[Sean.3516]

Recently rewatched that famous clip of Gerry Adams debating Tubridy on this in 2010.

https://youtu.be/wIlTtudovPM

Tubs asks him if he loses sleep over the actions of the IRA and if he has “blood on his hands” and Gerry responds “you might as well ask if your grandfather (who was in the old IRA) had blood on his hands.”

Gerry does this thing that appears to be the standard Sinn Fein philosophy on complete and total moral equivalence between the IRA that fought for and achieved independence in the WOI and the Provisional IRA (which I would regard as a terrorist entity) that committed atrocities during the Troubles. Is this correct?


<Mod Note>
As this is been moved to the History forum, please take a minute to become familiar with the forum's charter and remain courteous to fellow posters.

[Conall Cernach]

Originally Posted by Sean.3516

Recently rewatched that famous clip of Gerry Adams debating Tubridy on this in 2010.

https://youtu.be/wIlTtudovPM

Tubs asks him if he loses sleep over the actions of the IRA and if he has “blood on his hands” and Gerry responds “you might as well ask if your grandfather (who was in the old IRA) had blood on his hands.”

Gerry does this thing that appears to be the standard Sinn Fein philosophy on complete and total moral equivalence between the IRA that fought for and achieved independence in the WOI and the Provisional IRA (which I would regard as a terrorist entity) that committed atrocities during the Troubles. Is this correct?

Do you consider the IRA of 1919-21 and their actions to be legitimate and the IRA of 1969/70 to be illegitimate? Why is that?

[kona]

Originally Posted by Sean.3516

Recently rewatched that famous clip of Gerry Adams debating Tubridy on this in 2010.

https://youtu.be/wIlTtudovPM

Tubs asks him if he loses sleep over the actions of the IRA and if he has “blood on his hands” and Gerry responds “you might as well ask if your grandfather (who was in the old IRA) had blood on his hands.”

Gerry does this thing that appears to be the standard Sinn Fein philosophy on complete and total moral equivalence between the IRA that fought for and achieved independence in the WOI and the Provisional IRA (which I would regard as a terrorist entity) that committed atrocities during the Troubles. Is this correct?

Some scutter. Both were needed and did a good job. The ignorance of what went on up north for 30 years is a disgrace. Im not from there or that era but ive looked into it and the ira and the armalite were necessary.

Not now however.

[Mr.Nice Guy]

The selective amnesia of the Irish state over its early make-up deserves more scrutiny than it gets. Lemass described Fianna Fail in 1928 as a 'slightly constitutional party'. Many FF politicians openly stated that the post-independence IRA played a key role in them getting elected. See this clip here from the Seven Ages series:

https://twitter.com/Seanofthesouth/s...78491389501440

The idea that everyone in the War of Independence 1919-21 were on the same page is false. The ambush at Soloheadbeg, which most historians regard as the opening shots in the conflict, was not sanctioned by the IRA leadership, and caused much consternation within SF. As I recall, Mulcahy never forgave Breen for what happened that day.

My take on it is that both 20th century conflicts were highly complex and it's unwise to try and fit them into neat and simple categories. One can sympathise with the grievances, and yet cast a critical eye over certain actions.

[Jim_Hodge]

Originally Posted by kona

Some scutter. Both were needed and did a good job. The ignorance of what went on up north for 30 years is a disgrace. Im not from there or that era but ive looked into it and the ira and the armalite were necessary.

Not now however.

Well I am from that era, and live on the border, and cannot concur with your assessment. Terrorists, criminals, extortion and racketeering were not what we needed. They did a good job of ruining lives and businesses while lining their own pockets.

[bubblypop]

Of course they are morally equivalent.
The 'old IRA' did not have the backing of the whole country. They thought they were right.
Same as the PIRA in their day.
Same as the dissidents today.

[bubblypop]

Originally Posted by kona

Both were needed and did a good job. .

No they were not.
I'm looking forward to your defence of the PIRA bombing & murdering innocent civilians, & I will also include members of AGS, which the PIRA decided we're 'legitimate targets '

[kona]

Originally Posted by bubblypop

No they were not.
I'm looking forward to your defence of the PIRA bombing & murdering innocent civilians, & I will also include members of AGS, which the PIRA decided we're 'legitimate targets '

Blah blah blah usual retort. Suppose catbolics should have let the loyalists and british army go blow the heads off kids, abduct and butcher innocents. The british state colluded with these ****heads who blew up dublin and monaghan amongst others.

As i said the ira was a necesaary evil at the time. They are not relevent or the same organisation now.

[ancapailldorcha]

No more petty sniping please. Posts deleted.

[kona]

Originally Posted by Jim_Hodge

Well I am from that era, and live on the border, and cannot concur with your assessment. Terrorists, criminals, extortion and racketeering were not what we needed. They did a good job of ruining lives and businesses while lining their own pockets.

Probably the nicer side of the border where you didnt have to deal with the stuff catholics did up there. They had to fund a war against a force far bigger than them, the aul buckets outside mass wouldnt have gone far. Particularly in cavan.

[Sean.3516]

Originally Posted by Conall Cernach

Do you consider the IRA of 1919-21 and their actions to be legitimate and the IRA of 1969/70 to be illegitimate? Why is that?

Yes and here’s why:

It’s not just a question of was the IRA fighting but who were they fighting for? An army derives it’s legitimacy from the government it serves.

The IRA of 1919-21 evolved directly from the Irish Volunteers of 1916 and was subservient to the Irish Republic that was declared in 1916. The entire premise of the first Dáil and the War of Independence was that since 1916 that Republic existed end of story, their mandate was simply to secure it’s independence.

This situation changes in 1922 after the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the Govt. of Ireland Act. The Irish Republic dissolves and becomes the Irish Free State. A majority in the Dáil votes to accept this. The IRA is reorganised into the Free State Army. Obviously the Civil War ensues and the so called “Irregulars” who believe themselves to be still the IRA and still associated with the 1916 Irish Republic fight against the Free State.

From this point onwards the IRA is no longer Ireland’s legitimate armed force. They are a rogue organisation for all intents and purposes and the same applies to all associated organisations: Provisional IRA, Official IRA etc.


The issue with Sinn Fein is that as far as their concerned the world stopped spinning in 1922. Their constitution doesn’t recognise the legitimacy of any State or Republic other than the 1916 Republic. They don’t recognise that we re-became a Republic in 1949. They don’t even recognise the authority of Bunreacht Na hEireann. This is the view of history that allows them to go about saying that the Provos and the “War of Independence” IRA are the same organisation and are equally legitimate.

[careless sherpa]

Originally Posted by kona

Probably the nicer side of the border where you didnt have to deal with the stuff catholics did up there. They had to fund a war against a force far bigger than them, the aul buckets outside mass wouldnt have gone far. Particularly in cavan.

Funny you mention cavan as a lot of the arms bunkers and training facilities were located there

[Boredstiff666]

Originally Posted by kona

Some scutter. Both were needed and did a good job. The ignorance of what went on up north for 30 years is a disgrace. Im not from there or that era but ive looked into it and the ira and the armalite were necessary.

I am sure their victims families sleep well with your disclosure.

[bubblypop]

Originally Posted by kona

Blah blah blah usual retort. Suppose catbolics should have let the loyalists and british army go blow the heads off kids, abduct and butcher innocents. The british state colluded with these ****heads who blew up dublin and monaghan amongst others.

As i said the ira was a necesaary evil at the time. They are not relevent or the same organisation now.

The loyalists & British Army did not blow heads off kids, abduct & butcher innocents. At least not before the PIRA came along.

So please, defend the IRA bombing shopping streets in England & killing children?
Or IRA 'Fundraisers' murdering members of AGS.
You do know that there were other organisations & other ways to defend the rights of Catholics in northern Ireland?

[ReginaldSmythV]

IRA =/= PIRA. The former were heroes for us all, no matter how much the Twitter heroes want to fawn over William and Kate to show how modern they are. The latter were needed in their early days or we would still have apartheid in NI but went on too long and lost the cause for their own gain.
Both were wars, and people die in wars. We mourn our own.