Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Thread Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
15-02-2020, 19:29   #16
Boredstiff666
Registered User
 
Boredstiff666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,003
The army was actually sent in to NI to stop the attacks against catholics.
Boredstiff666 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
15-02-2020, 19:38   #17
Sean.3516
Registered User
 
Sean.3516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by kona View Post
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.
If they had simply said “look, our community is being oppressed up here and we’re going to defend ourselves with force until reforms alleviate this oppression.” That would have been fine and understandable.

But they went well beyond this by pursuing a political objective which was to have the north reunify with the south which they had no authority to pursue. They were disowned by the South and Dublin never adopted them in an official capacity. They bombed civilian targets as well as attempted assassinations on politicians. Was this necessary?
Sean.3516 is offline  
(3) thanks from:
15-02-2020, 19:38   #18
Bogfairy
Registered User
 
Bogfairy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubblypop View Post
The loyalists & British Army did not blow heads off kids, abduct & butcher innocents. At least not before the PIRA came along.
Really???.......never heard of the Shankhill Butchers then???
Bogfairy is offline  
15-02-2020, 19:41   #19
kona
Registered User
 
kona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.3516 View Post
If they had simply said “look, our community is being oppressed up here and we’re going to defend ourselves with force until reforms alleviate this oppression.” That would have been fine and understandable.

But they went well beyond this by pursuing a political objective which was to have the north reunify with the south which they had no authority to pursue. They were disowned by the South and Dublin never adopted them in an official capacity. They bombed civilian targets as well as attempted assassinations on politicians. Was this necessary?
War is nasty business. I dont believe you would have gotte. The gfa if it wasnt for the actions of the ira...

Alot of people get mixed up witb the ira being criminals and what they used to stand for.
kona is offline  
15-02-2020, 19:46   #20
Sean.3516
Registered User
 
Sean.3516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubblypop View Post
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.
The direct predecessor of the IRA, the Irish Volunteers, did not have the backing of the country when they started the 1916 Rising.

However by 1918, the Irish people had certainly come around as they elected the up and coming Republican Party Sinn Fein in that year’s election.

A good indicator is how the Irish Parliamentary Party/Home Rule Party which favoured peaceful political means to achieve self government (not necessarily a republic) was completely blown out in this election. Obviously the attitude of the Irish people had shifted hugely in these two years.
Sean.3516 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
15-02-2020, 19:46   #21
Boredstiff666
Registered User
 
Boredstiff666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,003
IRA killed as many Catholics as protestants including defenseless old women. Not by accident in a bombing but deliberately. She was also a catholic.

IRA didnt care who they killed.
Boredstiff666 is offline  
(3) thanks from:
15-02-2020, 19:48   #22
topmanamillion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubblypop View Post
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.
The old IRA had regiments in almost every area of the country. Villages and parishes of places like rural Roscommon, Longford and Tipperary had IRA regiments intent on making the implementation of British rule impossible.
For the most part they ran a guerrilla war targeting British military and police within the island.
They were well aware that the RUC and British army in the country had a large amount of Irish men as members who were there for a steady wage in a country where that was rare.
So they gave them the option of resigning their posts and joining the IRA.

That's in stark contrast to the "Provisionals" who targeted civilians indiscriminately.

Short answer is no. There's no comparison.
The IRA was the defacto army of a state fighting for its independence in a time when that was the only way to get independence. Political promises from the British of "home rule" and devolution of power from Westminster had been broken time after time. Many of the men who joined the IRA had fought and bleed on the fields of Flanders for the British with the promise they'd return to an autonomous nation.
The general election result of 1919 shows the support the IRA/Sinn Fein had. It was a landslide result and essentially drew up the boundaries for partition after the WOI.

I regret that the Sinn Fein and IRA of then are confused with the crowd that stole their name and use it during the troubles. The two are absolute polar opposites.

I do believe atrocities like Canary Warf drove the British back to the negotiating table which eventually resulted in the Good Friday Agreement. But the fact that happened is more a failing of the British and Irish governments in upholding the rights of all citizens in Northern Ireland, be they British or Irish.

In the 1960s African Americans in America were marching for their rights. At the same time on the streets of Belfast, Irish men and women were marching for the same thing in their own country. If Dublin and London had stood up and listened and helped them, 30 years of pain and misery could have been avoided.
The fact to this day toffs in Westminster still think the British army could have outgunned the IRA shows their lack of understanding of the real issues.

Last edited by topmanamillion; 15-02-2020 at 19:52.
topmanamillion is offline  
(4) thanks from:
15-02-2020, 19:49   #23
bubblypop
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 8,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by kona View Post
What about it? Its irrelevent other than aload of toys being thrown out of the pram.
You claim that the GFA would not have happened only for the PIRA.
The sunningdale agreement was basically the GFA only years earlier. The PIRA wouldn't sign up to it in the 70s,
20 years later & hundreds of innocent victims murdered, they signed up to basically the same agreement.
bubblypop is offline  
(2) thanks from:
15-02-2020, 19:56   #24
kona
Registered User
 
kona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubblypop View Post
You claim that the GFA would not have happened only for the PIRA.
The sunningdale agreement was basically the GFA only years earlier. The PIRA wouldn't sign up to it in the 70s,
20 years later & hundreds of innocent victims murdered, they signed up to basically the same agreement.
They signed up because the war was unsustainable they had been riddled with spys and the war was over, also the 1970s wasnt time time to go down the political route with the way they had been treated. Basically sunningdale was a weak agreement due to heath who wasnt ever going to be able to sort out N.I
The unionists threw it out too, spectacularly.


Why am I even entertaining you after that ****e you said above.
kona is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
15-02-2020, 20:03   #25
Sean.3516
Registered User
 
Sean.3516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by kona View Post
War is nasty business. I dont believe you would have gotte.
Not war, terrorism. Plain and simple. No political objective justifies what they did.

The Old IRA fought dirty (it was a guerilla war, fair enough) but even they had rules, they didn’t kill civilians. They also had realistic political objectives and the backing of a legitimate government to pursue them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kona View Post
I dont believe you would have gotte. The gfa if it wasnt for the actions of the ira..
The GFA wouldn’t have been necessary if not for the actions of the IRA. And political and civil rights reforms might have come along a bit sooner.
Sean.3516 is offline  
15-02-2020, 20:10   #26
ancapailldorcha
Order! Order!
 
ancapailldorcha's Avatar
Cleaned up and reopened. Please read the charter before posting.
ancapailldorcha is offline  
15-02-2020, 20:17   #27
bubblypop
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 8,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogfairy View Post
Really???.......never heard of the Shankhill Butchers then???
Yea I've heard of the shankill butchers, when did they operate exactly?
bubblypop is offline  
15-02-2020, 20:17   #28
LuasSimon
Registered User
 
LuasSimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 416
When the British were in Cork and TIPPERARY etc the locals fought them with whatever they had at the time ..... in more recent times the locals of arnagh and Tyrone did the same ...hard to see any difference

We should never have signed up to a three quarters free Ireland , we should have all stayed in the UK or else had a United Ireland . It’s caused nothing but grief for the last hundred years for all .
LuasSimon is offline  
Thanks from:
15-02-2020, 20:18   #29
feargale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 7,209
At no time during the IRA's campaign of violence from 1969 to 1995 or so did they have a mandate from NI's nationalist people. Sinn Féin, their political wing never won an electoral endosement during that time. The only party that had a mandate to speak for the Nationalists was the SDLP.
That should answer the question about legitimacy. The answer has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the IRA 1919-1921.
However since the question has been raised it has to be said in the first place that the 1916 rebellion had no legitimacy. It was the work of a minority of a minority. Whether you like it or not about 90% of the Volunteers followed Redmond. The Rising didn't even represent the remaining minority, as McNeill's countermanding order was frustrated by a minority of the remaining minority. 1916 was an attempted coup d'etat which ended in military failure and in the deaths of mainly civilian people. Furthermore it helped
to copperfasten partition.

The Doctrine of a Just War has deep roots in Western thinking. It goes back much further than the Catholic Church, back to ancient Egypt, India and China centuries before and the criteria laid down are remarkably uniform wherever the doctrine is adhered to. Accordingly for a war to be just:
1. The injustice and suffering inflicted must be of such a great and egregiously enormous nature that the propsed action can reasonably be expected to alleviate them.
2. It is obligatory to take advantage of all options for dialogue and negotiations before undertaking a war; war is only legitimate as a last resort.
3. The war must have a reasonable chance of success.
4. The war must have the support of a majority of the people on whose behalf it is waged. If the people oppose a war, then it is illegitimate.
5. It is necessary that the response be commensurate with the evil; use of more violence than is strictly necessary would constitute an unjust war.
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.

Did the 1918 general election confer legitimacy on the IRA and its subsequent actions? Certainly Sinn Féin had an overwhelming victory in that election. Did they make it clear to the voters that an electoral victory would be followed by war? I don't think so. The dominant issue in that election was the issue of conscription which the British government was proposing to extend to Ireland. But you might argue that there was no doubt about Sinn Féin's claim to independence and that war was the logical conclusion to a refusal by Britain to grant independence, indeed that it was inevitable. Some people have alleged that the 1918 election was tainted by intimidation. It is difficult to quantify that. It may have been minimal. Labour candidates were bullied into giving SF a clear run. And the vast majority of people welcomed the respite of the Truce.
However, giving the benefit of whatever doubt there may be, one could say that 1919-1921 was justified.

But if you equate 1919-1921 to 1969-1995 then you would have to say that 1919-1921 has no legitimacy.

Last edited by feargale; 16-02-2020 at 01:13.
feargale is offline  
(3) thanks from:
15-02-2020, 20:24   #30
Mr.Nice Guy
Registered User
 
Mr.Nice Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 38,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubblypop View Post
The loyalists & British Army did not blow heads off kids, abduct & butcher innocents.
We are two days on from the 98th anniversary of the Weaver Street bombing in Belfast, when a loyalist threw a bomb into a group of Catholic children playing. Two of the children were killed instantly. A further four died from their wounds. Churchill described it as the worst thing of the conflict. Craig called it a 'dastardly deed'.
Mr.Nice Guy is offline  
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search