Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
The IRA
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by andygallagher3 (U1629543) on Saturday, 13th August 2005
In light of the recent historic decision by the Irish Republican Army to dump arms and bring its campaign to an end, how can we gauge its effectiveness in bringing the the Briish government to the negotiating table?
-
Message 2
Posted by thanetwarrior (U1820719) on Sunday, 14th August 2005
That depends which negotiaging table you are talking about, I don't think that the British Government were invited to the IRA's decision making negotiations with it's members.
We would all like to believe that peace will be the end result of the IRA's decision to dissarm. I wonder will the IRA really go away, time will tell when they decide to discontinue their annual Hunger Strike and Bloody Sunday marches in favour of birdwatching outings.
We shall have to wait and see!! In light of the recent historic decision by the Irish Republican Army to dump arms and bring its campaign to an end, how can we gauge its effectiveness in bringing the the Briish government to the negotiating table? Ìý In light of the recent historic decision by the Irish Republican Army to dump arms and bring its campaign to an end, how can we gauge its effectiveness in bringing the the Briish government to the negotiating table? Ìý -
Message 3
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Sunday, 14th August 2005
That depends which negotiaging table you are talking about, I don't think that the British Government were invited to the IRA's decision making negotiations with it's members.
We would all like to believe that peace will be the end result of the IRA's decision to dissarm. I wonder will the IRA really go away, time will tell when they decide to discontinue their annual Hunger Strike and Bloody Sunday marches in favour of birdwatching outings.
We shall have to wait and see!! In light of the recent historic decision by the Irish Republican Army to dump arms and bring its campaign to an end, how can we gauge its effectiveness in bringing the the Briish government to the negotiating table? Ìý In light of the recent historic decision by the Irish Republican Army to dump arms and bring its campaign to an end, how can we gauge its effectiveness in bringing the the Briish government to the negotiating table? Ìý Ìý
Why do we always hear and read about the IRA who has to lay down its arms?
There is never any mention to the Loyalists to disarm.
Just look at the incidents of the last two weeks .
Shootings and killing between the Loyalists.
And more than likely that is just the beginning of a Loyalist power struggle> -
Message 4
Posted by Binge-Drinker (U1655287) on Sunday, 14th August 2005
I'm for the twitchers.
I think the British should just get out and leave Ireland to the Irish at a set date, those who want to stay will have to sort out their hang ups if they want to stay.
Nick -
Message 5
Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Sunday, 14th August 2005
I think that the IRA are attempting to create the right conditions for the British Government to pull out of the six counties without losing face. With Sinn Fein holding the moral high ground thus the power base, without the IRA giving very much in return other than words and peices of paper. Regards, Spike
-
Message 6
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Sunday, 14th August 2005
‘without the IRA giving very much in return other than words and peices of paper’
Hardly a fair assessment considering the IRA have had several substantial arms decommissionings overseen by de Chastellan’s body.
In reality both sides have fought to a standstill. A natural occurrence in warfare without which we would all still be at war with each other until annihilation of everybody but the last man standing. Or perhaps an end to life on earth itself. -
Message 7
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Sunday, 14th August 2005
‘how can we gauge its effectiveness in bringing the British government to the negotiating table?’
I think its for history to judge in about 50-100 years time. The fact of the matter is that they are in the process of negotiating and the final outcome is some way off. -
Message 8
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Sunday, 14th August 2005
Nicolas
That depends on who you define as Irish and what rights you consider they should have. The traditional IRA view has been that no one in the island of Ireland has any rights other than the members of the organisation. That's why they always insisted that the people would never be permitted any say in their future.
In this respect the change in the IRA Sinn Fein stance, if it proved to be real, could give a chance for lasting peace, although the mistrust between the two communities is so deep that it will take a long time for it to be healed. On both sides power has long been dominated by hard liners with criminal links and little but contempt for the communities they claim to represent. Whether they can be weaned off violence will be the big question in future years.
Steve -
Message 9
Posted by thanetwarrior (U1820719) on Sunday, 14th August 2005
Steve,- This seems to be the opinion of a former NI police chief, who predicts that a united Ireland will emerge within about 15 years, but it will be like Sicily with self policing by Mafia type organisations. He warns that the IRA will not go away or abandon it's organised criminal activities.
-
Message 10
Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Sunday, 14th August 2005
hi Luis99,
My comment was not ment as blase as it sounded. Compared with what the IRA has at it's disposal the substantial arms decommissionings which you rightly point out is but a small part of it's arsenal which it has built up over many years.
I still believe that they (IRA) are manoeuvring and obtaining the moral high ground to obtain a so called political result, the removal of the british government, whilst still maintaining their military
capability as are the other Para-military groups in the six counties.
I do not think that all sides have fought themselves to a standstill to the point of mutual surrender. Rather using the gift of the Good Friday Agreement to regroup, retrain and rearm etc., also to get their own people out of prison and returned to Ireland. In the mean time extracting from the british governments all sorts of concessions, reduction of soldiers and watch towers etc., by going to 'The Wire' before agreeing to some proposal otr other and once they have got every thing they can they (IRA) will go back to they old ways as will the other Para-military groups.
If they want to take hold of their future then they must let go of their past.
But sadly I do not think they will.
Slante!
Spike -
Message 11
Posted by thanetwarrior (U1820719) on Sunday, 14th August 2005
I don't think that the British have any intentions of remaining in Ireland other than to oversee the Good Friday Agreement. The Northern Ireland economy is presently costing the British taxpayer. Irish people should ask themselves who will then pay to keep it when Britain pulls out, will the taxpayers of the Republic cough up with the required revenue to run it? They are finding it difficult to fund their own country now that the Celtic Tiger is on it's last legs. They don't call it 'Rip-off Republic' for nothing.
-
Message 12
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Monday, 15th August 2005
‘but a small part of it's arsenal’
Substantial is substantial and I think we have no option but to accept the bonefides of the arms decomm body. They have now said there will be total arms decommissioning and it behoves us all to at least go with that until we have something to prove it is not the case.
I don’t think fighting to a standstill is the same as ‘mutual surrender’ (I can’t see the British gov agreeing to surrender).
I don’t agree with the idea that they are going to ‘regroup, retrain and rearm’. Why go through the nonsense of decommissioning and peace talks etc? some short term gains perhaps but nothing substantial and they would soon be found out. Instead what you have is a ceasefire (imperfect though it is) which has lasted since 1996. under such conditions why hold on to arms which you are now not going to use?
Put it another way do you think the BG are so daft s to trust the IRA and dismantle their fortified infrastructure on a whim? I think on any account you would have to give them more credit than that. If they go back to ‘their old ways’ the BG would have troops back in a few days and would build better fortifications leaning from their experience. Is this what Adams and the IRA really want? I seriously doubt it. -
Message 13
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Monday, 15th August 2005
‘traditional IRA view has been that no one in the island of Ireland has any rights other than the members of the organisation. That's why they always insisted that the people would never be permitted any say in their future’
That’s a strange view of things Steve. AFAIK the IRA have always sought democracy in Ireland and base much of their beliefs on the results of the 1918 general election in which a majority voted for independence.
‘dominated by hard liners with criminal links and little but contempt for the communities they claim to represent’
How cold that be Steve? Are you saying that people vote for Sinn Féin in growing numbers knowing they are criminals and have contempt for them? Would you vote for such people? Would any sane person vote for someone like that? I doubt it. -
Message 14
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Monday, 15th August 2005
Luis99
The IRA have always insisted that a United Ireland is the only option and they will obtain it by ant means, but predominately by violence. This is fundamentally undemocratic. It is up to the people of the various communities whether or not they wish to belong to a united Irish state and not have it imposed on them by a group of thugs.
Similarly there is no basis to the commonly presented stance that just because Ireland is a island it must be united, regardless of the views of the people of the island. I have no objection to a united Ireland, if is it achieved by peaceful means and with the consent of the people. However the IRA has probably been the single biggest barrier to a united Ireland as it has done more to alienate the Protestants and strengthen the hard-liners in that community.
It is well known that extremist in both communities are strongly linked with criminal activity, bank robberies, drugs, protections rackets etc. They have used such methods to generate funds and also enforce their control. There is a good comparison with the Mafia and similar groups in southern Italy/Sicily, who initially started off as organisations to protect local communities and developed into parasitically organisations.
Why increasing numbers of northern Catholics vote for Sinn Fein is a good question. I don't know the answer. Many probably believe the propaganda they have been brought up in, helped by their isolation and the degree of control the organisations have in their communities. In both communities paramilitary elements feed off each others excesses and the fears they generate.
For instance why does the IRA still seek to prevent people taking problems with criminals to the police? Or block any attempt for people to have any alternatives to themselves. Historically the police forces were largely Protestant but this was mainly because of the IRA and its murderous campaign to prevent Catholics in earlier decades. Even now they seek to isolate 'their' community from the police because such interaction would reduce their control. When they are forced to admit excesses by members of their organisation they would rather promise to murder the culprits rather than have the legal process followed and see justice done.
I have taken a hard line on this but then I have grown up during the period of the IRA's murderous attacks on my country, both in Ulster and the mainland. Furthermore the sickening lies of their apologist who try and pretend they are motivated by some moral principles rather than being simply murderous fascists. Who will excuse any murder or crime because its in a cause they claim is justified.
I am not saying the Protestants are without many evil elements themselves. Catholics were subject to discrimination in earlier decades and that was wrong. However neither that or the earlier British rule of the south excuse attempts by extremist imperialists to impose their rule on others.
Steve -
Message 15
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Tuesday, 16th August 2005
‘The IRA have always insisted…’
You’re wrong there S. The IRA primarily came about to resist the imposition of imperialist dictates from London and to bring independence to Ireland. It was then up to the people to decide what constitution they wanted. At one stage a dual kingdom was proposed by the founder of Sinn Féin, A Griffith, similar to the Astro-Hungarian situation. In the end a free state within the Commonwealth was adopted by half the IRA, although opposed by others.
It is also important to remember that the wishes of the majority were opposed by (British) violence as well and that British rule was ‘imposed on them by a group of thugs’.
‘because Ireland is a island it must be united, regardless of the views of the people of the island’
The majority wish for independence from Britain, the UK is therefore responsible for disregarding the wishes of the democratic majority. Is this the position you are upholding?
‘It is well known’ – I don’t agree that it is well known, I think it is well assumed, in most cases the facts are disregarded. Certainly there is ample evidence that the loyalists are into the drugs trade and hence the current turf war. In the meantime the IRA have maintained a ceasefire for a decade.
‘Why increasing numbers of northern Catholics vote for Sinn Fein is a good question. I don't know the answer. Many probably believe the propaganda they have been brought up in’
At least you admit that you don’t know. I for one accept that you are intelligent enough to vote for Labour or Tory or whoever you wish; that you are not coerced or fooled (?) etc. But you and others insist that the people who vote for SF are idiots, this is hardly a democratic attitude IMO. It is really not for the opponents of a political group to wonder why people vote for them but to accept that they do and to try and bring about an accommodation.
IMO if SF were the criminals you claim then people would not vote for them, period. For example, people do not vote for the loyalist groups because of their drug trade activities.
Republicans disagree with the unionist ethos of the RUC/PSNI but are working towards an accommodation. In the mean time there are obviously problems.
‘Historically the police forces were largely Protestant’ – not merely because of the IRA the Protestant police existed many years before the 69 outbreak of violence. Catholics were seen as a thereat to the Protestant state and not encouraged to partake in any of its institutions.
‘simply murderous fascists’ – SF is the largest nationalist party in NI and a growing force in the RoI. This is the reality you must confront. Name calling is all very well but it avoids the reality that people trust SF and see them as the future in Ireland. They don’t believe they are fascists or murderers because if they did they would not vote for them, any more then you would.
SF is opposed to imperialism that is why they opposed British rule for many decades.
Luis. -
Message 16
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Tuesday, 16th August 2005
Luis99
Pushed for time tonight so only answering some of the key points.
"The majority wish for independence from Britain, the UK is therefore responsible for disregarding the wishes of the democratic majority. Is this the position you are upholding?"
Untrue. Britain has no objection to Irish unification, only to it being imposed on the north by force. You make reference to the democratic majority but overlook how selective you are being in choosing that majority.
"At least you admit that you don’t know. I for one accept that you are intelligent enough to vote for Labour or Tory or whoever you wish; that you are not coerced or fooled (?) etc. But you and others insist that the people who vote for SF are idiots, this is hardly a democratic attitude IMO. It is really not for the opponents of a political group to wonder why people vote for them but to accept that they do and to try and bring about an accommodation."
If someone votes for a bunch of fascists who have murdered indiscriminately for years then I feel perfectly justified in viewing them as fools. And I do mean fascists as that is the best description of traditional IRA policy.
"‘Historically the police forces were largely Protestant’ – not merely because of the IRA the Protestant police existed many years before the 69 outbreak of violence. Catholics were seen as a thereat to the Protestant state and not encouraged to partake in any of its institutions."
I never said it was solely because of the IRA's opposition to Catholics being in the police. Given the attempts to encourage Catholics to enlist during the 70's and 80's and the murderous determination of the IRA to prevent this it is however the major reason.
"‘simply murderous fascists’ – SF is the largest nationalist party in NI and a growing force in the RoI. This is the reality you must confront. Name calling is all very well but it avoids the reality that people trust SF and see them as the future in Ireland. They don’t believe they are fascists or murderers because if they did they would not vote for them, any more then you would.
SF is opposed to imperialism that is why they opposed British rule for many decades."
SF may now have, at least formally dropped their imperialist aims. Time will tell on that. However what other description can be given of their attitude for the last few decades that they would rule Ulster regardless of the opinion of any of the population, both Protestant and Loyalist.
You seem to think I am being abusive in calling the historical IRA attitude fascists? I'm just using an historical parallel to highlight the flaws in their claims compared with their actual behaviour. You also think that people are automatically opposed to non-democratic groups. Unfortunately that is often not the case.
Let me ask you a question. Do you accept that the people of the north have the right to decide their own future?
Steve -
Message 17
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Sunday, 21st August 2005
Steve
‘Britain has no objection to Irish unification, only to it being imposed on the north by force. You make reference to the democratic majority but overlook how selective you are being in choosing that majority.’
British rule was imposed on all Ireland by Force. Partition was imposed on Ireland by force. A Protestant state for a protestant people was imposed by force. Sectarian discrimination was imposed by force; so there has been a lot of imposing by Britain, undemocratically.
The majority in Ireland was the majority period: that is hardly being selective. Surely those who were selective were the British and the unionists who carved up Ulster in order to ensure there was a sectarian majority within a newly defined area that had never existed before.
Even within that sectarian state there are majorities in four counties and Derry city for unification and in significant areas of Belfast.
‘If someone votes for a bunch of fascists who have murdered indiscriminately for years then I feel perfectly justified in viewing them as fools. And I do mean fascists as that is the best description of traditional IRA policy.’
Nonsense. Fascists were a very specific right-wing group in the Italy of the 20s-40s. There are I suggest no grounds whatsoever for equating either the IRA or SF with this redundant philosophy, however attractive the term may seem to you as an insult.
Neither can I see the justification for saying they ‘murdered indiscriminately’. The reality is they killed their opponents in a conflict in which all sides were ruthless and in which they were opposed by an ‘almost’ super state with widespread experience in dealing harshly with nationalist groups who opposed its policy of imperialist domination the world over.
‘Do you accept that the people of the north have the right to decide their own future?’
The unionists (because that’s who you mean) do not have a right to call on a foreign government to allow them to impose a state, in which they can discriminate against a minority, against the wishes of the democratic majority in Ireland.
The British have no right to occupy any part of Ireland and if they do so they do so in the tradition of an imperialist aggressor which seeks to exploit weaker countries. If the British wish to go then they should go. No ifs, no buts and no excuses.
Luis -
Message 18
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Monday, 22nd August 2005
Luis99
"A Protestant state for a protestant people was imposed by force. "
As opposed to a Catholic state for a Catholic people to rule in? The only difference being that the extremists in the latter insisted on their right to rule a neighbouring people who wanted nothing to do with them. Historically British rule over Ireland was imposed by force. However that is irrelevant to the wish of those Irish to impose their rule on others, except to expose their hypocrisy.
"The majority in Ireland was the majority period: that is hardly being selective."
Untrue. That is being very selective. Just because Ireland is an island doesn't make it a natural political unit. To say a million people have to be ruled by outsiders they have plenty of reason to distrust simply because the other group wants their land is definitely NOT democratic. You could argue equally well that Pakistan has no right to exist, or Israel, or Canada or for that matter the Irish Republic.
"Neither can I see the justification for saying they ‘murdered indiscriminately’. The reality is they killed their opponents in a conflict in which all sides were ruthless. "
Are you that ignorant of who the IRA killed? The vast majority were civilians, whether by bomb, bullet or torture. It is difficult to say whether they or the various Unionist terror groups killed the most Catholics. This ignores the many more they brutalised and terrorist to enforce their rule. It is also rubbish to claim that all sides were ruthless. If the British army had been half as brutal as its enemies claimed then it could have slaughtered the IRA and many of its supporters wholesale.
‘Do you accept that the people of the north have the right to decide their own future?’
"The unionists (because that’s who you mean)."
I actually meant ALL the population of the north, but you obviously hold all of them in contempt. Your answer is that NO one has any rights if it stands in the way of the Irish imperialist movement. Unlike you I mean what I say. I have no objection to Ireland persuading the north to join it peaceably but I most strongly object to a bunch of thugs saying them will impose their will on people to sate their own twisted egos. That's what it amounts to. Do you really think Ireland would benefit from holding down a million northerners against their will? Or would you forcibly expel them all, or build them showers? The IRA have only recently started saying unification can only come by consent, after decades of denying any place for such an idea. What were the IRA going to do will all those people and any Catholics who opposed them if they had by some magical means gained power during that period?
Steve -
Message 19
Posted by SmegheadRed (U1879559) on Monday, 22nd August 2005
"Why increasing numbers of northern Catholics vote for Sinn Fein is a good question. I don't know the answer"
The answer to that one is protection. I know people who were living on the Falls Road in the 70's who had their rent paid by the Provos, because Loyalists had burnt down their house. People have long memories; it is not just Republican propaganda to say that sometimes all that stood between innocent people and death at the hands of a mob was the IRA.
Also what were the realistic alternatives? The SDLP were, after Sinn Fein, the biggest draw for Catholic votes. But David Hume never attracted the people like Gerry Adams or Martin MCGuinness. What is sometimes very hard for us to understand is that to some people the IRA were not just terrorists, they were freedom fighters. Translate that feeling into politics and you have votes for the one party that was always identified with the IRA.
However what most people tend to forget in the debate on the IRA and a united Ireland is that the IRA does not recognise the Dublin govt. as legitimate and so its aims, up to very recently, was a united Ireland under its own leadership. I suspect very few IRA soldiers would be willing to fight for Bertie Ahern. So the IRA in laying down its arms (but not totally disappearing) have admitted defeat not just in a military sense, but also in a wider political sense, because they know Sinn Fein will never rival Fianna Fail as a ruling party in the Republic.
Smeg -
Message 20
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Tuesday, 23rd August 2005
SmegheadRed
I accept your point that some people feel grateful to the IRA. However that would surely have been demonstrated nearer the time rather than the increasing support shown now. AS I say I am really confused by why SF's support is continuing to increased despite all they have done to the Catholic community.
Don't forget however that the main reason the IRA 'defended' the minority community was because it did everything in its power to make sure that no one else could. The army initially entered the region to protect the Catholics during the sectarian violence of the late 60's but that made it too big a threat to the IRA.
Steve -
Message 21
Posted by SmegheadRed (U1879559) on Wednesday, 24th August 2005
Steve,
You make a valid point, but I still believe that the lack of a viable alternative will always see the Nationalist/Republican community vote SF, especially in the last few years seeing as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have espoused the peaceful path. They have achieved something that O'Braidhaigh never did, gain the political mainstream.
Look at the Republic, where there are alternate parties to vote for. SF gets approx 7% of the vote. There is, I believe, a grass roots level of popular sympathy for the Catholic community in the North, but that does not translate into votes in the South. -
Message 22
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Wednesday, 24th August 2005
SmegheadRed
Hopefully my fears will be inaccurate and they will actually stick to the peace path. It's just that Adams and McGuinness especially so often still cling to the traditional lines of propaganda and abuse. I would feel more confident about the IRA's commitment to peace if they were more willing to accept that what they had done in the past was often wrong. Its the old problem with any group that has committed crimes that as long as they are in denial about their past its difficult to trust them.
I am still of the opinion that the big flaw in the peace deal was the release and pardoning of the various terrorist/criminal elements on both sides of the sectarian divide. This was a hell of a kick in the teeth to their victims and the idea of the rule of law. I know some people say that the terrorists had to be let free else their comrades would never agree but I think it may be fatal in the longer run that the governments gave way to the terrorists on this point.
Steve -
Message 23
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Thursday, 25th August 2005
‘As opposed to a Catholic state for a Catholic people to rule in?’
The difference being that the majority wished for a state for all the people in the country whether Protestant or Catholic. The unionists created a state specifically on the basis of a Protestant majority. The idea that ‘British force is irrelevant’ is rubbish Steve. They were the people with all the power in this situation and they denied the majority their democratic rights; that is the bottom line.
‘Just because Ireland is an island doesn't make it a natural political unit’
Ireland was a political unit. It had its own parties mostly unconnected with the UK parties. Ireland is one of the historical countries of the region along with England, Scotland and Wales. To try and pretend that this wasn’t so is to fly in the face of reality. To ignore the attempts to colonise Ireland over many centuries is also to ignore reality. One million people out of a population of five million is a minority. They should have their rights and entitlements respected but they are still a minority.
‘Are you that ignorant of who the IRA killed? The vast majority were civilians’
The majority killed by all sides were civilians. As far as the nationalists of NI are concerned the BA were ruthless. To say they had the capacity to kill even more people does not contradict that.
‘I actually meant ALL the population of the north’
Over 40% of which are nationalist and wish to se the country reunited.
‘I have no objection to Ireland persuading the north to join it peaceably’
The north is already in Ireland, hence North of Ireland. When a country occupies and discriminates against a smaller country they are the country using violence and undemocratic methods, not the country resisting occupation.
‘The IRA have only recently started saying unification can only come by consent’
They have said no such thing. What they do accept under the GFA is that Britain is slowly withdrawing from Ireland and that the unionists must be given room to come to acceptance of that fact.
Luis99 -
Message 24
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Thursday, 25th August 2005
‘So the IRA in laying down its arms (but not totally disappearing) have admitted defeat not just in a military sense, but also in a wider political sense, because they know Sinn Fein will never rival Fianna Fail as a ruling party in the Republic’
Disagree with your last bit Smeg. All conflicts come to an end: do you expect it to go on forever? The IRA decided to end the campaign when it did because the GFA provided means to work for a UI without a never-ending conflict.
Surrendering or being defeated means that you have no capacity to engage the enemy any longer. We know this is not the case with the IRA because they had many tons of arms intact. They are decommissioning arms because the armed conflict is over.
They are also becoming a greater force politically then they have been since 1918. In the GE of that year the old political elite the Irish Parliamentary party, were defeated by SF and consigned to history. This may or may not happen again, but one thing is for sure, if SF grow at only a fraction of their current rate north and south FF will attempt to steal their clothing and out ‘Sinn Féin’ them. That is what FF are good at. Either way SF policies are the way of the future. -
Message 25
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Thursday, 25th August 2005
‘I would feel more confident about the IRA's commitment to peace if they were more willing to accept that what they had done in the past was often wrong’
They were not wrong to defend their community against sectarian pogroms Steve. They were not wrong to resist British rule in Ireland which has always been illegal.
Britain could have set up Loyalist partitioned statelets in any of their former colonies but just like Ireland they knew they would be fighting wars all around the world to enforce their undemocratic rule against the native people. -
Message 26
Posted by SmegheadRed (U1879559) on Friday, 26th August 2005
"Surrendering or being defeated means that you have no capacity to engage the enemy any longer. We know this is not the case with the IRA because they had many tons of arms intact. They are decommissioning arms because the armed conflict is over."
Luis99,
I think the IRA leadership realised that to keep up the military campaign was political suicide. They could have kept it going for years, but there was weariness on both sides of the border. The IRA did not surrender in the 'classical' sense, they saw the way events were going and knew that continued large scale violence would only damage the political prsopects. I say 'large scale' violence, because I have no doubt that within certain areas, the IRA will always hold sway.
I also think there is a sense that they are trying to occupy the moral high ground; they have stopped fighting, while Loyalist paramilitaries continue their infighting.
Your point about Fianna Fails political integrity is a good one! Bertie is reknowned for his lack of principals. -
Message 27
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Friday, 26th August 2005
"The difference being that the majority wished for a state for all the people in the country whether Protestant or Catholic."
Untrue. The extremists just wised to deny the north what the south demanded for itself, the right to govern themselves.
Ireland was a political unit. It had its own parties mostly unconnected with the UK parties. ….To ignore the attempts to colonise Ireland over many centuries is also to ignore reality. One million people out of a population of five million is a minority. They should have their rights and entitlements respected but they are still a minority.
Ireland existed as a political unity during the period of British rule but so what. Germany under Hitler sought to rule and settle vast areas of eastern Europe. Just because some 'nationalists' wish to seize land from someone else doesn't make it right. A population of 1 million is a minority in 5 million but then so is 5 million in 65 million. It's your repeated double standards that are so revolting.
"The majority killed by all sides were civilians. As far as the nationalists of NI are concerned the BA were ruthless. To say they had the capacity to kill even more people does not contradict that. "
Just because you wish something to be true doesn't make it so. The fact that some imperialists, such as Adams, still lie like that just makes clear how little they should be trusted.
"Over 40% of which are nationalist and wish to se the country reunited."
By the same measure 60% are unionists and issue to continue governing themselves. But then, since they don't agree with your desires you consider them of no importance.
"The north is already in Ireland, hence North of Ireland. When a country occupies and discriminates against a smaller country they are the country using violence and undemocratic methods, not the country resisting occupation".
The 1st sentence is untrue in reality. That's exactly why the IRA have been murdering people for the last few decades! The rest of the section, if you replace country by terrorist group, accurately describes what the IRA have attempted.
‘The IRA have only recently started saying unification can only come by consent’
"They have said no such thing. What they do accept under the GFA is that Britain is slowly withdrawing from Ireland and that the unionists must be given room to come to acceptance of that fact.
Luis99"
Interesting that you say the IRA are still fundamentally opposed to government by consent. I know of no part of the GFA that denies the people of Ulster human rights, no matter what you wish. -
Message 28
Posted by thanetwarrior (U1820719) on Friday, 26th August 2005
For years we have been hearing from IRA/SF about a United Ireland, but we never seem to hear how this can economically come about. In my estimation the south could not afford re-unification, making the tax burden unbearable. Sinn-fein as the 'Celtic crocodiles' have never spelt out a viable economic programme for government.
-
Message 29
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Thursday, 1st September 2005
‘The extremists just wised to deny the north’
This is to ignore the fact that one third of the partitioned area were/are nationalists in the first place.
On what basis did the ‘north’ wish for independence? The only basis was one of sectarianism. Partition was created by the British so as to give the unionists an artificial majority. Such artificial majorities could have been created anywhere in the British colonies and today Britain could still have large lumps of sectarian and racist empire all over the globe.
Why do you make allusion to Hitler? Why not just concentrate on the British empire? Britain DID take over countries all over the world just as Hitler did. Trying to make it seem as if little Ireland was like Hitler when in reality the British empire was what Hitler tried to recreate for Germany is ludicrous.
‘so is 5 million in 65 million’
Another daft idea Steve. Ireland is a country, just as Wales, Scotland and England are. They have been recognised as such for centuries, are culturally different and wish for self determination on that basis.
The NI sectarian statelet is an abomination to democrats. It was rejected by Nelson Mandela as a ‘solution’ to the SA problem prior to democracy there. The AWB wished to set up an NI statelet for whites only around Cape town: so you can invent these statelets in any colony as long as you have enough guns and bombs to do so. But it is not democracy. -
Message 30
Posted by thanetwarrior (U1820719) on Thursday, 1st September 2005
A fair point, but historically you must also recognise that the Celtic people DNA are not the same as the Anglo Saxons. The celts are far more Mediterannean in origin. While the Irish Sea makes a far greater boundary between Ireland and mainland Britain. There are greater differences politically and culturaly than can be said about England, Scotland & Wales. A similar difference exists if I lived in Dover I would not wish to be called a Frenchman just because I was only twenty miles away from Calais.
-
Message 31
Posted by gooserss (U1983611) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
luis
were they wrong to fire bomb the irish kennel club in the la mon hotel, or ethnically cleanse areas of armagh, tyrone fermanagh, or bomb musgrave hospital, or blow up enniskillen on remeberance sunday, or pull 9 road workers out of a van, let the catholics go and murder 9 at teeban, or kill members of their own community who spoke out, regularly attack lord fit, sell drugs, run prostitution and paedophile rings etcetc.
Did these protect them from pogroms and attack british rule. wise up. there have been many atrocities on both sides but to suggest the ira did no wrong or had a legitimate reason for everyhting is just plain wrong. -
Message 32
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
‘were they wrong to…’
None of the armed groups were right to do bad stuff G, but all did. I see you only managed to list the IRAs bad stuff and not the unionist’s or the British.
The IRAs policy AFAIK was to attack British rule and to protect catholic areas, the extent to which they achieved this or not is a matter for argument. I certainly never suggested the ‘ira did no wrong’ or ‘had a legitimate reason for everything’. -
Message 33
Posted by gooserss (U1983611) on Wednesday, 7th September 2005
luis
as noted atrocities happened on both sides. Interested in your use of unionist atrocities. Surely loyalist atrocities would be a clearer term. there is a diference, just as between nationalist and republican. i know this could be seen as pedantic, but is correct in the ni situation.
also have to disagree with your notion that all catholics support a united ireland. this is untrue, particularly with middle class urban catholics.
all the old discrimination arguements, which were at one time very valid, have been irrelevant since the late 80s.
the fact remains that noone had a legitimate reason for any violance, particularly after the 1970s. Unfortunatly it took sf another 20 yrs to realise this. al lat they have, as can be seen in their rising support.
cheers. -
Message 34
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Friday, 9th September 2005
‘have to disagree with your notion that all catholics support a united ireland’
Did I say that? Neither do all Protestants support the union. I would suggest most ‘middle class urban catholics’ vote for the SDLP, a self-confessed nationalist party.
‘all the old discrimination arguments have been irrelevant since the late 80s’
I doubt that. NI was conceived as a sectarian entity and AFAIK Catholics are still more likely to be unemployed and live in deprived areas etc.
‘no one had a legitimate reason for any violence’
You reckon. Are you a pacifist? If loyalist mobs with RUC support were burning out houses occupied by catholics, have those residents not got a legitimate right to defend themselves? This has always been the catholic rational for the violence from their quarter. The British then took the side of the unionist regime and that led to more violence.
Retrospective discussion of the ‘legitimacy (or not) for violence’ is a waste of time anyway. You rarely hear of other wars or conflicts being discussed in terms of ‘legitimacy’ for violence etc. Both the British and Irish had their rational for using violence; its up to the historians to fight it out about legitimacy etc.
I disagree that SF alone are to blame for not recognising the legitimacy or otherwise for violence being absent etc. The British were the strongest party to the violence and had most of the power to control events so in my book they have the greater responsibility.
Cheers Luis.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.