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…1213151718…28

Comments

  • #422
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    No one said Unionism didn't get involved in violence.

    Get involved? You mean caused.

    When is Unionism going to face up to the fact that it caused the troubles?


  • #423
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    Get involved? You mean caused.

    When is Unionism going to face up to the fact that it caused the troubles?
    Well you are entitled to that view, most of Northern Ireland disagrees with it. The "Troubles" did not start in 1969. There has always been conflict in Ulster. But most normal people condemn PIRA murderous thugs.


  • #424
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    Well you are entitled to that view, most of Northern Ireland disagrees with it. The "Troubles" did not start in 1969. There has always been conflict in Ulster. But most normal people condemn PIRA murderous thugs.

    The vast majority of people in Ireland carry loose ice cream in their pockets at all times. See, I can just say any old shite and apply it to "most people" as well. Doesnt make it true


  • #425
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    Well you are entitled to that view, most of Northern Ireland disagrees with it. The "Troubles" did not start in 1969. There has always been conflict in Ulster. But most normal people condemn PIRA murderous thugs.

    Yeah it began with the plantations. The modern troubles were caused by Unionism. As for condemning the PIRA how about condemning violence against all civilians including those who were battered to death by the RUC and gunned down by the British Army?


  • #426
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    The vast majority of people in Ireland carry loose ice cream in their pockets at all times. See, I can just say any old shite and apply it to "most people" as well. Doesn't make it true
    Most Nationalists at the time actually didn't agree with the PIRA death squads. Most normal people don't have any time for them now and want to move forward.

    So lets do that and keep Northern Ireland moving forward.


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    When they used napalm on the le Mon restaurant, why did they do it when both function rooms were full?

    When the IRA detonated bombs in Birmingham pubs, why did they do it on a Friday evening?

    Why was Warrington bombed on a Saturday lunchtime?

    Because on all three occasions, those places were at their busiest and because it would create the maximum amount of terror amongst the civilians there at the time.

    To cause maximum disruption. As as been pointed out numerous times, the IRA gained nothing from the deaths of civilians or inflicting terror in anyone other than british soldiers/RUC/other combatants, so why would they do it. Why would they give warnings. Why would the issue apologies and regrets afterwards? Why would they take actions against individual members or units who caused civilian deaths?

    Like I also said, I knew someone would come out listing off a few names to kick about like a political football but you've ignored the overall numbers, which counteract your claims about the IRA targeting civilians.


  • #428
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Painted Pony wrote: »
    Even if the provos had conducted their campaign in such a way that not a hair on an innocents person’s head was hurt, they were still wrong.

    Do you think you'd be that cock-sure of the merits of the PIRA campaign had you been burned out of your house or watched your peers being gunned down at a civil rights protest?

    Is it really so unbelievable to think that the people who were subject to such brutal state terror seen the British as the root of the problem?


  • #429
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    To cause maximum disruption. As as been pointed out numerous times, the IRA gained nothing from the deaths of civilians or inflicting terror in anyone other than british soldiers/RUC/other combatants, so why would they do it. Why would they give warnings. Why would the issue apologies and regrets afterwards? Why would they take actions against individual members or units who caused civilian deaths?

    Like I also said, I knew someone would come out listing off a few names to kick about like a political football but you've ignored the overall numbers, which counteract your claims about the IRA targeting civilians.
    I have already pointed out to you when they deliberately killed civilians and actually went out of their way to do it. The tullyvallen orange hall massacre. The kingsmill massacre in which they deliberately went and picked out Protestants. There is plenty of examples of them going around trying to kill Protestants or just civilians in general.

    I sometimes think a bit of rewriting of history is going on here.


  • #430
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    Most Nationalists at the time actually didn't agree with the PIRA death squads.

    where is your evidence for this? You cant keep saying "most people" and not backing it up.
    Manassas61 wrote: »
    Most normal people don't have any time for them now and want to move forward..

    Any time for who? The IRA? Sure they're gone. Or do you mean Sinn Fein, the biggest nationalist party in the north and the party that outpolled the DUP in both the European and Westminster elections?


  • #431
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    So lets do that and keep Northern Ireland moving forward.

    You avoided answering my question.

    How about we condemn all violence against civilians including those who were beaten to death by the RUC and gunned down by the BA?


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    I have already pointed out to you when they deliberately killed civilians and actually went out of their way to do it. The tullyvallen orange hall massacre. The kingsmill massacre in which they deliberately went and picked out Protestants. There is plenty of examples of them going around trying to kill Protestants or just civilians in general.

    I sometimes think a bit of rewriting of history is going on here.

    You havent already pointed out anything to me.
    You also clearly arent reading my posts, so I'll put it up for you here again.
    No doubt you an throw out the usual names of attacks in which civilians were killed but the numbers just dont support you. Conservative estimates say the IRA carried out well over 10,000 explosive attacks during the course of the conflict and countless shootings. This killed around 1800 people, around 2/3 of whom were combatants of one variety or another. Now, any civilian death is unacceptable, but the number of civilian deaths, measured against the numbers of combatants killed and more tellingly, the number of over all attacks, shows that the IRA did not "deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants."

    No rewriting anything, those are the facts


  • #433
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    You avoided answering my question.

    How about we condemn all violence against civilians including those who were beaten to death by the RUC and gunned down by the BA?
    Unlike you, I actually can. Bloody Sunday was a disgrace and I do condemn it. Unlike you, I don't try and paint it to be colourful. The British Army did take part in acts of terrorism on civilians.

    No problem in saying that. I just wish you would do the same to PIRA death squads.


  • #434
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    where is your evidence for this? You cant keep saying "most people" and not backing it up.



    Any time for who? The IRA? Sure they're gone. Or do you mean Sinn Fein, the biggest nationalist party in the north and the party that outpolled the DUP in both the European and Westminster elections?
    The SDLP at the time was the biggest Nationalist party. Most normal Nationalists didn't agree with the death squads.


  • #435
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    shows that the IRA did not "deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants."
    I have already given you examples of when they did. When they deliberately went out of their way to KILL civilians and innocent people. Its bizarre how you can just ignore those sectarian killings.


  • #436
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    Unlike you, I actually can.

    I have no problem condemning the killing of people who wanted no part in the conflict.


  • #437
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    So lets do that and keep Northern Ireland moving forward.


    With the removal of the Union Jack from Belfast city hall,
    and the subsequent failure of the Orange order, Loyalist bands, and their thuggish supporters to 'get their own way' and force themselves up Nationalist areas, they clearly have no need to march up (except for triumphalism), with a police force finally not buckling to the demands of the orange order, it looks like it actually is moving forward.

    Some, want to remain in the past though.

    The times they are a changin Manassas61, unionists better change with them, or they're gonna get left behind (even more) ~~~~.


  • #438
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    Banjo String wrote: »
    With the removal of the Union Jack from Belfast city hall,
    and the subsequent failure of the Orange order, Loyalist bands, and their thuggish supporters to 'get their own way' and force themselves up Nationalist areas, they clearly have no need to march up (except for triumphalism), with a police force finally not buckling to the demands of the orange order, it looks like it actually is moving forward.

    Some, want to remain in the past though.

    The times they are a changin Manassas61, unionists better change with them, or they're gonna get left behind (even more) ~~~~.
    In the overall contextual view on the Union and the position of Northern Ireland within it, this is irrelevant. Normalization has done wonders to help bring support for the Union within the Catholic population up.

    Which I would support as a Unionist. I hope that can continue into the future and help keep Northern Ireland moving forward.


  • #439
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Banjo String wrote: »
    The times they are a changin Manassas61, unionists better change with them, or they're gonna get left behind (even more) ~~~~.

    Seems to me that if precipitous trajectory Unionism is on doesn't change Loyalism will be identifying with the Palestinians instead of the Israelis in the not-too-distant future.


  • #440
    Painted Pony
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Painted Pony


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    Do you think you'd be that cock-sure of the merits of the PIRA campaign had you been burned out of your house or watched your peers being gunned down at a civil rights protest?
    As I have said, I think three times now,I do not take much issue with nationalist defending themselves. I only refer to the political campaign conducted by the IRA which implicitly concerned ALL of the people of Ireland and was conducted against their clear wishes. They lacked a mandate.

    Most republicans (and many others for that matter) take exception to the overseas action of the US (in Iraq for example) and their criticism is premised on them having no mandate (from the UN). You even had a dig yourself on this thread.
    So why are the US so bad for wading in without a mandate but physical force republicans can be excused for doing the very same thing?
    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    Is it really so unbelievable to think that the people who were subject to such brutal state terror seen the British as the root of the problem?
    They may well be justified in seeing Britain as the root of the problem. The difficulty was that their solution involved the subversion of my state.

    Which goes back to the post I initially responded to. The one speculating why some of us are none too enamoured with physical force republicanism. Their aim was to overthrow the state and they wonder why we might be a bit miffed at this???


  • #441
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Painted Pony wrote: »
    I only refer to the political campaign conducted by the IRA which implicitly concerned ALL of the people of Ireland and was conducted against their clear wishes. They lacked a mandate.

    Political campaign? the PIRA were a paramilitary force and were only interested in removing the British from the north.
    Most republicans (and many others for that matter) take exception to the overseas action of the US (in Iraq for example) and their criticism is premised on them having no mandate (from the UN). You even had a dig yourself on this thread. So why are the US so bad for wading in without a mandate but physical force republicans can be excused for doing the very same thing?

    Having or not having a mandate does not preclude or imbue violence with/from 'virtue'. Ask the Native Americans how getting a mandate would have done them. Sitting on your hands only enables your enemy.
    They may well be justified in seeing Britain as the root of the problem. The difficulty was that their solution involved the subversion of my state.

    Which goes back to the post I initially responded to. The one speculating why some of us are none too enamoured with physical force republicanism. Their aim was to overthrow the state and they wonder why we might be a bit miffed at this???

    Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the PIRA told to avoid engaging Irish security forces and Gardai?


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    In the overall contextual view on the Union and the position of Northern Ireland within it, this is irrelevant. Normalization has done wonders to help bring support for the Union within the Catholic population up.

    Which I would support as a Unionist. I hope that can continue into the future and help keep Northern Ireland moving forward.

    Manassas61 why do you support the Union?

    If we have a situation within Northern Ireland where you have unionists with a small "u" voting for Sinn Fein what does that tell us about the place and capital "U" Unionism?


  • #443
    Painted Pony
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Painted Pony


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    Political campaign? the PIRA were a paramilitary force and were only interested in removing the British from the north.
    And you don’t think that was political? In any case they were about more than that. They didn’t recognise the Southern state either. The aim was to shoo the Brits out and establish a united Ireland.
    Are you seriously arguing that this was not political? :confused:
    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    Having or not having a mandate does not preclude or imbue violence with/from 'virtue'. Ask the Native Americans how getting a mandate would have done them. Sitting on your hands only enables your enemy.
    Don’t know what you are getting at here. But it doesn’t answer my question.
    Why is sauce for the US goose something different for the IRA gander?
    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the PIRA told to avoid engaging Irish security forces and Gardai?
    Yes they were. But they were permitted to engage them and frequently did when they were confronted.
    But that was just an insignificant side issue. They didn’t recognise the state or the government (up until the 1980s they took to calling themselves the government) and quite clearly an aim to establish a united Ireland would necessarily involve dismantling the republic.


  • #444
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the PIRA told to avoid engaging Irish security forces and Gardai?

    Before the Border Campaign a new rule was drawn up that they were not to engage with Free State forces- the song the Patriot Game was originally written to complain about it actually. Personally I believe that the PIRA unit deliberately set out to target Gerry McCabe but I dont think such was approved by the Army Council. The other times they killed Gardai since the 1950s was purely in self-defense.


  • #445
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Painted Pony wrote: »
    But that was just an insignificant side issue. They didn’t recognise the state or the government (up until the 1980s they took to calling themselves the government) and quite clearly an aim to establish a united Ireland would necessarily involve dismantling the republic.

    I believe that the Free State has extremely questionable legitimacy given how it was foisted on the Irish people through genocidal threats. However the people who really strongly held to First Dail Legitimism were in the south and not in the north- and Adams kicked them out as soon as he could. If you have seen in the 1986 debate Martin McGuinness states clearly; "but we are not at war with the southern government".


  • #446
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    I believe that the Free State has extremely questionable legitimacy...
    I wouldn't worry about it. It ceased to exist in 1937.


  • #447
    Painted Pony
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Painted Pony


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    I believe that the Free State has extremely questionable legitimacy given how it was foisted on the Irish people through genocidal threats.
    Well I would dispute that but this thread is tattered enough without going in another direction. :)

    In any case, whatever questions you have about the basis on which the state was established the fact that the people of this state embraced it by voting (they could have sent a clear message of rejection by boycotting elections) means it was accepted by the people and thus for them, it was legitimate. Or does what the Irish people think not really count for anything?

    (Out of curiosity, how many legitimate states do you think there might be in the world if you disqualify those that were forged by acts or threats of violence?)


  • #448
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Painted Pony wrote: »
    Are you seriously arguing that this was not political? :confused:

    The PIRA's aim was to remove the British from the north by force. That's a military objective not a political one.
    Why is sauce for the US goose something different for the IRA gander?

    I'm not sure why you're trying to compare the PIRA campaign with the US invasion of Iraq. You'll remember too, I'm sure, that Iraq didn't attack the US and that there was a conspiracy to fool the public into thinking that Saddam had a 45 minute WMD strike capability.
    But that was just an insignificant side issue. They didn’t recognise the state or the government (up until the 1980s they took to calling themselves the government) and quite clearly an aim to establish a united Ireland would necessarily involve dismantling the republic.

    I'm not familiar with the details on this tbh so can't really comment.


  • #449
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with the details on this tbh so can't really comment.

    The debate around absentionism and recognizing the courts was actually quite an important moment in the Troubles. It would be well worth you time to listen to these two speeches.





  • #450
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    To cause maximum disruption. As as been pointed out numerous times, the IRA gained nothing from the deaths of civilians or inflicting terror in anyone other than british soldiers/RUC/other combatants, so why would they do it. Why would they give warnings. Why would the issue apologies and regrets afterwards? Why would they take actions against individual members or units who caused civilian deaths?

    Like I also said, I knew someone would come out listing off a few names to kick about like a political football but you've ignored the overall numbers, which counteract your claims about the IRA targeting civilians.

    Numbers? The IRA killed 800 innocent people. Don't hide behind some stupid stats.

    Who exactly were the IRA trying to cause disruption to? Think about my question again. Why were those places bombed at their busiest times?


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Manassas61 why do you support the Union?

    If we have a situation within Northern Ireland where you have unionists with a small "u" voting for Sinn Fein what does that tell us about the place and capital "U" Unionism?
    Better off financially and culturally. But there is many other benefits to it. The NHS being one of the major ones. Plenty of reasons.


Advertisement