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 the IRA of the WOI morally equivalent to the Provisional IRA of the Troubles?

13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,129 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    jm08 wrote: »
    If Sunningdale had succeeded, nationalists would not have had reason to support the armed struggle. The failure of Sunningdale was the proof that unionists wouldn't share power through peaceful means.

    Or maybe they just needed a bit of time to mellow and think it over?

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,775 ✭✭✭JamesM


    jm08 wrote: »
    The British Army killed 13 people on a civil rights march in Derry. They caused the 'disorder'. They tried to restore order by introducing Internment, then there were the hunger strikes, but every peaceful solution proposed was 'Out, Out, Out' from the British Government. Meanwhile, it was 'Never, Never, Never' from Paisley's lot.

    Talk about rewriting history.

    One thing the last couple of years has shown is that John Hume and Seamus Mallon would not have achieved peace by dialogue when you look at the intrangience of the DUP/loyalists over everything.

    The British army moved in and stopped the attacks on Catholics in 1969. Bloody Sunday was 1972. If the IRA had not re-started their campaign of ambushing soldiers and police, John Hume could have achieved peace and human rights.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,129 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    JamesM wrote: »
    The British army moved in and stopped the attacks on Catholics in 1969. Bloody Sunday was 1972. If the IRA had not re-started their campaign of ambushing soldiers and police, John Hume could have achieved peace and human rights.

    Wasn't Hume a great admirer of Gandhi's passive resistance? That was the route he wanted to go down but it was shattered by the headbangers.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    jm08 wrote: »
    The Plantation of Ulster solved two problems for the Crown. Both the people of Ulster and those of the Scotland lowland border area loved nothing better than a fight. It solved two problems for the Crown. Put them together and let them fight it out between them.


    Here is a description from an old Irish poem about the Province of Ulster.


    ''Ulster in the north is the seat of battle valour, of haughtiness, strife, boasting; the men of Ulster are the fiercest warriors of all Ireland, and the queens and goddesses of Ulster are associated with battle and death''.


    You can see the description of the rest of the provinces here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Ireland

    But Ireland was occupied before then. They didnt invade to place a few naughty scots out of the way to cause mayhem.

    Prince Philip of Spain wanted to invade Britain a hundred years before then.

    You are lucky he never invaded Ireland considering what he did elsewhere.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    JamesM wrote: »
    The British army moved in and stopped the attacks on Catholics in 1969. Bloody Sunday was 1972. If the IRA had not re-started their campaign of ambushing soldiers and police, John Hume could have achieved peace and human rights.


    This is correct the Catholics were helpless. Whole streets of families thrown out onto the streets if they were lucky and all of the streets of houses were set ablaze. If you they didnt move they were burnt out. There is lots of film footage of this.

    The catholic people turned to the IRA so called commanders for help and they did nothing. They did not help anyone at all and they were given the name by their own people of IRA = I Ran Away. All this is well documented.

    The police couldnt help they were over run.

    So a Scotsman sent in the British Army not to control Ulster but solely to protect the Catholics from being burnt out and killed by the Protestant gangs.

    No English were involved in this decision. The man in charge the Home secretary was a Scotsman called James Callaghan who later became a disastrous Prime Minister.

    How it turned into a war by the IRA on the very people who were protecting them I have never understood unless it was a few IRA men who had to prove they hadnt ran away..I dont know.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    AH stuff. Why is this even in here - just asking? :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    feargale wrote: »
    That's all pointless speculation which adds nothing to the discussion. Your comments on Co. Cork towns would be better posted in Tripadvisor. If, if if....Your aunt would be your uncle in certain circumstances,

    P.S. Are you sure North Kerry wouldn't be Alabama? Think Danny Healy Rae.
    LuasSimon wrote: »
    Danny Healy Rae lives in South Kerry - get your facts right

    Here are some facts for you:

    Kerry was established as a single constituency by the Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Act 2013.The new constituency replaces the constituencies of Kerry North–West Limerick and Kerry South. It comprises the whole of County Kerry with the Limerick part of the Kerry North–West Limerick transferred to Limerick County.

    Now to get back to your original post and your snide reference to Bandon and Kinsale:
    LuasSimon wrote: »
    if the 6 counties of Munster remained in British hands instead of the six counties in Ulster be interesting to see what way it would have turned out .
    The people of Bandon and kinsale etc probably be happy even Michael Martin I’m sure !
    I’d think north kerry though would be the south arnagh of those six counties !!

    Ellis and Cullinane are not the only ones whose masks have slipped in recent days.
    The only thing that distinguishes Bandon and Kinsale from other Munster towns is the fact that they are proportionately the most Protestant towns in Munster.
    Next time you attend Wolfe Tone day in Bodenstown you can console yourself in the knowledge that there are other "republicans" besides yourself who confuse republicanism and sectarianism.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,175 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Or maybe they just needed a bit of time to mellow and think it over?


    Who needed time to think it over? Unionism rejected it by voting for anti-Sunningdale candidates (anti-Sunningdale candidates won all of the seats with the exception of one - Paddy Devlin's seat in Belfast). Then there was the general strike which closed down Northern Ireland's electricity supply. The reason Sunningdale collapsed is solely down to unionism.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,129 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    jm08 wrote: »
    Who needed time to think it over? Unionism rejected it by voting for anti-Sunningdale candidates (anti-Sunningdale candidates won all of the seats with the exception of one - Paddy Devlin's seat in Belfast). Then there was the general strike which closed down Northern Ireland's electricity supply. The reason Sunningdale collapsed is solely down to unionism.

    What I meant was the transition from the reaction to Sunningdale to accepting the GFA. Plus you can't forget that at least the SDLP were trying back in the 70's, the bullet was the only thing SF knew then. SF needed time to cop themselves on gradually as well.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,175 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    JamesM wrote: »
    The British army moved in and stopped the attacks on Catholics in 1969. Bloody Sunday was 1972. If the IRA had not re-started their campaign of ambushing soldiers and police, John Hume could have achieved peace and human rights.


    According to wiki:

    ''Catholics welcomed the soldiers when they first arrived in August 1969,[13] but Catholic hostility to the British military's deployment increased after incidents such as the Falls Curfew (1970), Operation Demetrius (1971), the Ballymurphy Massacre (1971) and Bloody Sunday (1972)''


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    jm08 wrote: »
    According to wiki:

    ''Catholics welcomed the soldiers when they first arrived in August 1969,[13] but Catholic hostility to the British military's deployment increased after incidents such as the Falls Curfew (1970), Operation Demetrius (1971), the Ballymurphy Massacre (1971) and Bloody Sunday (1972)''

    Its very easy to form opinions of events 50 years on. Especially from history clips.

    The point is the British soldiers were sent there to protect the Catholics and they did and it was welcomed.

    But 'IF' the reason for the searches and arrests of Catholics was to stop the IRA from reforming and arming themselves. Then it must have been to prevent further violence and reprisals which was part of their job.

    They were never sent their to suppress the Irish people or victimise Catholics or occupy another country.

    I suppose you had to be their there and then and see what the reactions were to whatever was going on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,175 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    This is correct the Catholics were helpless. Whole streets of families thrown out onto the streets if they were lucky and all of the streets of houses were set ablaze. If you they didnt move they were burnt out. There is lots of film footage of this.


    And?

    The catholic people turned to the IRA so called commanders for help and they did nothing. They did not help anyone at all and they were given the name by their own people of IRA = I Ran Away. All this is well documented.


    Ever hear of the Battle of the Bogside and who fought in that? No one ran away in that fight. Belfast was different in that the catholic population was split (just look at where the Peace Walls are) and where catholics criticised the IRA for running away.

    The police couldn't help they were over run.
    The RUC were attacking the catholics!


    So a Scotsman sent in the British Army not to control Ulster but solely to protect the Catholics from being burnt out and killed by the Protestant gangs.


    No, the Stormont Goverment requested the British Army to come to Northern Ireland.

    No English were involved in this decision. The man in charge the Home secretary was a Scotsman called James Callaghan who later became a disastrous Prime Minister.


    I'm sure the British Prime Minister and Westminister Parliament would have had something to say about sending troops into Northern Ireland to restore law and order.

    How it turned into a war by the IRA on the very people who were protecting them I have never understood unless it was a few IRA men who had to prove they hadnt ran away..I dont know.


    The use of CS gas on catholics by the British Army and Internment was a major factor in the Provos winning general support. Look up 'Operation Demetrius'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,175 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Its very easy to form opinions of events 50 years on. Especially from history clips.

    The point is the British soldiers were sent there to protect the Catholics and they did and it was welcomed.

    But 'IF' the reason for the searches and arrests of Catholics was to stop the IRA from reforming and arming themselves. Then it must have been to prevent further violence and reprisals which was part of their job.

    They were never sent their to suppress the Irish people or victimise Catholics or occupy another country.

    I suppose you had to be their there and then and see what the reactions were to whatever was going on.


    I have lived through the Troubles, so I'm not learning from history clips. I saw it on tv screens every night of the week.


    The IRA were a fairly harmless outfit up to 1970. The Battle of the Bogside changed all that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    jm08 wrote: »
    I have lived through the Troubles, so I'm not learning from history clips. I saw it on tv screens every night of the week.


    The IRA were a fairly harmless outfit up to 1970. The Battle of the Bogside changed all that.

    Then you are the same as me. The I Ran Away is quite documented even with interviews of alleged IRA men at the time.

    As you know the troubles started before 1969 and it was 1969 when it got so bad that the troops were sent there for Catholics protection. You mention 1970 that was almost one year later.

    Also as you will know. 'Terrorism' was the new thing then that no governments had any knowledge of and little ways of dealing with. The PLO and all the others were hijacking planes etc.

    Together with that you had nut cases like Idi Amin and Colonel Gadaffi who hated Britain and the west and were only too pleased to supply anyone who said they were against them with anything they wanted. Then the PLO trained them in the desert.

    It was a situation which was going to explode and the rest is history.

    Over 3500 deaths and more maimed and whole families and communities destroyed.

    None of it was an 'Invading' army. It was down to a whole lot of circumstances all coming together at that time.

    You can try and blame who you want. All parties on all sides were just reacting to what was going on around them and 'others' were only too pleased to stoke the fires.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,175 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Then you are the same as me. The I Ran Away is quite documented even with interviews of alleged IRA men at the time.

    As you know the troubles started before 1969 and it was 1969 when it got so bad that the troops were sent there for Catholics protection. You mention 1970 that was almost one year later.

    Also as you will know. 'Terrorism' was the new thing then that no governments had any knowledge of and little ways of dealing with. The PLO and all the others were hijacking planes etc.

    Together with that you had nut cases like Idi Amin and Colonel Gadaffi who hated Britain and the west and were only too pleased to supply anyone who said they were against them with anything they wanted. Then the PLO trained them in the desert.

    It was a situation which was going to explode and the rest is history.

    Over 3500 deaths and more maimed and whole families and communities destroyed.

    None of it was an 'Invading' army. It was down to a whole lot of circumstances all coming together at that time.

    You can try and blame who you want. All parties on all sides were just reacting to what was going on around them and 'others' were only too pleased to stoke the fires.


    I don't understand why you are placing such emphasis on the IRA were known as 'I Ran Away' in Belfast at the start of the Troubles. Perhaps it would have been better for all if they had continued as 'I ran away'.

    Once again, it was the Stormont Government that requested the British Government to send troops into Northern Ireland. For the record, the Civil Rights People and the Irish Government wanted UN Peacekeeping troops in. That would have been a much better solution.

    The timescale as to when the catholic population turned against the British Army.

    August 1969 -Troops arrived. July 1970 - Belfast Curfew (4 civilians killed, 78 wounded and 337 arrested). As you probably know, tensions tend to heat up during the marching season.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    jm08 wrote: »
    I don't understand why you are placing such emphasis on the IRA were known as 'I Ran Away' in Belfast at the start of the Troubles. .

    I wasn't. I just told the story and replied to your comment as such.

    My story was why the troops were sent there, by who and why.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,175 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    I wasn't. I just told the story and replied to your comment as such.

    My story was why the troops were sent there, by who and why.


    Its long been the contention that the British Army found Northern Ireland useful for training for its troops to be deployed elsewhere and the development of interrogation techniques! Think of it, they could do what they liked without getting asked too many questions about methods!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    jm08 wrote: »
    Its long been the contention that the British Army found Northern Ireland useful for training for its troops to be deployed elsewhere and the development of interrogation techniques! Think of it, they could do what they liked without getting asked too many questions about methods!

    Yeah and theres lots of stories about all sorts but the year is 2020. So you can either believe and tear yourself asunder with hate on conspiracies of the past which no one on this planet can prove let alone do anything about................or you can move on and put it to bed.

    I would have thought being as those troops had just returned from another hell hole (Aden 1967) that banging around Ulster in a few Landrovers wouldnt be up to much.

    Most of those people (anybody involved) now are entering their final years. What can you do? Pursue people to the grave while the leaders get away scot free because they were or now have become politicians........so for some unknown reason are immune.......or move on.

    If you are going to go after some soldiers that are almost 80. Then you had better go after every single terrorist as well and not leave anybody out.

    I dont know what the answer is but living in the past isnt it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 443 ✭✭HoggyRS


    JamesM wrote: »
    The British army moved in and restored order after the attacks on the civil rights marches etc. John Hume, Seamus Mallon etc would have achieved peace and probably a united Ireland within 10 years - but the IRA had to go on killing, mainly Catholics, for 30 years. And some people want their apologists to run our Country. 30 years of murder and mayhem killing innocent men, women and children. It was never a war - it was murder by terrorists and gangsters.

    Funny how people think the SDLP would of kumbaya'd a fair society into existence if not for the IRA's activities. If the people of the North were so supportive of the SDLP's peaceful means why have they been absolutely left behind while the shinners go from strength to strength? A large section of Northern Irish nationalists have supported the republican movement as it defended them on the streets and, when the time was right to hang up the weapons, they have supported the movement electorally.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,175 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    So a Scotsman sent in the British Army not to control Ulster but solely to protect the Catholics from being burnt out and killed by the Protestant gangs.

    No English were involved in this decision. The man in charge the Home secretary was a Scotsman called James Callaghan who later became a disastrous Prime Minister.

    How it turned into a war by the IRA on the very people who were protecting them I have never understood unless it was a few IRA men who had to prove they hadnt ran away..I dont know.


    I think I've figured out what happened. The Tories won the Gen. Election in June 1970 (Ted Heath PM). Reginald Maudling took over as Home Secretary and in July 1970 the Belfast curfew (when the British Army became less protective to the nationalist community).


    Maudling's record is poor in Northern Ireland and included claiming that the Paras fired only in self defence on Bloody Sunday in the House of Commons (Bernadette Devlin slapped him for it as she was denied speaking time).


    Worth a read here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Maudling


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    I dont doubt anything you say but nobody has ever explained why all these people had such a hatred of Irish people that they would send the army into Ulster on the sheer pretense of stopping catholic people being burnt out of their homes and killed just so they could shoot them at will. Doesn't make any sense at all.

    Being as about 30% of the British population at that time was Irish, why all this hate to go to Ireland and kill them?

    Regards Bloody Sunday. When there are shots going off. You honestly cant tell where they are coming from. The sound of bullets close to you and ricochets.


  • Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    Yes they had only waited 50 years. Am sure that full and equal status was just around the corner. Uppity nationalists couldn't just wait another couple of decades to be treated equally

    I’m not saying that equal rights were just around the corner but for the IRA. I’m saying that the response of the IRA was disproportionate to the level of oppression that was taking place and in any many cases was morally reprehensible regardless of what the other side was doing (bombing civilian targets like pubs for instance.)

    Maybe the nationalists should have just waited. They should have waited, kept marching and pursued peaceful means.

    What most successful armed revolutions have in common (Ireland, America etc.) is that they were always the last resort. Every peaceful mechanism for change was exhausted before violence was used. This happens to be the best tactic since it allows you to win more people over by maintaining the moral high ground and also if it’s possible to achieve your aims without killing why wouldn’t you?

    It’s fundamentally wrong to flip the whole system over to achieve your aims if the system is still capable of change.

    The fact that we’ve reached a point where Catholics are treated equally under the law without forcibly ejecting Britain from Northern Ireland is proof of this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    I wonder in a united Ireland how Gerry feels about unionist terrorists fighting with arms to free themselves from the Irish

    It’s insane how this question is never asked.

    Everybody who talks about a united Ireland always forgets that there is going to be a substantial unionist minority in the North who are not going to be happy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,528 ✭✭✭con747


    I spent my childhood on the Cavan border in the early 70's and every night you had British helicopters and ground troops a mile into the republic on patrol. When your 5 or 6 years old and look out your bedroom window to see a rifle pointed at you that does not go away. But both sides done atrocious things that need to be moved on from if this country has any chance of being united.

    Don't expect anything from life, just be grateful to be alive.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    feargale wrote: »
    Once war has begun, there remain moral limits to action. For example, one may not attack innocents or kill hostages.

    Clearly 1916 does not meet the criteria.

    How does the bombing of Dresden to encourage the Nazis to concede or the nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force surrender fit into that narrative?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    How does the bombing of Dresden to encourage the Nazis to concede or the nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force surrender fit into that narrative?

    Something you can argue about from the safety of your armchair many years later.

    At the time things are a lot different.

    Germany apart from starting and continuing to attack civilians throughout the war. Possessed V1 and V2 rockets whose sole aim was to kill British civilians. They had no other use and they used them to great effect. They also possessed 2 bombers which could reach the USA. They were also building a V2 rocket which could reach the USA. They were also very close to developing an atomic bomb.

    If the Allies had delayed the invasion in 1944 then most possibly they would have advanced a lot further and none of us would be here.

    V1 and V2 rockets were still landing on Britain killing civilians 6 weeks after the Dresden bombing. If they had developed their atomic bomb do you think it would have been placed on one of those rockets?

    Besides which the Germans adored Hitler and the Nazi's and a lot believed they were invincible.

    In less than 31 years the Germans had managed to start 2 wars against its neighbours killing 10's of millions of people and maiming many more. The damage they caused to those countries is unmeasurable and never been paid for. Yet today a few people who have no experience complain about the deaths of what were the very people responsible for the carnage they unleashed on everybody else. It's a strange world.

    Japan would have fought to the very last man inflicting massive Allied casualties and also almost total Japaneses deaths.

    Decisions have to be made at the time to suit what you have.

    Later you can say this was wrong. But not at the time.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    Something you can argue about from the safety of your armchair many years later.

    At the time things are a lot different.

    Germany apart from starting and continuing to attack civilians throughout the war. Possessed V1 and V2 rockets whose sole aim was to kill British civilians. They had no other use and they used them to great effect. They also possessed 2 bombers which could reach the USA. They were also building a V2 rocket which could reach the USA. They were also very close to developing an atomic bomb.

    If the Allies had delayed the invasion in 1944 then most possibly they would have advanced a lot further and none of us would be here.

    V1 and V2 rockets were still landing on Britain killing civilians 6 weeks after the Dresden bombing. If they had developed their atomic bomb do you think it would have been placed on one of those rockets?

    Besides which the Germans adored Hitler and the Nazi's and a lot believed they were invincible.

    In less than 31 years the Germans had managed to start 2 wars against its neighbours killing 10's of millions of people and maiming many more. The damage they caused to those countries is unmeasurable and never been paid for. Yet today a few people who have no experience complain about the deaths of what were the very people responsible for the carnage they unleashed on everybody else. It's a strange world.

    Japan would have fought to the very last man inflicting massive Allied casualties and also almost total Japaneses deaths.

    Decisions have to be made at the time to suit what you have.

    Later you can say this was wrong. But not at the time.

    So, German civilians deserved to die? Good to see you agree with me. Once war begins, you simply cannot argue that innocents or civilians are out of bounds. The history of war tells us the easiest route to victory is inflicting massive civilian casualties.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    So, German civilians deserved to die? Good to see you agree with me. Once war begins, you simply cannot argue that innocents or civilians are out of bounds. The history of war tells us the easiest route to victory is inflicting massive civilian casualties.

    I dont know about that. With regards to Dresden and such, the Germans had already targeted British and other countries civilians. Also deliberately making weapons that only targeted civilians.

    In NI there was no real NI military. Only a gang of civilians claiming to be something followed by reprisal gangs of civilians claiming to be something.


  • Registered Users Posts: 66,294 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    So, German civilians deserved to die? Good to see you agree with me. Once war begins, you simply cannot argue that innocents or civilians are out of bounds. The history of war tells us the easiest route to victory is inflicting massive civilian casualties.

    It is that which makes the term 'terrorist' redundant and meaningless.

    The whole idea in conflict/war is to be the more effective 'terror'ist. Create enough terror and you win.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    It is that which makes the term 'terrorist' redundant and meaningless.

    The whole idea in conflict/war is to be the more effective 'terror'ist. Create enough terror and you win.

    This is true in one respect because the V1 and V2 rockets were actually 'terror' weapons........unstoppable bombs which could rain down on civilians anywhere anytime.

    Not sure in total war though if civilians would buckle and if they did the war would end.

    Besides it didn't work because in the countries the Germans invaded it just galvenised the public against the Germans. Same in the UK. The attitude was give em back what they give us.

    So where does the 'terror' element win?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement