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

Fratton Fred · 07-10-2013 10:57AM

SoulandForm wrote: »

I think it was more to do with headlines in Ireland than with headlines in the USA; at the start of the troubles they had massive sympathy in the 26 counties but that level dwindled partly indeed to due the media in line with the elite taking a much more hostile approach but also due their own brutality (Bloody Friday, the Braydo bar massacre, etc). Before the Enniskillen massacre Provisional Sinn Fein had been making very strong gains in the north but those gains were halted and indeed set back by that bombing. I would agree with you though that the Birmingham and Warrington bombings were pure acts of terrorism.

I had colleagues in the US at the time of the Warrington bombings. They commented on the way the Jamie Bulger murder hit the headlines over there and received widespread shock, outrage etc. But a month later, two young children killed by the IRA were worth about two two inches on a page six column filler.

As has often been said, to 90% of Americans terrorism only started in 2001 and is only ever carried out by Arabs.

Fratton Fred · 07-10-2013 11:00AM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Same as I said to Godge, utterly baseless waffle. A little research will show you what the IRA actually wanted.

And, again, same as I said to Godge, the IRA apologised.

Take the blinkers off for a sec will you. Think about it, the IRA targeted civilian targets at their peak time. There can be no other explanation than to terrorise civilians.

Getting a politician to read out an anonymous letter isn't an apology.

SoulandForm · 07-10-2013 11:25AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I had colleagues in the US at the time of the Warrington bombings. They commented on the way the Jamie Bulger murder hit the headlines over there and received widespread shock, outrage etc. But a month later, two young children killed by the IRA were worth about two two inches on a page six column filler.

As has often been said, to 90% of Americans terrorism only started in 2001 and is only ever carried out by Arabs.

A lot of Unionists believe that the Provisionals were forced to decommission because with 9/11 all their support had dried up in the USA. Im far from sure that this belief has a basis in reality. Look at the case of Peter King for instance who is extremely pro the "war on terror" yet also very Irish Republican after a certain manner. It would be interesting to find out just how much of the PIRA's resources came from Irish America, Libya, the Warsaw Pact, donations in Ireland, donations in western Europe, bank robberies, etc- I suspect that the role of Irish America has been exaggerated.

There is a poster on another forum who is Irish American who sees no contradiction between supporting the "war on the terror" and libeling Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement in the states while militantly supporting the Provisionals in a way that would make anyone on here blush.

Fratton Fred · 07-10-2013 11:35AM

SoulandForm wrote: »

A lot of Unionists believe that the Provisionals were forced to decommission because with 9/11 all their support had dried up in the USA. Im far from sure that this belief has a basis in reality. Look at the case of Peter King for instance who is extremely pro the "war on terror" yet also very Irish Republican after a certain manner. It would be interesting to find out just how much of the PIRA's resources came from Irish America, Libya, the Warsaw Pact, donations in Ireland, donations in western Europe, bank robberies, etc- I suspect that the role of Irish America has been exaggerated.

There is a poster on another forum who is Irish American who sees no contradiction between supporting the "war on the terror" and libeling Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement in the states while militantly supporting the Provisionals in a way that would make anyone on here blush.

NORAID certainly raised a lot of funds for Republican causes and was seen as a genuine charity in the US for a long time, but the change was well under way before 9/11. That was probably the final nail in the coffin, but the armed campaign was dead anyway.

Crooked Jack · 07-10-2013 11:37AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Take the blinkers off for a sec will you. Think about it, the IRA targeted civilian targets at their peak time. There can be no other explanation than to terrorise civilians.

Getting a politician to read out an anonymous letter isn't an apology.

The IRA had nothing to gain from terrorising civilians. Their goals were only furthered when the day to day running of the British economy was upset. That's why as the bombs got bigger the brits were more and more eager to talk. Nothing to do with how many bodies there were, the british government showed quite clearly they were more than happy to keep throwing uniforms at the IRA for them to shoot so long as it didn't hit their pockets.
I'm not the one with blinkers on, you're the one with the black and white view of the conflict that you refuse to challenge.

Fratton Fred · 07-10-2013 11:54AM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The IRA had nothing to gain from terrorising civilians. Their goals were only furthered when the day to day running of the British economy was upset. That's why as the bombs got bigger the brits were more and more eager to talk. Nothing to do with how many bodies there were, the british government showed quite clearly they were more than happy to keep throwing uniforms at the IRA for them to shoot so long as it didn't hit their pockets.
I'm not the one with blinkers on, you're the one with the black and white view of the conflict that you refuse to challenge.

They had nothing to gain from killing a tv presenter, or two teenagers and two elderly people on a boat in Mullaghmore, but they still did.

FTA69 · 07-10-2013 12:00PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They had nothing to gain from killing a tv presenter, or two teenagers and two elderly people on a boat in Mullaghmore, but they still did.

Well they did to be fair. McWhirter was killed as he had put a bounty out on IRA members, something the organisation rightly saw as a direct attack on their people. They weren't going to tolerate some racist right-wing twat seeking to use his personal wealth and influence to place bounties on peoples' heads. Mountbatten was a member of the British royal family, the most eminent family in the British establishment who are also intertwined inextricably with the British Army.

Now obviously you don't agree with the above operations and I can see your reasons why, but they weren't mindlessly done for the craic either.

.jacksparrow. · 07-10-2013 12:04PM

I think that Fred can't name one conflict in the history of existence where innocent people didn't get caught up in it, says it all really.

But will still come out with the usual the Ira were sectarian and targetted innocent civilians.

Fratton Fred · 07-10-2013 12:05PM

FTA69 wrote: »

Well they did to be fair. McWhirter was killed as he had put a bounty out on IRA members, something the organisation rightly saw as a direct attack on their people. They weren't going to tolerate some racist right-wing twat seeking to use his personal wealth and influence to place bounties on peoples' heads. Mountbatten was a member of the British royal family, the most eminent family in the British establishment who are also intertwined inextricably with the British Army.

Now obviously you don't agree with the above operations and I can see your reasons why, but they weren't mindlessly done for the craic either.

And Mountbattens guests on his boat?

Whils I agree that there could be justification for their murders, I fail to see how anyone could take pride in them.

Besides, the Balcombe street gang were little more than thugs running around killing people.

Fratton Fred · 07-10-2013 12:10PM

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

I think that Fred can't name one conflict in the history of existence where innocent people didn't get caught up in it, says it all really.

difference between being caught up in a conflict than deliberately targeted. Worse still, people defending those actions.

But will still come out with the usual the Ira were sectarian and targetted innocent civilians.

The IRA weren't sectarian. When did I claim they were. They had no problem killing English people though.

OK then, maybe you can tell me why Warrington was attacked by planting a bomb outside a McDonald's on a Saturday lunchtime if they were targeting civilians?

FTA69 · 07-10-2013 12:11PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And Mountbattens guests on his boat?

Whils I agree that there could be justification for their murders, I fail to see how anyone could take pride in them.

I don't think anyone should take pride in someone's particular death to be honest. While I would be proud of the tradition of resistance in Ireland and what was achieved in the face of great adversity by ordinary working class people, I wouldn't cheer over specific deaths either. That's fairly ghoulish to be honest, unfortunately in political conflicts that sort of thing does emerge.

I don't think any Republican would ever say the other people on Mountbatten's boat deserved what happened to them.

Crooked Jack · 07-10-2013 12:16PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And Mountbattens guests on his boat?

Whils I agree that there could be justification for their murders, I fail to see how anyone could take pride in them.

Besides, the Balcombe street gang were little more than thugs running around killing people.

Who is taking pride in any of this? I'm merely challenging your assertion that the IRA were a bunch of mindless sectarian sadists who killed for the love of it. Like all other sane people I wish no-one had been killed, I wish the war had never happened and that the IRA had never needed to exist. Sadly, the British state, along with a corrupt Stormont regime and the worst excesses of loyalism, coupled with Free State cowardice, ensured this was not to be.
Do you think people wanted to be out there, taking on a better equipped, better trained, better funded army? Planting bombs that they knew could go off at any second and kill them? Living on the run, or in subhuman prison conditions or with physical and mental injuries and disabilities?
Sadly, people were left with no choice but to fight back.

Tramps Like Us · 07-10-2013 12:34PM

FTA69 wrote: »

I don't think anyone should take pride in someone's particular death to be honest. While I would be proud of the tradition of resistance in Ireland and what was achieved in the face of great adversity by ordinary working class people, I wouldn't cheer over specific deaths either. That's fairly ghoulish to be honest, unfortunately in political conflicts that sort of thing does emerge.

I don't think any Republican would ever say the other people on Mountbatten's boat deserved what happened to them.

I don't see why you feel the need to defend or explain yourself to an out and out supporter of the British Army given the innocents they have massacred

FTA69 · 07-10-2013 12:36PM

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

I don't see why you feel the need to defend or explain yourself to an out and out supporter of the British Army given the innocents they have massacred

It's a discussion like, and whatever about the fact I disagree with him on most stuff, he can usually discuss matters on a civil basis.

Tramps Like Us · 07-10-2013 12:43PM

FTA69 wrote: »

It's a discussion like, and whatever about the fact I disagree with him on most stuff, he can usually discuss matters on a civil basis.

Its a discussion which is going over the exact same ground again and again, what about x, what about y, explain this, explain that - its the same old thing where a borderline jingoistic British army supporter is given free reign on the moral high ground to moralize and act holier than thou - rather than a worthwhile discussion about the differences between the various republican armed groups, this petered out after the first couple of pages

FTA69 · 07-10-2013 12:55PM

Sure whatever, it's nigh impossible to discuss this sort of topic on this forum anyway because you're immediately dealing with nonsense and general West Brit attitudes from the get go.

Iwasfrozen · 07-10-2013 12:58PM

FTA69 wrote: »

Sure whatever, it's nigh impossible to discuss this sort of topic on this forum anyway because you're immediately dealing with nonsense and general West Brit attitudes from the get go.

perhaps if you didn't glorify terrorists...

Tramps Like Us · 07-10-2013 01:04PM

FTA69 wrote: »

Sure whatever, it's nigh impossible to discuss this sort of topic on this forum anyway because you're immediately dealing with nonsense and general West Brit attitudes from the get go.

Don't mean to have a go, its just disappointing that there is no proper discussion about the various different groups, whether that be Tiny's loons, the new IRA, ONH or whomever

FTA69 · 07-10-2013 01:06PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

perhaps if you didn't glorify terrorists...

I don't glorify terrorists. I recognise the fact that the IRA was a justified response to a British occupation based on physical force and backed up by a horrible, sectarian state.

SoulandForm · 07-10-2013 01:09PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA weren't sectarian. When did I claim they were. They had no problem killing English people though.

OK then, maybe you can tell me why Warrington was attacked by planting a bomb outside a McDonald's on a Saturday lunchtime if they were targeting civilians?

I can see the point that you are making- and not only were such actions morally suspect but politically stupid- they greatly undermined the efforts of those in Britain working in the Labour Party and Trade Union for a just and lasting solution the problems (I dont consider the GFA to be that- we can argue about its justice but its not going to lasting however much I do hope that it lasts as long as possible). Now however real social/political power in the UK is much more concentrated so such efforts if things kick off again even under the best of circumstances will stand much less chance of being genuinely effective.

Personally I dont believe that the British elite wants to leave Ireland, I believe that they want to hold on to the north for strategic reasons which is why they havent tackled the crazier side of capital "U" Unionism because they see it as a back up (also there is the fact that it puts people in the south off the idea of national unity). Things continue to be tolerated in Northern Ireland which just wouldnt be in the UK mainland (and its not just a matter of plastic bullets, check out this- http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/catholics-land-sale-row-farmer-left-536k-in-will-29620882.html ).

Iwasfrozen · 07-10-2013 01:11PM

FTA69 wrote: »

I don't glorify terrorists. I recognise the fact that the IRA was a justified response to a British occupation based on physical force and backed up by a horrible, sectarian state.

Violence is/was never a "justified response."
The British were not occupying Northern Ireland. Whether you like it or not they had a democratic mandate to be there.
I agree the state was sectarian but the IRA was not the correct response to that. All they did was provoke unionist reprisals against catholic civilians

Fratton Fred · 07-10-2013 01:14PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Who is taking pride in any of this? I'm merely challenging your assertion that the IRA were a bunch of mindless sectarian sadists who killed for the love of it. Like all other sane people I wish no-one had been killed, I wish the war had never happened and that the IRA had never needed to exist. Sadly, the British state, along with a corrupt Stormont regime and the worst excesses of loyalism, coupled with Free State cowardice, ensured this was not to be.
Do you think people wanted to be out there, taking on a better equipped, better trained, better funded army? Planting bombs that they knew could go off at any second and kill them? Living on the run, or in subhuman prison conditions or with physical and mental injuries and disabilities?
Sadly, people were left with no choice but to fight back.

There is a huge difference between fighting back and carrying out what can only be described as terrorist atrocities.

Similarly, claiming that certain attacks were acts of terrorism, does not mean all attacks were, nor does it mean I believe they were sectarian sadists.

My point is simply that a significant number of attacks by the IRA targeted civilians.

Iwasfrozen · 07-10-2013 01:14PM

SoulandForm wrote: »

Personally I dont believe that the British elite wants to leave Ireland, I believe that they want to hold on to the north for strategic reasons which is why they havent tackled the crazier side of capital "U" Unionism because they see it as a back up (also there is the fact that it puts people in the south off the idea of national unity). Things continue to be tolerated in Northern Ireland which just wouldnt be in the UK mainland (and its not just a matter of plastic bullets, check out this- http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/catholics-land-sale-row-farmer-left-536k-in-will-29620882.html ).

Agree 100%. I don't get it when people say Britain wants to dump Northern Ireland. Maybe this is true for the average person but for the people who rule Britain, he true elite this is an ideological matter. What do they care if the government pumps Billions into Northern Ireland? This is petty cash for these people and well worth it to keep the United Kingdom intact.

FTA69 · 07-10-2013 01:23PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

[*]Violence is/was never a "justified response."

It is at times. Especially against a state that maintains itself through violence, that uses overt and covert violence through a variety of channels to systematically attack any challenge to it,.

[*]The British were not occupying Northern Ireland. Whether you like it or not they had a democratic mandate to be there.

No, they decided to maintain a presence in Ireland under the threat of an "immediate and terrible war" and subsequently established an anti-democratic state based on repression and violence.

[*]I agree the state was sectarian but the IRA was not the correct response to that. All they did was provoke unionist reprisals against catholic civilians

This lark that Republicans are to blame for Unionist paramilitaries is one of the sillier myths to emerge from the conflict. The UVF were active and randomly killing Catholics since 1966, Loyalist paramilitarism has a long history in Ireland and has more to do with maintaining social privilege than anything else.

Fratton Fred · 07-10-2013 01:31PM

FTA69 wrote: »

No, they decided to maintain a presence in Ireland under the threat of an "immediate and terrible war" .

Britain never made such a threat.

If you read the Dail debate on the treaty, it is very clear what that sentence relates to.

A copy of the proposed treaty had been sent to Belfast and the two parties in London knew that unless it was signed, the war would break out again, but this time it would be immediate and more terrible than the previous one.

The British government were not threatening war, they were warning that a terrible civil war would break out in Ireland.

It is very clear, but has since been used as an excuse for signing the treaty and agreeing to partition.

Iwasfrozen · 07-10-2013 01:33PM

FTA69 wrote: »

It is at times. Especially against a state that maintains itself through violence, that uses overt and covert violence through a variety of channels to systematically attack any challenge to it,

Every state maintains itself through violence. What do you think the Gards and Army are for in the Republic?

No, they decided to maintain a presence in Ireland under the threat of an "immediate and terrible war" and subsequently established an anti-democratic state based on repression and violence.

Nope, they maintained a presence in the north east of Ireland because most people in the north east of Ireland wanted them to. They've even admitted many years later they have no strategic interest in NI. They only stayed because Unionists wanted them to.

This lark that Republicans are to blame for Unionist paramilitaries is one of the sillier myths to emerge from the conflict. The UVF were active and randomly killing Catholics since 1966, Loyalist paramilitarism has a long history in Ireland and has more to do with maintaining social privilege than anything else.

I'm not arguing which came first I'm saying IRA killings only provoked more attacks on catholic civilians. Violence begets violence even primary school children know that.

Crooked Jack · 07-10-2013 01:34PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is a huge difference between fighting back and carrying out what can only be described as terrorist atrocities.

Similarly, claiming that certain attacks were acts of terrorism, does not mean all attacks were, nor does it mean I believe they were sectarian sadists.

My point is simply that a significant number of attacks by the IRA targeted civilians.

It depends what you mean by significant, but the statistics of the conflict would disagree with you.

Fratton Fred · 07-10-2013 01:37PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It depends what you mean by significant, but the statistics of the conflict would disagree with you.

724 "accidental" deaths?

Really?

Crooked Jack · 07-10-2013 01:42PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain never made such a threat.

If you read the Dail debate on the treaty, it is very clear what that sentence relates to.

A copy of the proposed treaty had been sent to Belfast and the two parties in London knew that unless it was signed, the war would break out again, but this time it would be immediate and more terrible than the previous one.

The British government were not threatening war, they were warning that a terrible civil war would break out in Ireland.

It is very clear, but has since been used as an excuse for signing the treaty and agreeing to partition.

This is untrue. Macready had told Loyd George that if war broke out again he would have to be prepared to "bring the full apparatus of war, including tanks and planes" to Ireland and that he would have to "shoot 100 Sinn Feiners a day."
The Brits very clearly threatened Ireland with annihilation if the treaty wasnt accepted.
I personally think they should have called their bluff. Better to have them united and fighting the british than shooting each other.

Iwasfrozen · 07-10-2013 01:46PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This is untrue. Macready had told Loyd George that if war broke out again he would have to be prepared to "bring the full apparatus of war, including tanks and planes" to Ireland and that he would have to "shoot 100 Sinn Feiners a day."
The Brits very clearly threatened Ireland with annihilation if the treaty wasnt accepted.
I personally think they should have called their bluff. Better to have them united and fighting the british than shooting each other.

They wouldn't have won. If history has thought us anything sophisticated armies can annihilate the enemy's central command in hours but they'll be worn down over an extended period of occupation.

The British would have had to leave defeated eventually but they could flatten the country in the process. The leaders of the pro-treaty side probably considered this.

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

Comments