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

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The British army also played by different rules.

Up to a point- elements in the Army were extremely lawless and Im not talking about the "shoot to the kill policy" towards Republican volunteers- the British side was hypocritical in saying that it was just a "law and order" and than acting as if it was a war and Sinn Fein was hypocritical in saying it amounted to murder and than talking about what was going on as a war (which it was basically).

FTA69 wrote: »

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.

Ok, point taken. That wasn't my intention.

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Hearing heroines claiming they were following in their father's footsteps and going off to bomb the English, makes me believe there was a very real xenophobic terrorist side to the IRA campaign.

Tramps Like Us

The IRA routinely cooperated with foreign groups, Basque country, South Africa etc... they were not xenophobes. However they didn't like the British occupying their country, the reason they "followed in their fathers footsteps" is because things were the exact same.

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

The IRA routinely cooperated with foreign groups, Basque country, South Africa etc... they were not xenophobes. However they didn't like the British occupying their country, the reason they "followed in their fathers footsteps" is because things were the exact same.

But their terror campaign was never against the British, it was against the English. They were strictly forbidden from carrying out attacks in "Celtic countries", which leads me to conclude they saw the English as expendable.

Tramps Like Us

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But their terror campaign was never against the British, it was against the English. They were strictly forbidden from carrying out attacks in "Celtic countries", which leads me to conclude they saw the English as expendable.

Could have sworn the IRA carried out attacks in Ireland.

FTA69 wrote: »

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.

Violence in my opinion is always an evil but it can be justified if it removes or limits a greater evil- the problem with out and out pacifism is that it hands the world over to the Ghenghis Khans of this world. By the mid-70s at the earliest and the mid-80s at the latest it was obvious that the PIRA campaign was not going to secure a withdrawal and yet it continued; now of course Unionists were feeding the conflict and doing their best objectively to prolong it, and of course the British government though to a somewhat lesser extent was doing the same- but can the Provos long war strategy really be morally justified? At the end of it they ended up giving Northern Ireland a legitimacy that it never had before. Would it not have been better to keep ideological Republicanism and yet call off the armed struggle much earlier?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But their terror campaign was never against the British, it was against the English. They were strictly forbidden from carrying out attacks in "Celtic countries", which leads me to conclude they saw the English as expendable.

Well they saw England as the power base of the UK, which of course it was. They had zero problem targeting Scottish regiments of solidiers for instance.

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Could have sworn the IRA carried out attacks in Ireland.

Only in the north, or if forced to in the south.

FTA69 wrote: »

Well they saw England as the power base of the UK, which of course it was. They had zero problem targeting Scottish regiments of solidiers for instance.

Or Welsh, but they were forbidden by the green book from carrying out attacks in those countries.

SoulandForm wrote: »

Violence in my opinion is always an evil but it can be justified if it removes or limits a greater evil- the problem with out and out pacifism is that it hands the world over to the Ghenghis Khans of this world. By the mid-70s at the earliest and the mid-80s at the latest it was obvious that the PIRA campaign was not going to secure a withdrawal and yet it continued; now of course Unionists were feeding the conflict and doing their best objectively to prolong it, and of course the British government though to a somewhat lesser extent was doing the same- but can the Provos long war strategy really be morally justified? At the end of it they ended up giving Northern Ireland a legitimacy that it never had before. Would it not have been better to keep ideological Republicanism and yet call off the armed struggle much earlier?

I wouldn't say the campaign was immoral, rather redundant as a tactic (and that's all armed struggle is) by a certain point. Personally I think they'd have been better off seeking to wind up the campaign by around 1990 and push themselves into becoming a radical political movement but many things prevented this; partly circumstance and mainly the fact the Provisionals weren't ideologically committed to real change at a fundamental level.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or Welsh, but they were forbidden by the green book from carrying out attacks in those countries.

They saw the UK as an extension of English imperialism and therefore it was England where they should strike. I wouldn't say that's xenophobic, it may be slightly naieve in part but it certainly isn't xenophobic. I encountered many English people who were involved in Sinn Féin. Similarly they did much to reach out to groups based in England who were sympathetic to their cause, Jeremy Corbyn and Tony Benn etc come to mind.

FTA69 wrote: »

I wouldn't say the campaign was immoral, rather redundant as a tactic (and that's all armed struggle is) by a certain point. Personally I think they'd have been better off seeking to wind up the campaign by around 1990 and push themselves into becoming a radical political movement but many things prevented this; partly circumstance and mainly the fact the Provisionals weren't ideologically committed to real change at a fundamental level.

Its a bit more than that- taking anyone's life is a very serious thing. Was the UK's recent invasion of Iraq and destruction of the country just a tactic or was it something evil? Im not demonizing the Provos of the 80s, what they did was understandable in the circumstances BUT I dont think you can completely divorce morality from politics.

FTA69 wrote: »

They saw the UK as an extension of English imperialism and therefore it was England where they should strike. I wouldn't say that's xenophobic, it may be slightly naieve in part but it certainly isn't xenophobic. I encountered many English people who were involved in Sinn Féin. Similarly they did much to reach out to groups based in England who were sympathetic to their cause, Jeremy Corbyn and Tony Benn etc come to mind.

Odd way of reaching out for support.

"Hi, we just murdered popular children's tv presenter Ross McWhirter and thrown a bomb in a popular west end restaurant, would you like to help us?"

Oddly enough it was never well received in England.

I never said you can but armed struggle is a political tactic, that's what it always has been. Von Clausewitz put it best when he said "war is the continuation of politics by other means." Some Republicans (especially the crowd attempting it today) believe armed struggle is an end in itself, something to be preserved at all costs when in reality it is simply a tactic that you may or may not draw upon when trying to effect political change. That isn't the same as saying it may be immoral to use it, or aspects of it may be immoral or whatever.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Odd way of reaching out for support.

"Hi, we just murdered popular children's tv presenter Ross McWhirter and thrown a bomb in a popular west end restaurant, would you like to help us?"

Oddly enough it was never well received in England.

Yet the Left of the Labour Party played a much more honourable role in the Troubles than Fine Gael very openly and managed to get elected quite happily by English people. A lot of English people understood that their government and their government's past history in Ireland as well as its present tactics was making the problem worse.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Odd way of reaching out for support.

"Hi, we just murdered popular children's tv presenter Ross McWhirter and thrown a bomb in a popular west end restaurant, would you like to help us?"

Oddly enough it was never well received in England.

There were a number of people in England who spoke out against what was happening in Ireland and many of them had a fair enough view of what went on there. At the end of the day though, failing to sell themselves to the English public doesn't make the IRA xenophobes. You didn't have the FLN in Algeria attempting to woo the French public into liking them, they were too busy fighting a war.

SoulandForm wrote: »

Yet the Left of the Labour Party played a much more honourable role in the Troubles than Fine Gael very openly and managed to get elected quite happily by English people. A lot of English people understood that their government and their government's past history in Ireland as well as its present tactics was making the problem worse.

It didn't stop the IRA singling them out for attack though did it.

Whatever message the civil rights campaign was trying to get across was just drowned out by the IRA bombing campaign.

But then, the IRA weren't interested in civil rights.

FTA69 wrote: »

There were a number of people in England who spoke out against what was happening in Ireland and many of them had a fair enough view of what went on there. At the end of the day though, failing to sell themselves to the English public doesn't make the IRA xenophobes. You didn't have the FLN in Algeria attempting to woo the French public into liking them, they were too busy fighting a war.

Growing up in the 70s and 80s it certainly felt like the IRA had declared war on the people of England.

In effect, all it ever did was make it harder for any government to seek a peaceful outcome.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Growing up in the 70s and 80s it certainly felt like the IRA had declared war on the people of England.

In effect, all it ever did was make it harder for any government to seek a peaceful outcome.

Well the Viet Cong didn't beat the Yanks in Vietnam by persuading the American public that their government should be nice to them. They did it by escalating the conflict to the point that the American public called for withdrawal. The IRA correctly reasoned that while the British government wanted to remain in Ireland, their public generally thought the place was a backward sh*thole they'd do well to be rid of. As such they thought enough bombs in England and a steady stream of bodies being sent home would tilt the balance. After all, it was the British public who previously forced their government to talk a Truce in 1921; not the IRA (despite the romanticised nature of the gallant IRA defeating a superior force.)

The IRA couldn't really keep Ireland at the top of the political agenda for long enough however, and due to Ulsterisation they were predominantly killing local police and soldiers as opposed to sending home a steady stream of bodies. This in turn had the effect of the British public viewing it as a foreign internal squabble as opposed to an imperial conflict. On top of this the British also managed to achieve an "acceptable level of violence" and while the IRA could tip away indefinitely, it wasn't going to break that deadlock.

Elmer Blooker

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Growing up in the 70s and 80s it certainly felt like the IRA had declared war on the people of England.

In effect, all it ever did was make it harder for any government to seek a peaceful outcome.

The people in England during the troubles just believed their government's propaganda which was the British Army was powerless and doing it's best to keep mad paddies apart - an unfinished 16th century religious war. The reality was very different with British Intelligence pulling the strings and doing everything in their power to prevent a political solution, an example is the Ulster Workers strike (and the Dublin and Monaghan bombings) in May 1974 which successfully brought down the Sunningdale Agreement and ultimately the Harold Wilson government. The north was brought to a complete standstill by masked UDA thugs with baseball bats as the RUC watched and the army did nothing.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It didn't stop the IRA singling them out for attack though did it.

Whatever message the civil rights campaign was trying to get across was just drowned out by the IRA bombing campaign.

But then, the IRA weren't interested in civil rights.

The Birmingham and Warrington bombings were evil- out and out war crimes.

However they did come out of political roots and in order for things like that never to happen again than those roots have to be pulled up and thrown away.

Karl Stein

FTA69 wrote: »

I think they'd have been better off seeking to wind up the campaign by around 1990

I'm not so sure. The mid 90's Canary Wharf and Manchester CBD economically devastating bombs brought the foot-dragging British back to the negotiation table and forced them to bring the mad dogs of Unionism/Loyalism to heel.

Elmer Blooker

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I'm not so sure. The mid 90's Canary Wharf and Manchester CBD economically devastating bombs brought the foot-dragging British back to the negotiation table and forced them to bring the mad dogs of Unionism/Loyalism to heel.

that's very true - for all the cliches about "not talking to terrorists" and "they will not bomb their their way to the negotiating table" etc they actually did.

24 April: 1993 Bishopsgate bombing: the IRA detonated a huge truck bomb in the City of London at Bishopsgate, It killed journalist Ed Henty, injured over 40 people, and causing approximately £1 billion worth of damage,[24] including the near destruction of St Ethelburga's Bishopsgate church, and serious damage to Liverpool Street station. Police had received a coded warning, but were still evacuating the area at the time of the explosion. The insurance payments required were so large that Lloyd's of London almost went bankrupt under the strain, and there was a crisis in the London insurance market. The area had already suffered damage from the Baltic Exchange bombing the year before.

Manassas61

SoulandForm wrote: »

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.

Make a thread on After hours with a poll and see what the opinion is of them. Most people see them as cowardly thugs. Simple as that. They were murderous thugs and the facts show that.

Manassas61

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.

If you are going to try and make an argument to try and make them look honorable, then it will get challenged as most people think they were cowardly thugs.

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

If you are going to try and make an argument to try and make them look honorable, then it will get challenged as most people think they were cowardly thugs.

If you choose to engage in whataboutery, moral equivocation, and moving the goal posts I will point it out - feel free to respond in kind.

Manassas61 wrote: »

Make a thread on After hours with a poll and see what the opinion is of them. Most people see them as cowardly thugs. Simple as that. They were murderous thugs and the facts show that.

Provisional Sinn Fein are the most popular party at the moment in Ireland. That speaks for itself.