it better to loose many more individuals on both sides for some 17th century code of "honour" or some sense of "fair play" gotten from reading too many Biggles books.

    War is hell Freddy and the point is to get rid of the enemy at the least cost to yourself, Stalin would be proud of your "cannon fodder" ideals.

    What the actual **** are you on about?

    The poster was lauding the brave heroes of the IRA, I pointed out that a great many, if not the majority, of the IRA's attacks were in fact easy soft targets, yet when the tables were turned they cried foul.

    And we haven't even mentioned the "surgical" method of bombing a pub

    And your on about Stalin?


  • #170
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    No its actually a fair point; compared to the PIRA the UK government had massive resources at its disposal so of course conventional warfare wasnt a serious option for them.

    The British army also played by different rules.


  • #171
    Rubeter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Rubeter


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    What the actual **** are you on about?

    The poster was lauding the brave heroes of the IRA, I pointed out that a great many, if not the majority, of the IRA's attacks were in fact easy soft targets, yet when the tables were turned they cried foul.
    You can't win if you are dead, so one tries to avoid dying and at the same time taking out as many of the opposition as possible, whether they happen to be eating lunch or patrolling a street is quite irrelevant.
    Trying to make the enemy look bad is also quite common and used by all sides in conflicts.

    Odd that your heroes the BA and yanks in the middle east have no prob taking out a whole family to get a major Al-K figure yet you moan about people being killed in front of their family. Is it only ok if the whole family are killed?


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Rubeter wrote: »
    You can't win if you are dead, so one tries to avoid dying and at the same time taking out as many of the opposition as possible, whether they happen to be eating lunch or patrolling a street is quite irrelevant.
    Trying to make the enemy look bad is also quite common and used by all sides in conflicts.

    What is done and what people should be proud of are two different things.

    Should someone be considered a hero for walking up to an unarmed unsuspecting teenager and shooting them in the head, or for shooting a judge (and his family) outside a church?

    Because that is what is happening.


  • #173
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Rubeter wrote: »
    You can't win if you are dead, so one tries to avoid dying and at the same time taking out as many of the opposition as possible, whether they happen to be eating lunch or patrolling a street is quite irrelevant.
    Trying to make the enemy look bad is also quite common and used by all sides in conflicts.

    Odd that your heroes the BA and yanks in the middle east have no prob taking out a whole family to get a major Al-K figure yet you moan about people being killed in front of their family. Is it only ok if the whole family are killed?

    Ooh, quick edit. Your post need a bit of ad hominem for good measure did it?


  • #174
    Rubeter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Rubeter


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    What is done and what people should be proud of are two different things.

    Should someone be considered a hero for walking up to an unarmed unsuspecting teenager and shooting them in the head, or for shooting a judge (and his family) outside a church?

    Because that is what is happening.
    Just pointing out the realities of war Fred, I see no moral difference in someone walking up to someone in a street and shooting them in the back of the head or dropping a million dollar smart bomb on them, no moral difference whatsoever.
    The only difference is one method is a hell of a lot more precise.
    Ooh, quick edit. Your post need a bit of ad hominem for good measure did it?
    Edit yep, makes the point nicely.


  • #175
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Rubeter wrote: »
    Just pointing out the realities of war Fred, I see no moral difference in someone walking up to someone in a street and shooting them in the back of the head or dropping a million dollar smart bomb on them, no moral difference whatsoever.
    The only difference is one method is a hell of a lot more precise.

    Edit yep, makes the point nicely.

    But apparently if you bomb a shopping centre and call it an economic target you're a brave hero.


  • #176
    Rubeter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Rubeter


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    But apparently if you bomb a shopping centre and call it an economic target you're a brave hero.
    Is that right? Though that's not something I would agree with myself.

    You aren't putting words in my mouth by any chance are you? Just because I pointed out the hypocrisy in calling one method of killing cowardly and not yet not doing so for another similar one.


  • #177
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Rubeter wrote: »
    You aren't putting words in my mouth by any chance are you? Just because I pointed out the hypocrisy in calling one method of killing cowardly and not yet not doing so for another similar one.


    Err, aren't you the one that started on about Stalin, "my heroes the BA" and drone attacks?

    And you're accusing me of putting words in your mouth,

    OK.


  • #178
    Rubeter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Rubeter


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Err, aren't you the one that started on about Stalin, "my heroes the BA" and drone attacks?

    And you're accusing me of putting words in your mouth,

    OK.
    Since you seem to have given up on my point, I'll take it as "taken".
    Bye, till next time.


  • #179
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I genuinely thought you were better than that.

    Better than what? Pointing out the ridiculous nature of your comment?

    Since time immemorial Irish revolutionaries were erroneously portrayed by the Brits as nothing but a collection of criminals and cowards. Even back in the 1920s we had senior British commanders publicly stating that they were "corner boys" and "cowards firing out from behind hedge walls." The reality is that the IRA engaged in guerrilla warfare as it was the only method available to them in order to prosecute their campaign. Britain maintained itself in Ireland, at a bottom line, with superior military force. It would be impossible for an organisation of under-resourced predominantly working-class people to challenge a regular, highly trained and armed standing army in the field Fred and well you know it.

    Personally I don't see any great legitimacy or bravery in the British Army's record in Ireland. There was nothing "tally ho" about driving Saracen armoured cars over young boys, or blinding a middle-aged woman by shooting her in the face with a plastic bullet. I imagine in every conflict there are examples of individual bravery, but please spare me the silly narrative of 'brave squaddies' and the 'cowardly, sneaky Irish.'


  • #180
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Should you not have mentioned Cromwell and the famine in there?
    FTA69 wrote: »
    but please spare me the silly narrative of 'brave squaddies' and the 'cowardly, sneaky Irish.'

    Now you're making up non existant arguments. Point out when I said anything of the sort. That is just some silly "poor old me" retort.

    The modern IRA are being rapidly painted as a bunch of care free freedom fighters who helped old ladies across the road in their spare time.

    We have posters on here who insist that they only attacked political, military and economic targets and weren't terrorists (yet run away when challenged on it)

    Sure, the IRA were brave (and fwiw I don't buy in to the sectarian argument at all. Xenophobic maybe, but mot sectarian) and they carried out a lot of clever campaigns, but they also carried out some of the lowest most cowardly attacks these islands have seen.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Should you not have mentioned Cromwell and the famine in there?

    And you're saying I'm making up non-existent arguments? :D

    I never mentioned either of those, I said that the British Army was a vastly superior force to any Irish opposition and that it's record in Ireland isn't exactly exemplary. That's a fair enough point to make in my eyes.
    Now you're making up non existant arguments. Point out when I said anything of the sort

    Whether you realise it or not your post, your post came across as a bit jingoistic to be honest. Comments about "cowards" shooting people in the back etc and "crying" when they had to fight our boys fair and square etc are as old as the conflict itself. They were nonsense in the 1920s and they're nonsense now. Your post neatly echoes a long history of sh*te talk when the subject of guerrilla warfare in Ireland is brought up.
    We have posters on here who insist that they only attacked political, military and economic targets and weren't terrorists (yet run away when challenged on it)

    I wouldn't call them terrorists either. I would also say that their campaign was indeed launched along military and political lines but there was undoubtedly a number of incidents that were disgraceful. Anyone who thinks a 25 year campaign wouldn't feature such events is a fool to be honest, but as far as I'm concerned the IRA campaign was anti-imperialist and in general was conducted along legitimate lines.


Advertisement