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

Fratton Fred wrote: »

724 "accidental" deaths?

Really?

Out of 10,000+ explosive devices detonated and countless shootings.
I'd also be interested to see where you're getting your figures from and what constitutes civilian. We've seen some people argue on here that the RUC should have been seen as "civilian" casualties. For example, CAIN has civilian casualties at 621.
Not, as I have said, that that's a justification, no civilian death was acceptable, but the figures clearly show that civilians were not the target.
Other evidence from throughout the conflict, such as IRA reactions to civilians deaths and the IRA's own rules and the political direction of the organisation, show they had no interest in targeting civilians. It was militarily, strategically and politically counter productive. I dont know why you are so keen to argue otherwise given the evidence but unless you have something new to add I'm finished going around in circles with you on this one.

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

It's a bit disingenuous to compare maintaining an occupation in a different country with maintaining the internal security of a state. Most states don't arm one strata in society with a view to using them as a watchdog against the rest of the country. Neither do they support and facilitate an economic and political system which discriminates against one community. Few other states in Western Europe were convicted of practising torture against people they interned without trial and fewer again were arming death squads to murder their own citizens.

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.

They redrew the boundaries in 1920 to provide the northern state with as big a majority as it was possible to get, it was cynical gerrymandering done with a view to bolstering their presence in the island as a whole. This notion that the Brits have no strategic interest is a pile of thundering b*llocks to be very blunt about it. Do you think they fought a 25 year war here for the craic? That they armed and facilitated Loyalist paramilitaries to murder UK citizens because they've no intention of staying there? That they spent billions upon billions on subventions and the military cost of a low-level war all to protect the interests of Irish unionists they largely don't give a sh*t about?

The Brits view this place the same way they view every other colony. They had zero problem in vacating their other colonies when it suited them to do so. What Brooke said in 1990 is irrelevant. Tony Blair also said Saddam Hussein could attack Britain with chemical weapons in 40 minutes notice. In other words, the British government has consistently lied about its activities in Ireland.

I'm not arguing which came first I'm saying IRA killings only provoked more attacks on catholic civilians.

The only people to blame for Loyalist killings are the people themselves and the various British state agencies which encouraged and facilitated them as part of a proxy war. Nobody else.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

724 civilians killed by republican paramilitaries.

I really fail to see how you can't grasp this, it is fairly simple.

You bomb a pub in Birmingham on a Friday night, then civilians are the target, where is the doubt?

Let me put it another way. Blow up a bus full of soldiers, as well as dead soldiers, there are four dead civilians. OK, that's an accident, soldiers were the target.

Bomb a McDonald'. On a Saturday lunchtime in a town with no military connection, who is the target? Civilians.

There is no debate about this.

And around and around we go. Your fixation on two events, which are not as black and white as you are portraying them, is colouring your view of the entire conflict.
Educate yourself on the conflict and it's quite clear the IRA did not target civilians.
You also seem to be referring to the IRA specifically and then lumping the IRA in with figures that include all republican groups. This is disingenuous.
Like I said, if you come up with anything new, get back to me.

Manassas61 wrote: »

Saying the PIRA did not target civilians is just rewriting of history and rather disturbing when you look at the amount of civilians they killed with bombs and shootings.

Civilians account for around a third of their casualties, which is the lowest out of any protagonist in the conflict; including the British Army.

Jean Mcconville is a good example of a civilian murdered.

She was killed for being an informer. Not a glorious event by any means, but she wasn't shot for no reason.

FTA69 wrote: »

Manassas61 wrote: »

Civilians account for around a third of their casualties, which is the lowest out of any protagonist in the conflict; including the British Army.



She was killed for being an informer. Not a glorious event by any means, but she wasn't shot for no reason.

There is no evidence she was an informer. This is propaganda of the worst degree. Her family have denied she was an informer.

The PIRA as murderous thugs thought they were the law and decided to murder her and not even return her body. Scandalous.

I'm trying to remember a war where no civilians were killed, or even just a bombing campaign, whether its Lancaster bombers or newfangled drones. Civilian deaths are an unavoidable, tragic, regrettable consequence of war and always have been (especially with a 30 year one) - which is why everything must be carefully considered before entering one. Dissident republicans (who this thread is about) who outright advocate a continuation of the campaign (as distinct from those who just disagree with the GFA) don't have a coherent political analysis or even any political or military strategy beyond the idea to keep plugging away and see if something happens - it is on this basis they should be challenged (if you want to do something which is actually useful)

The argument some posters here are putting forward and the moralizing over civilian deaths should not be taken at face value, given the fact that they accept the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths their own countries army has inflicted - for these people it is not really about civilian deaths and they should not pretend it is - there is no mention of the murders of civilians which founded NI and helped maintain it and why would there be, they don't fit their agenda.

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

I'm trying to remember a war where no civilians were killed, or even just a bombing campaign, whether its Lancaster bombers or newfangled drones. Civilian deaths are an unavoidable, tragic, regrettable consequence of war and always have been (especially with a 30 year one) - which is why everything must be carefully considered before entering one. Dissident republicans (who this thread is about) who outright advocate a continuation of the campaign (as distinct from those who just disagree with the GFA) don't have a coherent political analysis or even any political or military strategy beyond the idea to keep plugging away and see if something happens - it is on this basis they should be challenged (if you want to do something which is actually useful)

The argument some posters here are putting forward and the moralizing over civilian deaths should not be taken at face value, given the fact that they accept the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths their own countries army has inflicted - for these people it is not really about civilian deaths and they should not pretend it is - there is no mention of the murders of civilians which founded NI and helped maintain it and why would there be, they don't fit their agenda.

Actually many of us don't and think we should not have went to Afghanistan or Iraq.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I don't believe people like Manassa61 really care about Jean Mc Conville - they care about trying to make Republicans look evil so what they do is focus in on killings that will provide the most 'emotional capital' to help underpin their anti-Republican crusades.

You can try to dress it up what ever you want, it is a factual historical reality that they picked her up and murdered her and didn't return her body. This is not a lie, this did happen and she was a civilian.