NationStates Jolt Archive

Were the IRA right? was what England did wrong?
:sniper: VOTE!

Having a point doesn't make you right.

The IRA did have a point but whether or not their point was right or wrong is a different matter.

To the OP: I would not recommend using the sniper emoticon (ever). It marks you as a n00b. Just a friendly pointer.

I would not recommend using the sniper emoticon (ever). It marks you...

Quick! Take cover before he shoots! :p

Quick! Take cover before he shoots! :p

Nice pun. :D

Were the IRA right? was what England did wrong?
:sniper: VOTE!

Sensitive use of the smiley there....Anyhoo, you'd have to define what period you're on about.

the ira had one point, even though it excused none of what they did wrong. and that is that there are no 'rights of conquest' only wrongs. and however much of a fiat accompli they might become, they are still wrongs.

the point is that it is not possible for any hierarchal chain of command to not at some point, come in direct conflict with reality.

not that this is what the ira were even considering. i think most of them may have just figgured 'home rule' was a grand excuse for murder and meyham.

and i don't support anyone killing anyone for any idiology or much of anything else, other, perhapse, then when it is the only way to, and actually does, prevent even further bloodshed and violence. not something the ira could with any great credibility claim.

(not something sir shrubery the simple's america can claim with any great credibility either!)

=^^=
.../\...

The IRA may well have had a point, but, like the Loyalist terrorists, went about it in entirely the wrong way. Both of them ought to have been slapped about.

The fact that both sides did (and, I think, still do in the more extremist bunches) cling to violence, going as far as to blow up entirely innocent people, such as the citizens of Manchester in the case of the IRA.

Having a point doesn't make you right.

Quite.

Nice pun. :D

Thank you :)

Their point was(more or less) to create a united Ireland. Duh.

As said before their methods were wrong... Very wrong...
I can have synpathy for their cause but not the way the choose to fight for this cause...
Like the the thing with Israel and the palestinians... I have sympathy for the palestinians, but I condem their way of figthing Israel...

Were they right to point out injustice and fight against it? Of course. Were they right to take out their anger on civilians? Of course not.

This world is a conflict of greys, and however black or white a cause might seem when you focus on specific details, it rarely, if ever, looks anything other than a colourless blob when you step back and look at it from a distance.

Individual Retirement Accounts may have a point.

Their point was(more or less) to create a united Ireland. Duh.

With, from at least the 1960s onwards, the additional idea that it should be a a single-party state under their own control...

Why are we only blaming England?

Why are we only blaming England?

Ohh Ohh I know this one, is it coz we started it?

Why are we only blaming England?

Socially acceptable to?

Ohh Ohh I know this one, is it coz we started it?

Not with the IRA we didn't. That would be Britain (England, Scotland, Wales).

With, from at least the 1960s onwards, the additional idea that it should be a a single-party state under their own control...

That too, but I was going for something that covered the IRA in all its forms.

Not with the IRA we didn't. That would be Britain (England, Scotland, Wales).

Don't forget a large proportion of Northern Ireland

Don't forget a large proportion of Northern Ireland

Yes, but that goes without saying. They had to be involved otherwise there wouldn't have been a problem.

There are some parallels between the IRA / Britain conflict (which peaked around the mid 1970's) and the Israel / Palestine conflict (which has been going on ever since Israel was created). They are both fundamentally arguments over territory. And they are both the fault (and responsibility of) the British government.

I may not have all the details right here - someone will no doubt correct me - but here goes:

Israel was created shortly after world war 2, as somewhere for the Jews to live (they had no country of their own up until this point) that was far enough away from Germany. Unfortunately, we did it in rather a crass manner - by basically stealing a plot of land from the arabs, and giving it to the jews. It was thought that the arabs were less of a threat at the time than the germans or the japanese. And that was roughly correct, sixty years ago. Not so any more.
The palestinians want their land back - and have a great deal of support from the rest of the arab world, who consider that Israel as a state has no right to exist. Although the real issue is that we had no right to steal the land from the arabs in the first place - although we did have the power to do so, with a big army and lots of guns. Britain has ceased to be a dominant world power, and so it is left to the Americans to protect Israel, which they do to the tune of $3 Billion per year - mostly spent on advanced weapons.

Northern Ireland was another bit of land which the British stole - this time from the Irish. God only knows why though. Maybe it was out of revenge for something. Or maybe we just needed a bit more empire. I don't know. But we nicked it, again with a big army and lots of guns.
The Irish republic didn't take too kindly to this - and fought back in the only way they could. They are a small country, and don't have a big enough army to defeat Britian, even now. So they resort to terrorism - basically scaring the shit out of us by planting bombs in London (mostly). A nice little twist is that more IRA activists were killed by their bombs than British - mostly because we found out about the bombs and evacuated the area before they went off. But also because they used unreliable explosives and dodgy detonators, which meant they blew themselves up quite often. They also had a penchant for using nitrobenzene as an explosive - which is readily absorbed through the skin and is rather toxic - significant numbers of IRA activists were poisoned by this stuff. Not very powerful, but easy enough to make in your kitchen.

We had no right to claim northern ireland as part of britain, and we had no right to claim a piece of arabic land and give it to the jews to make israel. Just because we had the power to do so doesn't make it right either. And now the world is paying the consequences. Fortunately, Britain has mostly learned this lesson - we've given most of our empire back (although mainly because we didn't have the manpower or military force to keep it). The USA is having to learn this lesson the hard way - they are trying to build an empire right now, which is not doing them any favours. And no, I don't mean Iraq. Have a look at the PNAC - project for a new american century - and you'll see what I mean.

No more than any more of history's losing parties have a point, and any complaint they may have had pales in comparison with what they did.

SNIP.

I saw a large block of text and thought i'd read a remotely intelligent post.

I was wrong

Sorry, Darvo-Tran, but that's kind of wrong, if I may.

Firstly, we've (as the English) have been in Ireland since the 1100s (or perhaps the 1200s - I forget). At the time the King of England was merely the Lord of Ireland, and Ireland itself was left to its own devices, with the occasional bit of meddling by us. Then Henry VIII decided he'd like to be the King of Ireland, and so announced himself as such. Henry's split caused some trouble in Ireland, but not as much as his son's decision to make the nation Protestant (by the way, Henry VIII never made England Protest - he was adamant that he was Catholic until the end of his days, making a big show of killing Protestants, although he did flirt with the Schmalkaldic League for a bit, but that was to gain allies against France).

The next few centuries (if I may so badly sum up history in this area) were full of anti-Catholic hatred, compounded by things like the Glorious Revolution, the Potato Blight and related Famine (which was entirely caused by the landlords' insistance for their rent). As a result of this, there were several major plots to remove the British rule of Ireland, all of which failed and/or were put down harshly.

Moving on somewhat to the Easter Rising, things came to a head. A large uprising in Dublin was crushed by the British Army during WWI, although the population of the nation was largely for the British Government, as it was een as unpatriotic to rise against them during a war. However, the Government's insistance to execute the survivors for treason was viewed as incredibly harsh, which turned a lot of people against the British rule and towards Home Rule.

This led to the Irish War of Independence, which was granted in the 1920s.

The reason why Britain still claims Northern Ireland is that the majority of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland still wish to remain part of the UK.

I realise this post is probably wrong in a fair few respects, mainly because I've not done Irish history for some years now.

Why are we only blaming England?

Because we didn't oppress them for 800 years?

We can blame the English, not the British, the Scots and Welsh are as oppressed as we were. We can say that we were forced to it, we had no choice, but first some introspection.

The Government of Ireland Act 1920 divided the two countries by means of Partition and stated that until the majority in Northern Ireland wanted to rejoin the South, Britain would protect her sovreignty.
The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922 solidified this Act as the Irish agreed to it, as Michal Collins stated, ''I am signing my own death warrent''. Cynics could say that the Irish only agreed as the Britsh were threatening to reopen hostile engagements in the South.
This led to a split in the IRA, pro- and anti-treaty IRA ad thus, civil war. The pro-treaty was the state army and the IRA became an illegal operation theeafter.
With the 1960's and '70's came many dark acts on either side of the conflict in the North. Bombings, revenge attacks and so on. One might say that the IRA had a point, an agenda but can you say that this was an excuse?
In the '90's, the IRA signed aceasefire agreement. Some were unhappy with this agreement and broke off to form the Provisional IRA. When the Provos signed a ceasefire, the Real IRA was founded, after the Reals, the Continuity.
By this stage it was nothing but drug running and counterfeit diesel production.
Over the years the IRA has had many faces, few of them heroic, and none of them pretty.
They had a point all right, and as a Irish Republian I can appreciate that but you have to ask, was there another way?

Because we didn't oppress them for 800 years?

I think the point was more that the Scots are getting away a little too easily from the whole thing

Northern Ireland was another bit of land which the British stole - this time from the Irish. God only knows why though. Maybe it was out of revenge for something. Or maybe we just needed a bit more empire. I don't know. But we nicked it, again with a big army and lots of guns.
The Irish republic didn't take too kindly to this - and fought back in the only way they could. They are a small country, and don't have a big enough army to defeat Britian, even now. So they resort to terrorism - basically scaring the shit out of us by planting bombs in London (mostly). A nice little twist is that more IRA activists were killed by their bombs than British - mostly because we found out about the bombs and evacuated the area before they went off. But also because they used unreliable explosives and dodgy detonators, which meant they blew themselves up quite often. They also had a penchant for using nitrobenzene as an explosive - which is readily absorbed through the skin and is rather toxic - significant numbers of IRA activists were poisoned by this stuff. Not very powerful, but easy enough to make in your kitchen.

We had no right to claim northern ireland as part of britain, and we had no right to claim a piece of arabic land and give it to the jews to make israel. Just because we had the power to do so doesn't make it right either. And now the world is paying the consequences. Fortunately, Britain has mostly learned this lesson - we've given most of our empire back (although mainly because we didn't have the manpower or military force to keep it). The USA is having to learn this lesson the hard way - they are trying to build an empire right now, which is not doing them any favours. And no, I don't mean Iraq. Have a look at the PNAC - project for a new american century - and you'll see what I mean.

Wrong. In almost every single way.

Sorry, Darvo-Tran, but that's kind of wrong, if I may.

Firstly, we've (as the English) have been in Ireland since the 1100s (or perhaps the 1200s - I forget).....actually Wikipedia is pretty much in line with what Darvo-Tran says, British "involvement" in Ireland amounts to occupation.. it speaks of mercenaries under Richard de Clare, nicknamed Strongbow, in 1169and an official English policy of plantation which led to the arrival of thousands of English and Scottish Protestant settlers. From this period on, sectarian conflict became a recurrent theme in Irish history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland

I think the point was more that the Scots are getting away a little too easily from the whole thing

I was never very good at history, what did the Scots do?

Well, yes, but that doesn't justify what they did. The problem, though, is that the mistakes were made long before 1922. By then partition was, in my opinion, virtually inevitable - I have a funny feeling that had the rest of the UK decided that all of Ireland would be included in the Free State that the Ulster Unionists would not take this lying down. I'm imagining an Irish Civil War with pro-treaty, anti-treaty and some form of 'ulster Free State' movement (they were prepared to fight over Home Rule, let alone United Irish Independence) all fighting for control of as much of Ireland as possible and resulting in a real bloodbath, and ultimtely British intervention if political pressure means supporting Ulster. So all i'm saying is that partition was possible the lesser of two evils.

Of course, that doesn't mean England can take any less blame for what happened in Ireland, or that NI shouldn't still be a part of Ireland (in my opinion), just for different reasons.

I was never very good at history, what did the Scots do?

The Plantation of Ulster

Your IRA is I-R-GAY!

The Plantation of Ulster
If I remember rightly, it was started by England, and Scotland was only involved after the union of the crowns.

If I remember rightly, it was started by England, and Scotland was only involved after the union of the crowns.

It started after the union of the crowns by James VI/I. The Scottish king.

actually Wikipedia is pretty much in line with what Darvo-Tran says

Well, no, actually, it's not....

But we nicked it, again with a big army and lots of guns.

Guns? In the 1100s? Anyhow, theft requires that the "owner" doesn't give consent. Unfortunately for Darvo-Tran, the Irish generally recognised the English King as Lord of Ireland, whether it was meant or not.

The Irish republic didn't take too kindly to this - and fought back in the only way they could.

The Irish Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republic) only existed as a breakaway republic between 1919 and 1922. The previous state was the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland), prior to that it was the Kingdom of Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ireland). After the Irish Republic was the Irish Free State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Free_State), and it is now the Republic of Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland).

They are a small country, and don't have a big enough army to defeat Britian, even now.

Apart from when they defeated them in the War of Independence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_war_of_independence)?

So they resort to terrorism

Ah, confusing the Provisional IRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army) (a paramilitary organisation which, in an earlier incarnation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army), had been the army of the shortlived Irish Republic) with the army of the Republic of Ireland.

- basically scaring the shit out of us by planting bombs in London (mostly).

Well, no, in Belfast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast) (mostly).

A nice little twist is that more IRA activists were killed by their bombs than British

It may be a "nice little twist" if it were true.

- mostly because we found out about the bombs and evacuated the area before they went off.

They were "found out about" because the IRA had a policy of giving warnings. The effectiveness of various warnings is a different matter.

But also because they used unreliable explosives and dodgy detonators, which meant they blew themselves up quite often.

Not "quite often". I can think of a few cases (Dunmurry railway bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmurry_train_explosion) in 1980, Shankill bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Road_bombing) 1993 and some others), but on the whole the bombers got away before detonation.

No more than any more of history's losing parties have a point, and any complaint they may have had pales in comparison with what they did.

I was unaware that the IRA, in any form, incarnation or nicely matching balaclava and jacket, had - for instance - killed 30,000 in under a year (as the British did in 1798), disenfranchise and disinherit around 95% of the populace), devastate the country, killing untold thousands (Cromwellian, Elizabethan wars), campaign to eradicate the language, culture and religon of Britain by force of law.......I'd say, Chris, that you don't have a clue what you're on about.

It started after the union of the crowns by James VI/I.
I thought that England had been colonising Ulster before the Union and before James came to power in England. Although, having an English and Scottish education, I can't say for certain - Ireland gets glossed over for some reason. You probably know better than me in any case.

The Scottish king.
I know that much...

I thought that England had been colonising Ulster before the Union and before James came to power in England. Although, having an English and Scottish education, I can't say for certain - Ireland gets glossed over for some reason. You probably know better than me in any case.


I know that much...

Yup there were repeated attempts but that was the most successful one

I was unaware that the IRA, in any form, incarnation or nicely matching balaclava and jacket, had - for instance - killed 30,000 in under a year (as the British did in 1798), disenfranchise and disinherit around 95% of the populace), devastate the country, killing untold thousands (Cromwellian, Elizabethan wars), campaign to eradicate the language, culture and religon of Britain by force of law.......I'd say, Chris, that you don't have a clue what you're on about.

And this justifies what the IRA have done?

I would point to the fact that all the specific atrocities you list, and atrocities they are, occurred before 1900. If every ethnic or political group sought to avenge every wrong ever done to it, humanity would be rather thin on the ground.

If every ethnic or political group sought to avenge every wrong ever done to it, humanity would be rather thin on the ground.

Ah so you're familiar with the way of Northern Ireland then ;)

And this justifies what the IRA have done?

I would point to the fact that all the specific atrocities you list, and atrocities they are, occurred before 1900. If every ethnic or political group sought to avenge every wrong ever done to it, humanity would be rather thin on the ground.

Your quote, to which I was responding -
No more than any more of history's losing parties have a point, and any complaint they may have had pales in comparison with what they did.

There are no caveats there that I can see. You seem to be making a sweeping generalisation that not only is inapplicable in this case, but in many others. For instance, if the republican movement of the 1918-21 struggle had its raison d'etre as the end of occupation, given what that occupation entailed, they committed nothing like the wrongs they sought to redress.

I still laugh when I remember the doom merchants who thought that Tony Blair's attempt at the peace process was just going to lead to more terrorism by not enacting harsher measures on the IRA.

We've now got an IRA ceasefire and disarmament, a functioning devolved parliament and the end of Operation Banner. Its truly been a disaster.

Were the IRA right? was what England did wrong?
:sniper: VOTE!

Most wackos have a point. What makes them wrong is their willigness to kill and die to prove it.

I still laugh when I remember the doom merchants who thought that Tony Blair's attempt at the peace process was just going to lead to more terrorism by not enacting harsher measures on the IRA.

We've now got an IRA ceasefire and disarmament, a functioning devolved parliament and the end of Operation Banner. Its truly been a disaster.
For now. A leopard never changes its spots. They were probably just buying time.

Anyway, I think the IRA has succeeded. It used to be "We will never negotiate with terrorists", but after a while it became "We're tired now, we'll negotiate". That sort of weakness must give Al Qaeda a real confidence boost, they know that all they have to do is keep up their attacks in the long term and the British government will fold.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13196569']For now. A leopard never changes its spots. They were probably just buying time.

Anyway, I think the IRA has succeeded. It used to be "We will never negotiate with terrorists", but after a while it became "We're tired now, we'll negotiate". That sort of weakness must give Al Qaeda a real confidence boost, they know that all they have to do is keep up their attacks in the long term and the British government will fold.

Well, not quite.

It used to be "we will never negotiate with terrorists"

Then it became "we will negotiate with terrorists once they show a willingness to embrace peace"

then "we are negotiating terrorists now that they are on the path towards peace"

and now it's "we are working with former terrorists in the hope they will stick with peace for good".

Well, not quite.

It used to be "we will never negotiate with terrorists"

Then it became "we will negotiate with terrorists once they show a willingness to embrace peace"

then "we are negotiating terrorists now that they are on the path towards peace"

and now it's "we are working with former terrorists in the hope they will stick with peace for good".

Now its sitting down beside Marty and the pair giggling away like school boys.....Which was surreal, if you know the episode I'm referring to......

Not with the IRA we didn't. That would be Britain (England, Scotland, Wales).

The Provisionals had a rule, never broken, not to commit attacks on other Celtic soil, so there was never a bombing or shooting in Wales, Scotland or the Isle of Man. So it would appear the 'Ra were very much at war with the English part of Britain only.

As in all campaigns of this nature, their substantive point is just. Ireland should be united and some of the historical horrors visited on the Irish was unforgivable. To have had the native Irish in the north marching for the vote in the late 60's is hard to believe now.

Some of the P-IRA's military successes were ingenious and brave. Some of their actions were cowardly and malicious. For every Provo who duked it out with the SAS (whose losses against the IRA forced them to build a second, bigger, graveyard in Hereford) in Tyrone or Armagh, there was one who only 'policed' his own people or bombed Warrington or Le Mans.

Now its sitting down beside Marty and the pair giggling away like school boys.....Which was surreal, if you know the episode I'm referring to......

well one is a bipolar schizophreniac who is famous for his swings, marty must have caught him on the up....

The IRA had a point, and the point was fully right, but the method was wrong.

It is one thing to kidnap and either sell for money, exchange for a release of IRA members in gaol, or assassinate a high ranking official of the UK government that occupies Northern Ireland illegally, and a completley different thing to set bombs on railway stations in England where children -- who legally couldn't vote that government who continues occupation, or just simply innocent passers by, many of whom also did not vote for the said government (possibly even also Irish like the IRA for that matter, not that that matters from an ethical point of view) congregate.

I fully support the right of oppressed people of all countries to (try to) assassinate members of the occupying -- or their own -- government (from the smallest hamlet/town district council member all the way to the king/queen/president/premier/pope/ayatollah) outside of the judicial system which is likely to be controlled by the said government officials.

But I strongly oppose murdering people who have nothing to do with your problems.

The IRA had a point, and the point was fully right, but the method was wrong.

It is one thing to kidnap and either sell for money, exchange for a release of IRA members in gaol, or assassinate a high ranking official of the UK government that occupies Northern Ireland illegally, and a completley different thing to set bombs on railway stations in England where children -- who legally couldn't vote that government who continues occupation, or just simply innocent passers by, many of whom also did not vote for the said government (possibly even also Irish like the IRA for that matter, not that that matters from an ethical point of view) congregate.

I fully support the right of oppressed people of all countries to (try to) assassinate members of the occupying -- or their own -- government (from the smallest hamlet/town district council member all the way to the king/queen/president/premier/pope/ayatollah) outside of the judicial system which is likely to be controlled by the said government officials.

But I strongly oppose murdering people who have nothing to do with your problems.

When did the IRA ever blow up children in a train station?

Were the IRA right? was what England did wrong?
:sniper: VOTE!

Um... I have a feeling I missed some huge details here, so having to vote being completely in the dark I'm just gonna take England's side because England's a cooler name than IRA? o_O
Your post doesn't really say what's going on.

Um... I have a feeling I missed some huge details here, so having to vote being completely in the dark I'm just gonna take England's side because England's a cooler name than IRA? o_O
Your post doesn't really say what's going on.

What about PIRA? Its like Pirates!!!!!!

When did the IRA ever blow up children in a train station?
There's not many stations in London they didn't bomb: Paddington, Euston, Liverpool Street, Victoria etc. etc.

The two movies below show some nice footage out of the time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMedQWPjyhk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5H0dBcZQCw


The troubles are a very complex topic but I will try to summarize the best I can;



Please bear with me as I will explain the whole conflict in a short summary, so you will see the full picture. Quite a few of you are aware that this conflict was a very bloody and bitter one. The issue was in short that the Irish Catholics of North Ireland wished to unite with Ireland to form one undivided nation. Whereas the Protestants in North Ireland wished to remain with England. Also it didn't help that Catholics were treated as 2nd class citizens, denied jobs, discriminated against, etc.. However violence only started when hardline Protestant militias formed the UVF and started small, sporadic terror campaigns;

The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was formed in May 1966 as a loyalist paramilitary group and named after the Ulster Volunteers of 1912. The UVF claimed what many acknowledge as the first victim of the Troubles, when they shot dead 28-year-old store man, John Patrick Scullion in west Belfast. Barman Peter Ward, an 18-year-old from west Belfast, became the second victim of a UVF gun attack. Victor Arbuckle (aged 29) was shot dead by Loyalists during street disturbances on the Shankill Road in Belfast in October 1969, the first RUC officer to die in the troubles. The UVF was also responsible for a series of attacks on power stations and resevoirs in Northern Ireland during 1969. It was hoped that this campaign would be blamed on the IRA forcing moderate unionists to increase their opposition to the tentative reforms of Terence O'Neill's government.

The issue was that the hardline Protestant Unionists were against the equal rights for Catholics in what they termed "this Protestant State."

Initially, Terence O'Neill, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, reacted favourably to this moderate-seeming campaign and promised reforms of Northern Ireland. However, he was opposed by many hardline unionists, including William Craig and Ian Paisley who accused him of being a "sell out". Some Unionists immediately mistrusted the NICRA as an IRA “Trojan Horse”. Many resented the concept of Catholic equality in this "Protestant state". Violence broke out at several Civil Rights marches when Protestant loyalists attacked civil rights demonstrators with clubs. The Royal Ulster Constabulary, almost entirely Protestant, was widely accused of supporting the loyalists and of allowing the violence to occur.

Issues worsened as the RUC (Royal Ulster Constulbary aka local police force) was accused of not protecting the Catholic minority during their marches. For example, the communal disturbances worsened throughout 1969, escalating in January after a march by the People's Democracy from Belfast to Derry (Catholics) was attacked by loyalists (Protestants) in Burntollet, County Londonderry. The RUC were accused of failing to protect the marchers. Barricades were erected in nationalist (Catholic) areas of Derry and Belfast in the following months.
This led to another confrontation. As the Protestant group Apprentice Boys of Derry wished to march through the Catholic part of town. Despite the sectarian tensions rising very high. This disorder culminated in the Battle of the Bogside (August 12, 1969–August 14, 1969), a huge communal uprising in Derry between police and nationalists. The riot started in a confrontation between Catholic residents of the Bogside, police, and members of the Apprentice Boys of Derry who were due to march past the Bogside along the city walls. In short the Catholics barricaded themselves into their ghetto neighborhood and refused to allow any Protestant or Policeman through. The British army had to be deployed to dress the riot back down and force peace. That same night (the 14th) a loyalist mob burned all of the Catholic homes on Bombay Street. Over 1,500 Catholics were expelled from their homes in Belfast. Taken together with events in Derry, this period of rioting is widely seen as the point in which The Troubles escalated from a situation of civil unrest to one of a three-way armed conflict between nationalists, state forces and unionists.
However that the British moved against the riots of the Nationalists (Catholics) but turned a blind eye toward the forced expulsion of over 1,500 Catholics from their homes infuriated the local Catholic population against the British forces. As the Catholics now saw the British troops as being Protestant/Loyalist sympathizers through such a move. Even though in the beginning British intention was to be neutral. That the riot even took hold can be led back to these issues;

Derry had a majority Catholic and Irish nationalist population but, after the partition of Ireland in 1921, had been ruled by the unionist (Protestant) government of Northern Ireland. Unionists maintained political control of Derry by two means. Firstly, they allocated public housing in such a way as to keep the Catholic population in a limited number of electoral wards, with the result that, despite casting more votes, nationalists returned only one candidate from Derry to the Northern Ireland Parliament, while unionists returned two. This housing policy had the additional effect of creating a housing shortage for Catholics. Secondly, only rate payers were entitled to vote in local elections. As Protestants tended to be richer than Catholics, this meant that unionists also controlled Derry's local government. Catholics also alleged discrimination in employment.

The RUC in response deployed armoured cars with Browning heavy machine guns and killed a nine year old Catholic boy in the nationalist Falls Road area of Belfast. Loyalist (Protestant) crowds attacked Catholic areas, burning down much of Bombay Street, Madrid Street and other Catholic streets (see Northern Ireland riots of August 1969).

Nationalists (Catholics) alleged that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Local police force) had aided, or at least not acted against, loyalists in these riots. The IRA had been widely criticized by its supporters for failing to defend the Catholic community during the Belfast troubles of August 1969, when seven people had been killed, about 750 injured and 1,505 Catholic families had been forced out of their homes.
Nationalists (Catholics) initially welcomed the British Army, often giving the soldiers tea and sandwiches, as they did not trust the police to act in an unbiased manner. But relations soured due to heavy-handedness by the Army, who were soon considered to be biased in favour of the Unionists (Protestants).

British Government documents from the early 1970s allegedly show overlapping membership between British Army units like the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) and loyalist paramilitary groups. The documents include a report titled "Subversion in the UDR" which details the problem. In 1973,

* an estimated 5-15% of UDR soldiers were directly linked to loyalist paramilitary groups.
* it was believed that the "best single source of weapons, and the only significant source of modern weapons, for Protestant extremist groups was the UDR."
* it was feared that UDR troops were loyal to "Ulster" alone rather than to "Her Majesty's Government".
* the British Government knew that UDR weapons were being used in the assassination and attempted assassination of Catholic civilians by loyalist paramilitaries.

In short the British Intelligence itself noted and archived that it knew that members of it's military were helping Protestant paramilitaries and taking part in the murders of innocent Catholic civilians. In the Protestant side terror campaigns.


In the mid-1970s, a Royal Ulster Constabulary anti-terrorist unit, the Special Patrol Group (RUC), was implicated in aiding and participating in a number of sectarian murders in the mid-Ulster area, including the Reavey and O'Dowd killings of 1976. Two SPG members, John Weir and Billy McCaughey, were convicted in 1980 of a 1977 murder, an attack on a pub in Keady, and the kidnap of a Catholic priest. They implicated their immediate colleagues in at least 11 other killings and alleged that they were part of a wider conspiracy involving the RUC Special Branch, British military intelligence, and the UVF. The Special Patrol Group was stood down after the men's conviction. The nationalist Pat Finucane Centre has claimed that the group of British Army, RUC, UDR, and UVF members that Wier and McCaughey referred to, which they called the "Glenane gang", was responsible for 87 killings in the 1970s, including the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974 and the Miami Showband killings of 1975.


It was around now that many Catholics started thinking with the belief that the only way to live like dignified human beings would be to fight, not trust anyone anymore and lead their own battle. Especially not the "so-called" neutral British army that was actually aiding in the murder of Catholic civilians. So the Provisional IRA was formed. Which is why around now the violent pIRA campaign against the Protestants/British started. The end result was a terror campaign with these goals;

The 1977 edition of the Green Book, an induction and training manual used by the Provisionals, describes the strategy of the "Long War" in these terms:



1. A war of attrition against enemy personnel [British Army] based on causing as many deaths as possible so as to create a demand from their [the British] people at home for their withdrawal.
2. A bombing campaign aimed at making the enemy's financial interests in our country unprofitable while at the same time curbing long term investment in our country.
3. To make the Six Counties... ungovernable except by colonial military rule.
4. To sustain the war and gain support for its ends by National and International propaganda and publicity campaigns.
5. By defending the war of liberation by punishing criminals, collaborators and informers.


Now to the main part.

What resulted in this was a split in society as the Catholic minority in short no longer let itself be downtrodden by the Protestants. Throughout the years of campaigning and heavy financing from the US the end death toll of the troubles was;

Between 1969 and 2001, 3,523 people were killed as a result of the Troubles.

Approximately 60% of the victims were killed by republicans (Catholics), 30% by loyalists (Protestants) and 10% by the British (Considered heavily biased to the Protestant side of the conflict), Irish and Northern Irish security forces (Like British considered heavily biased to the Protestant side).


Socially it is considered the IRA & pIRA won the Troubles. Considering they started out an oppressed people, with 2nd class citizen rights and open discrimination policies to now being treated as equals.
Militarily the IRA & pIRA also won the Troubles;

Death count:

— British Army 499
— Royal Ulster Constabulary 301
— Ulster Defence Regiment 197
— Northern Ireland Prison Service 24
— Garda Síochána (Republic of Ireland police) 9
— Royal Irish Regiment 7
— Territorial Army 7
— English police forces 6
— Royal Air Force 4
— Royal Navy 3
— Irish Army 1
Members of Republican Paramilitary Groups 394
Members of Loyalist Paramilitary Groups 151

In short the IRA & pIRA lost 394 men in those years (including those who killed themselves in hunger strikes in jails). Whereas the British lost 733 service men. The local Protestant police force lost 325. And the Protestant paramilitary lost 151 men.
But also the loss of men isn't what made it a military victory. As was noted later by an officer who had the bad luck of being stationed there. The IRA/pIRA controlled the streets. They denied the British military entry to parts of the city/counties. Convoys of armed British troops often avoided certain streets even though they had 20+ soldiers in their convoy. Also the British military installations were constantly mortared and shelled, the morale of the British army was taking hits every day through the constant siege mentality they suffered. Also when the pIRA took the fight right to the homes of the English, and started bombings inside England itself, the English side finally lost their will to continue the fight and started campaigning for Peace solutions changing their terms rather strongly. Giving the Catholics almost everything they wanted, regardless of Protestant sensitivities in the region, as long as they end the terror campaigns.

In short the Protestant side finally caved in and the Catholics received equal rights and all discriminatory policies were revoked.
My question is this. Do you believe the Catholics could have achieved their equal rights and had an end to the discrimination through peaceful methods? Remember in the beginning when they tried to peacefully campaign for it, they had Protestant hardliners going around trying to intimidate them by murder and arson.
Or was a campaign of bombings, murder and terror necessary to win equal rights and put an end to the discrimination? They started out with nothing and with the recent cease fire gained everything through putting their enemies through a lengthy war of attrition.
Also ironically enough due to mass Protestant exodus and a rising Catholic population, potentially in 15-30 years with current trends North Ireland will have a Catholic majority. And reuniting with mainland Ireland would potentially become a viable end to any final conflicts.



PS: Since someone brought up children. Also worth noting. Of the children who died in the conflict.

The British/Protestant side killed no less than 300 children, injured over 1000 and detained over 11000 (many without right to trial).

Whereas the Catholic side killed less than 5 children.

Having a point doesn't make you right.

Neither does being ambidextrous.

There's not many stations in London they didn't bomb: Paddington, Euston, Liverpool Street, Victoria etc. etc.

many kids die? which was my substantive point. in fact, did anyone die in the tube bombings?

To the OP: I would not recommend using the sniper emoticon (ever). It marks you as a n00b. Just a friendly pointer.
Unlike the "New Member" handle and the 13 posts? Some things are better learned by experience.

Like not using smilies at all.

Unlike the "New Member" handle and the 13 posts? Some things are better learned by experience.

Like not using smilies at all.

But how else do you express :fluffle:

many kids die? which was my substantive point. in fact, did anyone die in the tube bombings?
Your "substantive point" was just sophistry. You were replying to a comment that the IRA placed bombs in a place children congregated. It's irrelevant whether people actually died as a result of them, although in fact they did.

Your "substantive point" was just sophistry. You were replying to a comment that the IRA placed bombs in a place children congregated. It's irrelevant whether people actually died as a result of them, although in fact they did.

its not sophistry. the IRA did lots of things, but target children was not one of them. to try and suggest otherwise either shows profound ignorance of the conflict or a political agenda

Neither does being ambidextrous.

Clearly. For that matter, being left also doesn't make you right.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13196569']For now. A leopard never changes its spots. They were probably just buying time.

Anyway, I think the IRA has succeeded. It used to be "We will never negotiate with terrorists", but after a while it became "We're tired now, we'll negotiate". That sort of weakness must give Al Qaeda a real confidence boost, they know that all they have to do is keep up their attacks in the long term and the British government will fold.

Given that the IRA's objective was an independent Ireland, I'd hardly call them a success. Call me crazy, but I think a compromise where both sides achieve an acceptable goal to be a good thing.

Given that the IRA's objective was an independent Ireland, I'd hardly call them a success. Call me crazy, but I think a compromise where both sides achieve an acceptable goal to be a good thing.
When you start negotiating with terrorists in any way, think about the message it sends out. One thing that unites terrorists of any description is that they feel that violence is the most effective way to bring about political change. On that one they're absolutely correct. This makes any rehtoric from policians about terrorism 'not working' to be a load of crap. Every terrorist or potential terrorist knows that violent tactics will ultimately work - as they have on numerous occasions in recent history. Even if they don't succeed entirely they'll probably get the government to make some conscessions. I'm sure Al-Qaeda and other associated islamic terrorists are all too aware of this.

It's possible that the current peace in Northern Ireland might not last in the long term, but it's also possible that it will. Either way, our government's negotiations with the IRA would probably have been a great morale booster for other potential terrorists who have been thinking of targeting Britain. This long-term increase in bloodshed may vastly outweigh any short-term gains from peace processes. If you want to defeat terrorism, you need to get it into your enemy's head that his cause is pointless and he has no hope of ever achieving his aim. At the moment any talk of not negotiating with terrorists rings holow due to the track record of Britain and many other governments.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13198239']When you start negotiating with terrorists in any way, think about the message it sends out.

Yes, like "The ANC are right" or "The PLO have a point".....O the horror....

As said before their methods were wrong... Very wrong...
I can have synpathy for their cause but not the way the choose to fight for this cause...
Like the the thing with Israel and the palestinians... I have sympathy for the palestinians, but I condem their way of figthing Israel...

How should they do it?

How does any population who lacks the resources to fund a military with power comparable to their opponents fight the nation it considers an enemy?

When Regan was barred from invading Nicaragua he sent the CIA down manage terrorist operations.

When you can't use the army, you use the terrorists. Every population does it the same.

Socially it is considered the IRA & pIRA won the Troubles. Considering they started out an oppressed people, with 2nd class citizen rights and open discrimination policies to now being treated as equals.
Militarily the IRA & pIRA also won the Troubles;

I don't know where you come from, but I've never heard it claimed that the IRA won the Troubles.



But also the loss of men isn't what made it a military victory. As was noted later by an officer who had the bad luck of being stationed there. The IRA/pIRA controlled the streets. They denied the British military entry to parts of the city/counties. Convoys of armed British troops often avoided certain streets even though they had 20+ soldiers in their convoy. Also the British military installations were constantly mortared and shelled, the morale of the British army was taking hits every day through the constant siege mentality they suffered. Also when the pIRA took the fight right to the homes of the English, and started bombings inside England itself, the English side finally lost their will to continue the fight and started campaigning for Peace solutions changing their terms rather strongly. Giving the Catholics almost everything they wanted, regardless of Protestant sensitivities in the region, as long as they end the terror campaigns.

Except it was actually, if you want to go into it, defeated militarily. By the end of the Troubles the British Army had regained control of many of the "no-go" areas...possibly only parts of south Armagh still being completely beyond control. The IRA was forced, effectively, to surrender and start bargaining for peace terms, while the British Army remained in place. The IRA eventually decommissioned. The Brits only ended Banner after the IRA essentially gave up.

Anyway, it's ridiculous to talk about anybody "winning" the Troubles. As far as I can see, everybody involved lost.

Also ironically enough due to mass Protestant exodus and a rising Catholic population, potentially in 15-30 years with current trends North Ireland will have a Catholic majority. And reuniting with mainland Ireland would potentially become a viable end to any final conflicts.

Well, no, since not every Catholic is a nationalist, and not every Protestant is a unionist. It's overly simplistic to talk in such terms.

The Plantation of Ulster

Ah. This seems vaguely familiar now. Though I figured they came from Scotland more because (a)Scotland is England's prison bitch and (b)Scotland is a geographically convenient place from which to enter Ulster than because Scotland had any say in the matter.

Wow, with so many 'experts' here on NS:G, why did the Troubles last so long?

Anyhoo...

Scotland is England's prison bitch
Yeah, but we get a nice reach-around.

;)

Wow, with so many 'experts' here on NS:G, why did the Troubles last so long?
Because problems about what country a bit of land belongs to can be rather complicated when both sides have guns and people willing to use them. See: Israel/Palestine and Tibet/China.

Anyhoo...


Yeah, but we get a nice reach-around.

;)
Some people have all the luck.

Because problems about what country a bit of land belongs to can be rather complicated when both sides have guns and people willing to use them. See: Israel/Palestine and Tibet/China.
I was laying on the sarcasm.

Badly, obviously.

I was laying on the sarcasm.

Badly, obviously.

>.>
<.<

Having a point doesn't make you right.

qft.

I don't know where you come from, but I've never heard it claimed that the IRA won the Troubles.





Except it was actually, if you want to go into it, defeated militarily. By the end of the Troubles the British Army had regained control of many of the "no-go" areas...possibly only parts of south Armagh still being completely beyond control. The IRA was forced, effectively, to surrender and start bargaining for peace terms, while the British Army remained in place. The IRA eventually decommissioned. The Brits only ended Banner after the IRA essentially gave up.

Anyway, it's ridiculous to talk about anybody "winning" the Troubles. As far as I can see, everybody involved lost.



Well, no, since not every Catholic is a nationalist, and not every Protestant is a unionist. It's overly simplistic to talk in such terms.

If one looks at the total deaths. The IRA lost less then it tolled out to the British military/police/government.

Also I don't know. Perhaps I took that statement from a British army report which explicitly said the pIRA could not be defeated (which after 30+ years of heavy fighting took them a while to conclude).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6276416.stm

The six-month study, covering the period 1968-2005, was prepared under the direction of the then chief of general staff, General Sir Mike Jackson.

It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".

It concedes for the first time that it did not win the battle against the IRA - but claims to have "shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence".

So at best a stalemate. But to claim a British victory is being dishonest. Remember in the beginning;

+Catholics had no political rights
+Were subject to discrimination
+Were persecuted with silent government approval
+ etc.. etc..


After a 30 year campaign full of bombings, shootings, massacres, dead royal family members, dead politicians, hundreds of dead British soldiers and the world media sympathizing more with the IRA. The British finally cut their losses and came to the negotiation table. The "Never negotiate with terrorists" stance became "we will give you anything within reason if you just promise to stop, please just stop we are getting tired of this." The British offered the IRA all their goals short of actually one united Ireland. HOWEVER it opened a clause that the people of North Ireland could at any time vote and secede from Britain to join Ireland. Also all IRA prisoners were released (including people like Patrick Macgee who did the Brighton Hotel bombing which killed several politicians, lightly injured Maggy Thatcher and killed Maggy Thatcher's closest friend). So in short the British caved into all demands, and compromised on the last one. Also despite being only 43% of the population, Catholics now have 50% of the power under the new power sharing rules. On and on.

So when one looks at what they started with (Being treated like Black people in the US during the 50's) to what they have now. Yes you could say they won.

But then their main aim was to have a united Ireland. It's not so much a win for them, as a draw.

<bit of an edit here>

Its nice to read such an unbiased account of 1968/1969 in Northern Ireland and the following troubles.

Although in truth the main reason of the civil rights movement in 1968/1969 was NOT union with southern ireland, but taking its inspiration from the civil rights movement in the US , equal voting and representation in the government of Northern Ireland and its various cities/counties
Take Londonderry, 50/50 split in protestant/catholic population, thanks to serious gerrymandering (worse than most US congressional districts) the council was 24 protestant wards vs 6 catholic.

But the extreme unionist response to the protests was riots and attacks against catholic areas with the RUC either caught in the middle or standing to one side.
So it was decided to send the army in to relive the RUC and ensure order is restored where the RUC have stood aside.
However there was a serious f*** up in the orders , one that the head of the army disagreed with, It put the army under the control of the local politicians, many of whom had been the ones stirring up hated of the catholic minority.

In catholic areas,(the ones that daubed the walls with " I.R.A. = I ran aways") the army deployment was actually welcomed at first until the local unionists began using the army in much the same way as it had the RUC

Cue 30 yrs of bombings/shootings/hunger strikes/etc

In the end, the ira gave up because its commanders realised that they could never achieve any of their political objectives by violent means, the army could not militarily defeat the ira.
Which equals stalemate.

Hence the laying down of guns and the withdrawl of the army and the return hopefully to a more normal society.:fluffle:

El-presidente Boris

But then their main aim was to have a united Ireland. It's not so much a win for them, as a draw.

Not quite. Their original goal was that Catholics have equal political and social rights. In short basic human rights that lack of today would be unthinkable. HOWEVER after the riots in which 1,500 Catholics lost their homes to Protestant mobs, the massacre of Bloody Sunday where the British army murdered 13 innocent civilians (all who were later declared as unarmed and innocent) and the refusal of the RUC/Britain to keep the Protestants in check (actually arrest them and make a serious effort in following them Protestants when they murdered Catholics).
It was after these events. That the pIRA took the stance that the only way Catholics could ever live as free and dignified human beings would be if they form the majority and could protect themselves through might of numbers. And so the clause for a unified Ireland was created. It was a very absolutist view. But after the inhumane treatment they suffered through the local Protestant population and the British military (once it arrived) it is quite understandable.

Take Londonderry, 50/50 split in protestant/catholic population, thanks to serious gerrymandering (worse than most US congressional districts) the council was 24 protestant wards vs 6 catholic.

Its called Derry and was 80/10 native/colonist.

But the extreme unionist response to the protests was riots and attacks against catholic areas with the RUC either caught in the middle or standing to one side.

That would be the RUC who were equipped with plastic explosives? If by standing to one side you mean organising pogroms and targetting Republicans for murder by the loylaists, then, yes, you are right.



In the end, the ira gave up because its commanders realised that they could never achieve any of their political objectives by violent means, the army could not militarily defeat the ira.
Which equals stalemate.


Gave up? :D You wish. The armalite and ballot box, or TAST (Tactcal Use of the Armed Struggle) became the IRA's preferred tactic in the 70's. Bomb their way to a certain point and let politics and demographics take over. If you think that the IRA ceasefire was anything other than part of a strategic process, you have fundamentally missed the point.


Except it was actually, if you want to go into it, defeated militarily. By the end of the Troubles the British Army had regained control of many of the "no-go" areas...possibly only parts of south Armagh still being completely beyond control. The IRA was forced, effectively, to surrender and start bargaining for peace terms, while the British Army remained in place. The IRA eventually decommissioned. The Brits only ended Banner after the IRA essentially gave up.


With respect, you are looking at that through blue tinted lenses. The IRA didn't give up, the struggle changed. They werent forced to do anything, the Adams strategy was timed and phased.

With respect, and you are one of the better posters here, there is a certain element of fantasy creeping in here. The Brits didnt win the war, the IRA didnt surrender. To try and claim otherwise smacks of unionist desperation in the face of ineveitible home truths. The IRA saw the dempgraphic tide and decided 20 years of peace would leave the brits no option but to had over the keys to Dublin once that 50.01% is reached.

But then their main aim was to have a united Ireland. It's not so much a win for them, as a draw.

at the risk of repeating. they got equality for the native Irish where political means failed. they got international scrutiny of the British behaviour and in most cases support. but they realised short of genocide that a unitary Irish state was not militarily achievable. So end the war subject to the principal of the majority decision holding and sit back and let demographics settle it.

why fight a war once London and the unionists are commited to the democratic will? All surveys show a catholic majority in 10 years.

I am, admittedly, rather biased in any debate on the future of Northern Ireland, as I am English through and through, even if I dislike both sides in their use of terrorism. On top of that, I've not really been studying the happenings in Northern Ireland recently, other than what pops up on the BBC website, as it isn't where my interest lies, as bad as that sounds.

Their point was(more or less) to create a united Ireland. Duh.

I know!

I think everything England ever did to Ireland was terrible and un-fair.
:gundge:

ANd don't quote me!