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?

24

Comments

  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    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'.

    Yep, I for sure did not word that correctly.
    Catholics in Northern Ireland were treated like second class citizens. Their rights were ignored. And there is probably an argument that the Irish government should have done more to protect & defend this Catholics at the time.

    Nothing however, justifies the atrocities committed by the PIRA, particularly the murders of other Catholics & innocent civilians.
    There were other ways.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭LuasSimon


    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 !!


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


    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 !!

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,907 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    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?

    It is of my opinion that 69/70 was legit,but like most Unregulated gangs they over stayed their welcome and became a pain in the hole to those near them


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,325 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    Sean.3516 wrote: »
    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?

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

    One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter ....


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,990 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    I always find it's very easy to look back at historical events from a safe distance and decry individual acts of an overall struggle and pontificate that there were better ways. I have been guilty of it myself, and the further you get from the time the worse it seems to get.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    bubblypop wrote: »
    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 '

    Why did the IRA target defenseless women and children when there was hundreds of British soldiers walking around the North holding machine guns.

    Surely they were legitimate targets, not cowardly planting a bomb you know will kill children.


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


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    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.

    Around 400 of the 1800 people killed by the IRA in the Troubles were Catholics.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    To me there was one key difference in the War of Independence and the Troubles. The IRA in the Troubles had to contend with oppositional paramilitary forces in the shape of the UDA, UVF, UFF, LVF etc. In the War of Independence, because it happened largely in what became the 26 counties, Loyalist paramilitary forces of that nature were not really a major factor on the Unionist side, only state actors. It was pretty much the IRA versus the British state, and that was it.

    Because Loyalists in the Troubles were so willing to murder Catholic civilians, it was a much more complex conflict, with effectively three sides rather than two (though Loyalists often had the de facto backing of the British state in the formm of collusion). Because of that more complex nature of conflict and because there was a Unionist majority in the six counties, it became apparent within a reasonably short period of time that the war was pretty much unwinnable, certainly in terms of achieving a united Ireland, and would merely descend into an endless tit for tat conflict.

    As the Troubles progressed, the aim of a united Ireland faded from view, and the aim, though largely unsaid, was for the IRA to bomb its way to the negotiating table, and that's why in the early 90s they focussed to such a large extent on attacking England itself, and especially high profile economic and strategic targets, like the City of London, Canary Wharf, Heathrow Airport, Victoria Station, Manchester City Centre and Downing Street itself. In that, it can be argued they were largely successful, because back channels to the British were well and truly opened. But it was a very poor consolation prize.

    In terms of comparing the actual violence itself, I don't think there's a moral difference, certainly in terms of attacks on the British state. The IRA in both the War of Independence and the Troubles ruthlessly killed policemen, soldiers and politicians. I don't think you can see a moral difference between Kilmichael and Warrenpoint. I don't think you can see a moral difference between the old IRA killing Henry Wilson, and the Provos killing Airey Neave or Ian Gow. Michael Collins was more than prepared to take the war to England and bomb economic targets and have civilians killed. The IRA in the War of Independence ruthlessly executed 196 people they suspected of being informers and there were sectarian atrocities and ethnic cleansing.

    Is there a moral difference between Frank Aiken and Dan Breen and Martin McGuinness or Gerry Adams or Dessie Ellis?

    Aiken is rumoured to have taken part in the sectarian Altnaveigh massacre and was certainly one of the leading members of an IRA unit which was fully prepared to engage in sectarian murder. Aiken ended up being Minister for Finance, Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Tanaiste.

    Dan Breen was eulogised and is still eulogised as a hero. But Dan Breen was involved in the shooting and killing of two policemen in the back, against orders, in order to deliberately start a war. He was an unashamed supporter of the Nazis. So was Sean Russell later on. Breen was a Fianna Fail TD for decades. Incidentally there's an interesting tidbit in Fintan O'Toole's article on Mary Lou McDonald today about how one of McDonald's first public appearances as a member of Sinn Fein was a commemoration of the Nazi collaborator Russell in Fairview Park in 2003.

    I think the main moral difference one could argue between the IRA in the War of Independence and the Troubles was the length of the conflict. In 1916, the rebels surrendered after five days. In the War of Independence a truce was agreed by July 1921. The Troubles lasted until 1994 at least, really until 1997, almost a full three decades, and even then it took a long time for the violence to fully peter out with some very troubling legacy crimes in the following decade.

    You can argue that war can really only be justified if there's a genuine chance of winning, but in saying that, did the French resistance believe they had a genuine chance of winning, or did the Soviet Army at Stalingrad believe they had a genuine chance of winning? When is the right time to stop a war? Who am I to say that young people growing up in the North in the 70s and 80s didn't believe that their cause was justified? I didn't have to live there.

    What I do think is that Sinn Fein really need to knock the Up the RA rhetoric on the head now, because I don't see how it benefits anybody, most of all themselves. But I also think that there are some troubling questions about today's Sinn Fein. Like, can you be a member of Sinn Fein now and believe that the peaceful methods espoused by the SDLP during the Troubles were right and the IRA was wrong, even if you believe in Sinn Fein's stance on bread and butter issues? I don't think you can. I still think that the central requirement to be a member of Sinn Fein now is that you believe that the IRA during the Troubles, right up to 1997, was justified, and that the Troubles itself, right up to 1997, was justified.


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


    bubblypop wrote: »
    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.


    You are killing your own argument here by saying that Sinn Fein/PIRA would not agree to Sungindale! They were not asked. John Hume / SDLP were the nationalist involved in that peace attempt. It was the unionists / loyalists who wouldn't agree and they threatened violence. There was also the general strike called by the Ulster Workers Council (rabble roused by Paisley).



    So, in short, it was unionists/loyalists who collapsed Sunningdale. They were the 'slow learners'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭LuasSimon


    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.

    Danny Healy Rae lives in South Kerry - get your facts right


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


    Around 400 of the 1800 people killed by the IRA in the Troubles were Catholics.

    Being as they were supposed to be protecting them I suppose you have to ask......why?

    That's a lot of accidents.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    Being as they were supposed to be protecting them I suppose you have to ask......why?

    That's a lot of accidents.
    I'm not defending it. All I'm saying is that there is a common line circulated in discourse that the majority of the people the Provos killed were Catholics. It's not true or even close to being true.

    Why did the IRA in the War of Independence kill so many Irish people? That is not a line we ever hear.

    Nor do we hear much about the ordinary Irish people killed by the rebels during the 1916 Rising.


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


    I'm not defending it. All I'm saying is that there is a common line circulated in discourse that the majority of the people the Provos killed were Catholics. It's not true or even close to being true.

    Why did the IRA in the War of Independence kill so many Irish people? That is not a line we ever hear.

    Nor do we hear much about the ordinary Irish people killed by the rebels during the 1916 Rising.

    One man told me they would march the prisoners out of a morning. Every 10th man was shot in war of independance. Dont know if true.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,131 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    jm08 wrote: »
    You are killing your own argument here by saying that Sinn Fein/PIRA would not agree to Sungindale! They were not asked. John Hume / SDLP were the nationalist involved in that peace attempt. It was the unionists / loyalists who wouldn't agree and they threatened violence. There was also the general strike called by the Ulster Workers Council (rabble roused by Paisley).



    So, in short, it was unionists/loyalists who collapsed Sunningdale. They were the 'slow learners'.

    So why then did SF eventually agree to a rebranded Sunningdale called the GFA 25 years later. Was it just because it was politically expedient?

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,131 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    If people truly believe that the IRA of the WOI were equivalent to the provisional IRA of the troubles - people should have no problem with the Real IRA and Saoradh.

    All of these strands of republicanism came from a place with no mandate from the 1916 rising.

    Yet, if you look at the words of Michelle O'Neill she very carefully referred to 'mandate', 'strategy' and the 'Irish Republican project'.




    Because the hypocrisy is obvious given her family history, and with Maze escapee Gerry Kelly standing beside her.

    Billy McKee former founder of the provos gave saoradh his blessing

    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/former-ira-leader-billy-mckee-dies-aged-97-38211953.html

    Also back in 1994 SF had just 12.5% of the vote in NI (@6.05)



    @6.30 in this clip Gerry Adams said recognise the mandate was 'a small one but a significant one'. Then proceeded to give his context for claiming it would be bigger but for the difficulties in which they labour.

    But exactly the same could be claimed for saoradh.

    https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/saoradh-leader-ira-brian-kenna-14447650

    I am not seeing much difference between different strands of republicanism, saoradh v NI soaradh v ROI.
    Provos v NI provos v ROI. All that happens is some mellow out and others continue the military struggle mandate or not.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



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


    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.


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭LoughNeagh2017


    The English lit the fuse with the plantations, in a local history book i have it said that the English originally planned to remove our ancestors from the land but they realised the locals were better for farming the land. I wonder did they plan on killing our ancestors or forcing them down south. As in most cases of human discrimination the people eventually fought back. I can understand why some would hate the modern IRA but always remember that the English lit the fuse, 350 years of mistreatment post plantations.
    The British Army soldiers weren't always good men either, for example in my area in the 90s they poisoned dogs to stop them from barking, it takes a special kind of scumbag to poison a dog.


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


    So why then did SF eventually agree to a rebranded Sunningdale called the GFA 25 years later. Was it just because it was politically expedient?


    The GFA provided a route to a United Ireland, unlike Sunningdale (referendum for unity). The Irish Government also has a lot more say in the GFA.


    However, the major objectors to Sunnindale were loyalists. They are the ones who blocked that and which lead to the rise of the DUP.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,131 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    The English lit the fuse with the plantations, in a local history book i have it said that the English originally planned to remove our ancestors from the land but they realised the locals were better for farming the land. I wonder did they plan on killing our ancestors or forcing them down south. As in most cases of human discrimination the people eventually fought back. I can understand why some would hate the modern IRA but always remember that the English lit the fuse, 350 years of mistreatment post plantations.
    The British Army soldiers weren't always good men either, for example in my area in the 90s they poisoned dogs to stop them from barking, it takes a special kind of scumbag to poison a dog.

    But 'our' ancestors are also the anglo irish -I rememeber Martin McGuinness referenced the similarities to his name to that of Ken Maginnis! @5.15



    https://www.houseofnames.com/maginnis-family-crest

    http://www.irishsurnames.com/cgi-bin/gallery.pl?name=mcguinness&capname=Mcguinness&letter=g

    Also this talk of nationhood of shared 'Irishness' is somewhat of a falsehood. How many of those in Ireland have ancestors from Norman or Viking times?
    Wexford, Waterford, Dublin etc would not have any GAA teams left!
    How far back do you want to go? Just when it suits you?

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,131 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    jm08 wrote: »
    The GFA provided a route to a United Ireland, unlike Sunningdale (referendum for unity). The Irish Government also has a lot more say in the GFA.


    However, the major objectors to Sunnindale were loyalists. They are the ones who blocked that and which lead to the rise of the DUP.

    But I thought that the GFA was largely based on Sunningdale?
    Line by line is there much difference in content, or does context supersede it?

    Since after all I assume context will be many people's argument in this thread.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



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


    The English lit the fuse with the plantations, in a local history book i have it said that the English originally planned to remove our ancestors from the land but they realised the locals were better for farming the land. I wonder did they plan on killing our ancestors or forcing them down south. As in most cases of human discrimination the people eventually fought back. I can understand why some would hate the modern IRA but always remember that the English lit the fuse, 350 years of mistreatment post plantations.
    The British Army soldiers weren't always good men either, for example in my area in the 90s they poisoned dogs to stop them from barking, it takes a special kind of scumbag to poison a dog.

    I agree and that scumbag should be met with same fate and I am English.

    But to correct you. Ireland wasnt invaded by the English to enslave you as peasant farmers. Ireland was only invaded and taken over to stop the French and Spanish doing same and launching attacks against England for which they spent hundreds of years doing.

    No consolation but you actually got the best of a bad bunch considering the others record of same.

    You were going to be invaded anyway.


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


    But I thought that the GFA was largely based on Sunningdale?
    Line by line is there much difference in content, or does context supersede it?

    Since after all I assume context will be many people's argument in this thread.


    Here is a summary of the differences from wiki. They have a tick list if you look at the differences which are:
    In GFA and not in Sunningdale


    1. Self-determination
    2. Recognition of both identities
    3. Inter-Ireland co-operation

    The main issues omitted by Sunningdale and addressed by the Belfast Agreement are the principle of self-determination, the recognition of both national identities, British-Irish intergovernmental cooperation and the legal procedures to make power-sharing mandatory, such as the cross-community vote and the D'Hondt system to appoint ministers to the executive.[23][24] Former IRA member and journalist Tommy McKearney says that the main difference is the intention of the British government to broker a comprehensive deal by including the IRA and the most uncompromising unionists.[25] Regarding the right to self-determination, two qualifications are noted by the legal writer Austen Morgan. Firstly, the cession of territory from one state to another state has to be by international agreement between the UK and Irish governments. Secondly, the people of Northern Ireland can no longer bring about a united Ireland on their own; they need not only the Irish government but the people of their neighbouring state, Ireland, to also endorse unity. Morgan also pointed out that, unlike the Ireland Act 1949 and the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, devised under Sunningdale, the 1998 agreement and the consequent British legislation did expressly foresee the possibility of a united Ireland.[26]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,131 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    jm08 wrote: »
    Here is a summary of the differences from wiki. They have a tick list if you look at the differences which are:
    In GFA and not in Sunningdale


    1. Self-determination
    2. Recognition of both identities
    3. Inter-Ireland co-operation



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

    Right thanks.

    I found a text listing the GFA details

    https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ourrolesandpolicies/northernireland/good-friday-agreement.pdf

    Sunningdale full text

    https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/events/sunningdale/agreement.htm

    I will have a read of them at some stage to see for myself if I think they correlate to he wiki list of differences. There does not seem to be much in it at first glance, a lot of semantics.

    I suppose then it us up to any individual to decide whether approx 3000 lives, were worth any differences in these agreements.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



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


    I agree and that scumbag should be met with same fate and I am English.

    But to correct you. Ireland wasnt invaded by the English to enslave you as peasant farmers. Ireland was only invaded and taken over to stop the French and Spanish doing same and launching attacks against England for which they spent hundreds of years doing.

    No consolation but you actually got the best of a bad bunch considering the others record of same.

    You were going to be invaded anyway.


    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


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


    Right thanks.

    I found a text listing the GFA details

    https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ourrolesandpolicies/northernireland/good-friday-agreement.pdf

    Sunningdale full text

    https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/events/sunningdale/agreement.htm

    I will have a read of them at some stage to see for myself if I think they correlate to he wiki list of differences. There does not seem to be much in it at first glance, a lot of semantics.

    I suppose then it us up to any individual to decide whether approx 3000 lives, were worth any differences in these agreements.


    Well, when apportioning blame, bear in mind it is unionists who pulled the plug on Sunningdale, not republicans.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 36,787 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Mod: Ok, I've decided to move this to History & Heritage. Please read the forum charter before posting.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,131 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    jm08 wrote: »
    Well, when apportioning blame, bear in mind it is unionists who pulled the plug on Sunningdale, not republicans.

    Fair point but there is also the point that SF were not even there to have any practical say or influence.

    Anyway in my view republicanism is just on a cycle of rinse and repeat. Militancy, mellowing and splintering and militancy again.

    SF 1918 > CnaG/FG 1921 > FF 1927 > FF 1932 > SF 1982 > SF 1998 > Saoradh 2016 > SF 2020

    But most recent incarnations of republicanism are always gentler critics of the new militant strands.

    But the major difference between the WOI (in my view) is that it had popular support on the island of Ireland but the provos did not have popular support on the island of ireland.

    Morality is a complete irrelevance when death is used as vindication of part of 'the struggle' to make the British take notice, and ultimately 'get out'.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



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


    Fair point but there is also the point that SF were not even there to have any practical say or influence.


    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.

    Edit: The 1916 Rising didn't have popular support. The actions of the British Government (execution of leaders) made sure that republicans then won popular support.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement