Fratton Fred wrote: » Errr, what was it then, initially anyway. What exactly did British intelligence have to gain my keeping the conflict going? How did they benefit from the Dublin and Monaghan bombs?
Fratton Fred wrote: » What exactly did British intelligence have to gain my keeping the conflict going? I'd disagree with Elmer in that the sense they wanted to prevent a political solution, they just wanted one on their terms. During the period whereby the Brits were trying to defeat the IRA militarily, British intelligence pursued a variety of strategies; chief amongst was facilitating Loyalists to act as a proxy against the IRA and their support base. How did they benefit from the Dublin and Monaghan bombs? Attacks dispelled the misty-eyed attitude nationalism in south had towards the northern conflict. Incidents like those bombings compounded the southern feeling that the conflict was something to be avoided at all costs. In the early-1970s there was widespread political sympathy for northern nationalists and intervention was a seriously-discussed policy. By the mid-1980s there was an overwhelming anti-nationalist feeling throughout the south perpetuated by the media and the political classes. In short - the likes of Dublin and Monaghan becoming a regular occurrence would have put Fianna Fáil well off intervention.
What exactly did British intelligence have to gain my keeping the conflict going?
How did they benefit from the Dublin and Monaghan bombs?
FTA69 wrote: » 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.
Crooked Jack wrote: » 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.
Crooked Jack wrote: » The IRA went on to carry out a 30 year campaign against British occupation of Ireland
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.
Painted Pony wrote: » Exactly. Theirs was a political project to dismantle the Northern (and Southern) states on this island. And such a project surely demanded that a majority of Irish people (at least) support, not only this end but the violent means employed to bring it about. But of course they did not.
Fratton Fred wrote: » The terror campaign in England only succeeded in extending the troubles.
Fratton Fred wrote: » You kind of answer your own question there. In 1921 the conflict in Ireland did not benefit the average English Joe, so it was a simple case of why are we bothering to try and stay somewhere we aren't wanted? It was more a case of them being disgusted by British troops/Auxiliaries committing atrocities in an integral part of the United Kingdom. They opened the paper and saw them killing British citizens and burning creameries etc. Obviously the difference back then was that the establishment realised the status quo was no longer tenable, that they would never hold the entire country on their terms without thousands of executions and mass internment throughout the country. Fast forward sixty years and if you asked the average Sun reader did they believe Ireland should be united, the probable answer would have been yes, of course. Unfortunately the average Sun reader doesn't decide the intricacies of Britain's strategic and political nuances in Ireland and other countries.
You kind of answer your own question there. In 1921 the conflict in Ireland did not benefit the average English Joe, so it was a simple case of why are we bothering to try and stay somewhere we aren't wanted?
Fast forward sixty years and if you asked the average Sun reader did they believe Ireland should be united, the probable answer would have been yes, of course.
SoulandForm wrote: » The thing is though most of their supporters believed honestly that Catholics within the six counties while it was under the UK.
Charlie Rock wrote: » A poll asking 'who was the most blood-thirsty paramilitary group during the troubles' would give us a better idea of what those who'd vote think. Then we could discuss the 85% Loyalist civilian kill count, the 'romper rooms' were Catholics were beaten to death for the 'craic' and the Shankill Butchers who were held in high regard by many in their local communities.
Painted Pony wrote: » I don't understand? Believed honestly what?
Charlie Rock wrote: » 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: » I will destroy any argument you have to try and make them look like honorable people, the rewriting of history and the denial of the barbaric regime which was the PIRA.
Manassas61 wrote: » The PIRA disappeared squad which is infamous which murdered people and didn't even give them the dignity of a proper burial or the PIRA torture squads which again they took part in
I will destroy any argument you have
Charlie Rock wrote: » I highlight Loyalist mass-murder and degeneracy you engage in whataboutery. A familiar tune indeed. Strawman. Point out where I tried to make out that the PIRA were honourable. I'll save you the time - I didn't.
Manassas61 wrote: » You did it with the "statistic" nonsense you posted to try and score points.
Perhaps you should live in the real world and what the PIRA really done to REAL people and not just numbers.
Both are murderous thugs.
FTA69 wrote: » The Brits coming back to negotiations was more to do with Tony Blair's policy as opposed to Canary Wharf if we're being honest.
Charlie Rock wrote: » The evidence points in a different direction. When they started focussing on the UK economy and political classes in the 90's (mortar attack Downing Street, Canary Wharf, Manchester CBD, Heathrow, bomb scares on the rail infrastructure) the peace process accelerated and Unionism/Loyalism was sent a message that the game was up (Drumcree).
Charlie Rock wrote: » The numbers are the numbers. I didn't invent percentages. If you have a problem with them take it up with CAIN. My extended family lived in the Bogside/Creggan of Derry during the Troubles. Let me assure that I'm very aware of what the real world was like for them. Moral equivocation. Loyalists were far more murderous than Republicans. Loyalists 85% civilians (just 4% Republican despite being fed intelligence). Republican 35%.
Painted Pony wrote: » I would say more about Major being unable to do much rather than Blair's willingness to. Remember Major had a fairly slim majority and had to keep the unionists sweet.
Manassas61 wrote: » the PIRA had armed soldiers to aim for.
Manassas61 wrote: » Its all in the past anyway and Northern Ireland is moving forward in the Union at this moment in time. So this is all pretty irrelevant now.
Fratton Fred wrote: » It is, but the nationalists have organised themselves superbly. They have a master tactician at the helm and unless unionists sort themselves out and rally behind one moderate, unbigoted party, they will continue to lose ground.
Charlie Rock wrote: » Loyalists had no soldiers to aim for so they simply had no choice but to murder innocent Catholic civilians going about their business? Is this the argument you're making?
Manassas61 wrote: » Who is this master tactician? The Union has never had more support in Northern Irelands history.
Manassas61 wrote: » This is using the context of that time. It wasn't a rational time, it was a dark and nasty time. That is why it was called the dirty war.
Charlie Rock wrote: » Don't mistake contentment with the status qou on the part of Nationalists for some sort of cultural attachment to the concept of the UK and/or Britain. Just so we're clear, do you condemn the killing of civilians by Loyalists?
FTA69 wrote: » In short - the likes of Dublin and Monaghan becoming a regular occurrence would have put Fianna Fáil well off intervention.
The who wrote: » Is there a differance between the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA?
