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…2021232526…28

Comments

  • #662
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Just the two mentioned in the thread title.

    Might make for boring viewing, I doubt they'd actually fight each other. Didnt this new RIRA amalgamation group say that they'll happily work with other dissident groups?


  • #663
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Just the two mentioned in the thread title.

    So you wouldnt be so hard on the OnH?

    Okiedokie.


  • #664
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,379 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    It is hard to know who is who when it comes to any of these groups. There are in theory 5 IRAs: Official, Provisional, Continuity, Real and New Real. The INLA are also another group of IRA in all but name.

    Are all these separate or the same is anyone's guess. My guess is they are different when it suits them and all side with each other too when it suits them. I bet they'd all go into coalition together in a Sinn Fein government!


  • #665
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    It is hard to know who is who when it comes to any of these groups. There are in theory 5 IRAs: Official, Provisional, Continuity, Real and New Real. The INLA are also another group of IRA in all but name.

    Are all these separate or the same is anyone's guess. My guess is they are different when it suits them and all side with each other too when it suits them. I bet they'd all go into coalition together in a Sinn Fein government!

    ?
    Official IRA are long gone, Continuity, Real and various other splinter groupings hate SF with a passion at this stage.


  • #666
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    An Coilean wrote: »
    ?
    Official IRA are long gone, Continuity, Real and various other splinter groupings hate SF with a passion at this stage.

    The Official IRA are NOT long gone.

    The "Official IRA" who decommissoned around the same time that the INLA were a splinter group based around Newry.

    The Official IRA are heavily armed.


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,379 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    The Official IRA are NOT long gone.

    The "Official IRA" who decommissoned around the same time that the INLA were a splinter group based around Newry.

    The Official IRA are heavily armed.

    This is true. Most people think that the Official IRA just died out. They still remain and have avoided all decommissioning as they were not overly involved in the Troubles like the Provos.

    The Official IRA's political wing is very interesting. First, they were a communist style party called Sinn Fein, The Worker's Party (shortened later to The Worker's Party). After this, they became Democratic Left and entered government in the 1990s. Then, DL merged with Labour and such high profile Labour politicians as Eamonn Gilmore and Pat Rabbitte are both originally from DL/WP/OIRA.


  • #668
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    BuilderPlumber wrote: »
    This is true. Most people think that the Official IRA just died out. They still remain and have avoided all decommissioning as they were not overly involved in the Troubles like the Provos.

    The Official IRA's political wing is very interesting. First, they were a communist style party called Sinn Fein, The Worker's Party (shortened later to The Worker's Party). After this, they became Democratic Left and entered government in the 1990s. Then, DL merged with Labour and such high profile Labour politicians as Eamonn Gilmore and Pat Rabbitte are both originally from DL/WP/OIRA.

    "Group B"/Official IRA however remained with the Workers Party and anyone siding with Democratic was expelled. In the conference to change the party line fundamentally the majority of the members voted against it- however the majority of TDs were for it and so they split and carried the day. I seriously thought about joining the Workers Party at one time-Im glad I didnt.


  • #669
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    You'd think these splinter groups would just piss of & realize their actions are counter-productive.

    The only 2 legitimate IRA's were the old IRA & the PIRA, who actually achieved something.

    How in gods name is shooting Catholic police officers going to bring about a UI?


  • #670
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    tdv123 wrote: »
    You'd think these splinter groups would just piss of & realize their actions are counter-productive.

    The only 2 legitimate IRA's were the old IRA & the PIRA, who actually achieved something.

    How in gods name is shooting Catholic police officers going to bring about a UI?

    Are you suggesting that killing Protestant PSNI officers would some how be better?

    To these people a PSNI officer is a PSNI officer is a PSNI officer; he can speak fluent Irish, play hurling and be a member of the Legion of Mary and it wouldnt matter a damn to them. They are many things but they are not sectarian.

    The Fenians and the United Irishmen could be said to have achieved hardly anything.

    I would go so far to say that their tactics are immoral and amount to murder- but I understand why they do what they do and respect them for that.


  • #671
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    tdv123 wrote: »
    You'd think these splinter groups would just piss of & realize their actions are counter-productive.

    The only 2 legitimate IRA's were the old IRA & the PIRA, who actually achieved something.

    How in gods name is shooting Catholic police officers going to bring about a UI?

    There's sod all to distinguish the actions of the provos from the current bunch. Both lacked any legitimacy, and were only too happy to shoot Catholic police officers dead - North and South.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that killing Protestant PSNI officers would some how be better?

    No were did you get that from? Shooting any police officer is counter-productive. I was mention Catholic PSNI officers as they are their main target.

    To these people a PSNI officer is a PSNI officer is a PSNI officer; he can speak fluent Irish, play hurling and be a member of the Legion of Mary and it wouldnt matter a damn to them. They are many things but they are not sectarian.

    The Fenians and the United Irishmen could be said to have achieved hardly anything.

    I would go so far to say that their tactics are immoral and amount to murder- but I understand why they do what they do and respect them for that.

    I agree with most of the rest but the United irishmen gave rise to the Fenian Republican Brotherhood & IRB who launched the 1916 rising which gave rise to the old IRA.


  • #673
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    alastair wrote: »
    There's sod all to distinguish the actions of the provos from the current bunch. Both lacked any legitimacy, and were only too happy to shoot Catholic police officers dead - North and South.

    But the PIRA had a lot of support in their communities. They were seen as defenders of the community. A lot of those RUC they killed were colluding with Loyalist death squads.

    CIRA & RIRA have no support & as result launch about 10 significant atttacks a year. Even towards the of the conflict the PIRA launched around 425 attacks on British forces in 1992.


  • #674
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    tdv123 wrote: »
    But the PIRA had a lot of support in their communities. They were seen as defenders of the community. A lot of those RUC they killed were colluding with Loyalist death squads.

    CIRA & RIRA have no support & as result launch about 10 significant atttacks a year. Even towards the of the conflict the PIRA launched around 425 attacks on British forces in 1992.

    Doesn't really matter at the end of the day.

    They both have beliefs and ideals and are using the same methods to try achieve them.

    There is no difference in the ira of today to the one 200 years ago or 30 years ago.


  • #675
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    Doesn't really matter at the end of the day.

    They both have beliefs and ideals and are using the same methods to try achieve them.

    There is no difference in the ira of today to the one 200 years ago or 30 years ago.

    There are though- IRA of the 20s had massive support and huge democratic mandate. The Provos came out of the suppression both legal and extra-legal of the civil rights movement and whatever anyone says about it here stopped once they had won the Mc Bride principles.

    If I had been born an RC instead of Protestant in Northern Ireland I would probably support the OnH and the CIRA- but I wasnt.


  • #676
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    There are though- IRA of the 20s had massive support and huge democratic mandate. The Provos came out of the suppression both legal and extra-legal of the civil rights movement and whatever anyone says about it here stopped once they had won the Mc Bride principles.

    If I had been born an RC instead of Protestant in Northern Ireland I would probably support the OnH and the CIRA- but I wasnt.

    But it doesn't matter if they have or had support or not.

    I'm talking about the beliefs and methods.


  • #677
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    But it doesn't matter if they have or had support or not.

    I'm talking about the beliefs and methods.

    Fair enough- but mass movements that come about after seeing other methods trampled upon are different from those who use adventurist tactics that end up with people dead in a social void.

    I empathize even though I completely dont sympathize with the current physical force Republicans.


  • #678
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    tdv123 wrote: »
    But the PIRA had a lot of support in their communities. They were seen as defenders of the community. A lot of those RUC they killed were colluding with Loyalist death squads.
    A lot of supposition there. Were the Guards they killed also colluding with death squads? SF never managed to pull an electoral majority of 'their community' while the IRA was busy killing people, so this notion that they had 'a lot of support' is rather over-stated. The current crowd have some support as well - neither have legitimacy.


  • #679
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    There are though- IRA of the 20s had massive support and huge democratic mandate. The Provos came out of the suppression both legal and extra-legal of the civil rights movement and whatever anyone says about it here stopped once they had won the Mc Bride principles.

    The Provos had nothing to do with the McBride principles.


  • #680
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    alastair wrote: »
    A lot of supposition there. Were the Guards they killed also colluding with death squads? SF never managed to pull an electoral majority of 'their community' while the IRA was busy killing people, so this notion that they had 'a lot of support' is rather over-stated. The current crowd have some support as well - neither have legitimacy.

    The Garda torture of Republicans- and Im not talking about Volunteers at the moment left them open for revenge attacks, the fact that was few were killed given the situation is to the credit of the Provos. Not that killing Garda would be morally right in my opinion-just that a lot of them were morally evil.


  • #681
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    The Garda torture of Republicans- and Im not talking about Volunteers at the moment left them open for revenge attacks, the fact that was few were killed given the situation is to the credit of the Provos. Not that killing Garda would be morally right in my opinion-just that a lot of them were morally evil.

    That's quite the twisted position you've managed to find for yourself. Like I say - they had no legitimacy.


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    alastair wrote: »
    That's quite the twisted position you've managed to find for yourself. Like I say - they had no legitimacy.

    No its not.

    They had the legitimacy of responding to real oppression in what they believed was the only route- they decommissoned for so little showing that...But I suspect the reason you hate the Provies so much is that the idea of Irish proles with guns sends shivers down your spine, am I right?


  • #683
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    No its not.

    They had the legitimacy of responding to real oppression in what they believed was the only route- they decommissoned for so little showing that...But I suspect the reason you hate the Provies so much is that the idea of Irish proles with guns sends shivers down your spine, am I right?

    Complete rubbish. The IRA didn't murder guards because of 'revenge' - they murdered them because they interfered with their criminality. The current bunch of idiots could make exactly the same claims as the Provos, and have about as much legitimacy - ie: none. The IRA decommissioned because they finally copped on to the futility of their strategy - that's all that differentiates them from CIRA etc.

    Your suspicions are about as on target as your half-baked attempt to justify a campaign of murder. As in not at all. But thanks for them anyway.


  • #684
    BuilderPlumber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,379 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    I think that all these groups started out as protectors of their own communities be they nationalist or loyalist. But as the years passed, al lot of the groups turned out more as rival drug gangs than anything else.


  • #685
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    The current bunch of idiots could make exactly the same claims as the Provos, and have about as much legitimacy - ie: none.

    Just for clarity, could you tell us how you test your local freedom fighters/revolutionaries for 'legitimacy'? And could you point to a similar situation where 'legitimacy' of an organisation like the IRA can be shown.


  • #686
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Just for clarity, could you tell us how you test your local freedom fighters/revolutionaries for 'legitimacy'? And could you point to a similar situation where 'legitimacy' of an organisation like the IRA can be shown.

    Just for clarity, if it hasn't got a popular mandate, then it's not legitimate. The electoral process is the mechanism that lends legitimacy to any insurrectionists. The vast majority of voters, north and south, opted to support those who opposed a campaign of violence.


  • #687
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Just for clarity, if it hasn't got a popular mandate, then it's not legitimate.
    And who decides this?
    If for instance I say 'The IRA had a popular mandate and you say 'The IRA didn't have a popular mandate' how do we decide?
    The electoral process is the mechanism that lends legitimacy to any insurrectionists. The vast majority of voters, north and south, opted to support those who opposed a campaign of violence.

    The vast majority of people in Cavan/Monaghan don't vote for Labour, does that mean Labour have 'no legitimacy' there?

    Still waiting for those examples of a place where a group like the IRA proved their 'legitimacy'.


  • #688
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    And who decides this?
    If for instance I say 'The IRA had a popular mandate and you say 'The IRA didn't have a popular mandate' how do we decide?

    Try the electorate - that well established measure of popular support for political movements?

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The vast majority of people in Cavan/Monaghan don't vote for Labour, does that mean Labour have 'no legitimacy' there?

    Still waiting for those examples of a place where a group like the IRA proved their 'legitimacy'.
    Labour have legitimacy on the basis of their national vote - in a national election and context. If they don't manage to poll enough for a council seat, in Cavan/monaghan then they've no claim to represent the people within the constituency on a local level.

    I don't recall the IRA claiming legitimacy on the basis of anything other than ideology and some dodgy claims to provenance. They knew better than to pretend a popular mandate.

    What exactly is a 'group like the IRA' supposed to mean?


  • #689
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    And who decides this?
    If for instance I say 'The IRA had a popular mandate and you say 'The IRA didn't have a popular mandate' how do we decide?



    The vast majority of people in Cavan/Monaghan don't vote for Labour, does that mean Labour have 'no legitimacy' there?

    Still waiting for those examples of a place where a group like the IRA proved their 'legitimacy'.

    There are strong arguments in favour of the legitimacy of the Provo's and there are strong arguments against it-people need to understand though that the Provos's belong to history. Northern Ireland has many problems and the Provos are not one of them.


  • #690
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    There are strong arguments in favour of the legitimacy of the Provo's and there are strong arguments against it-people need to understand though that the Provos's belong to history. Northern Ireland has many problems and the Provos are not one of them.

    The 'strong arguments in favour of the legitimacy of the Provos' never managed to find expression in the electoral will of the people though, so the only other measure that could be applied, was how okay those within the IRA felt about their actions themselves. Not particularly useful. The propagandist revisionism relating to the IRA should also be consigned to history too.


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Try the electorate - that well established measure of popular support for political movements?

    Maybe if you can point to other instances of revolutionaries and freedom fighters standing in elections organised by those they were fighting against or who banned and proscribed them, you might have the semblance of an intelligent point there.

    Labour have legitimacy on the basis of their national vote - in a national election and context. If they don't manage to poll enough for a council seat, in Cavan/monaghan then they've no claim to represent the people within the constituency on a local level.
    Labour have seats on a local level, but the 'vast majority' don't vote for them. You said the 'vast majority' opted to vote for those who opposed violence hence removing 'legitimacy' from the IRA.
    How come Labour in Cavan/Monaghan have 'legitimacy' and the IRA have it removed?

    I don't recall the IRA claiming legitimacy on the basis of anything other than ideology and some dodgy claims to provenance. They knew better than to pretend a popular mandate.


    Yes, I think that is your requirement for them to be 'legitimate'.

    Isn't the truth of the situation (and kinda obvious too) that it doesn't matter a dam if they can be proven to be 'legitimate' or not, they exist?

    It's a bit like saying rain isn't legitimate therefore rain shouldn't exist.


Advertisement