The IRA were morally justified

[Tomdstone]

Are you seriously maintaining that the dropping of a bomb in 1945 has any bearing on the morality of bombing a department store in 1983? That’s a tough case to make.

They are both wrong of course. But dropping two atomic bombs and killing more than 100,000 civilians, including children, is a whole lot worse than bombing a department store.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

You’re a disgrace, and in my view being either selective or thoroughly dishonest.

Whilst never condoning killing, you ought to remember the reason ordinary people had to act. To stop their wives, sisters and neighbours being raped and pillaged. To stop their houses being burned and their people persecuted.

You also ought to remember that it divided the Church. The hierarchy took the side of the British whilst the priests on the ground either counselled volunteers or were themselves our themselves trying to promote peace. They never labelled Irish men and women “terrorists”. Not when British soldiers were shooting civilians in the back in Derry and the like.

You wouldn’t be living in a Republic of a Ireland without the “terrorists” you speak of.

The key words above were “during the Troubles”. If you are calling me a disgrace for abhorring the organisation described above, I pity you.

The IRA lost their cause and were just a criminal terrorist gang many decades before they “disarmed”.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

You are from a republic that was founded because of the IRA and yet you slander insults at our Brave patriots that are mostly lies, are you a British expat living in Ireland. You defend the very nation that tried to exterminate us and annihilate Catholicism in Ireland. How cowardly. The IRA never kidnapped innocent people and forced them to drive bombs, they did force British collaborators in a few operations which i feel is a bit extreme, they never killed Jean just because she helped a British solider, she was warned many times by the IRA to stop giving British intelligence information and given more warnings than many others. It was still wrong to carried out what they did but this was in a intense war where volunteers lives were being lost because of information being given to British intelligence. She continued for financial reasons. They crucified noone, The Omagh bomb was carried out by the RIRA who had carried out a number of economic bombs before that with NO innocent casualties as they give warnings before hand, the warning given to the Omagh bomb was correct however shortly after British intelligence said they got another warning giving a different location so all the innocent people were lured towards the bomb. This is the reason that in court the case collapsed several times, British intelligence kept giving contradictory evidence. British intelligence was known to have carried out many false flag attacks and many of the loyalist gangs they collaborated with even bragged about this. How they would kill innocents and blame the IRA to hit the large scale support they had. What is your agenda and why lie? What did the Irish defense force do when the nationalist people cried out for help as they were being driven from their homes, they did nothing because they are cowards. Ireland doesn’t need more cowards as it only prolongs the division and conflict. It needs Patriots to defend the Nation and end the conflict once and for all.

The IRA had to contend with a police force that also had memberships in loyalist gangs and giving them information to assassinate innocent Catholics, British army undercover assassin units that killed any suspected IRA, most of the people they killed were innocent people who were only sympathizers with the republican cause. How do you think the IRA went from a few dozen members in the late 60’s to having tens of thousands a few years later?? You think people wanted war, to be locked up for the rest of their lives for fighting for freeing their country from a foreign invader. There were hundreds of thousands of IRA attacks between 1969 and 2000. Most of which consisted of gun attacks, sniper attacks, ambushes etc, attacks that were legitimate and solely cost the lives of it’s volunteers or British forces. Then there was the bombing campaign carried out by separate units that were solely economical, warnings were given and most of these bombs went off without anyone killed. Some unfortunately did kill but that wasn’t the aim. There were a few active cell units in England that purposely killed innocents with small bombs but these attacks shocked even the leadership and we primarily independent. You can not base the IRA off these few atrocious attacks just like we can’t base the British army off the innumerable attacks killing innocents in Ireland over 800 years which was done far more regularly than the IRA bombing innocents or we can’t brush the US army for it’s crimes in Vietnam

If not for the IRA British terrorism would still engulf Ireland and we would still have the entire Island occupied, never forget the sacrifice our patriots made

I spent my entire life in Ireland and my parents are Irish. I’m just not blind to the truth. If you were trying to defend the Unionist terrorists, I’d be incensed too. The IRA may have been morally justified once, but during the Troubles, no, they were terrorists and the exact opposite of patriots.

In fact, the British army, when they were engaged in defending the innocent civilians during the Troubles, were more patriotic than the IRA. It’s possible I got a few things mixed up, as I grew up hearing about the Troubles rather than hearing about the crimes as an adult, but in general I’m pretty sure my accusations were justified and I left out so many terrible crimes that it more than makes up for any mistakes I made. You say they did not crucify people, but I am sure I heard of people being nailed to floors. Do you deny that the IRA ever did that?

As you can see in the link below, the so called collaborators were EITHER innocent victims OR heroes standing up to terrorism who were manipulated into blowing themselves up to save their families:

nytimes.com/1990/10/25/world/7-killed-as-ira-forces-3-men-to-drive-bombs-to-security-posts.html

The IRA made the situation in the North far worse and they were a greater enemy to Ireland than the British were during the Troubles. The difference between the IRA and the US Army is that the IRA were not, in fact, an army. Any army should be answerable for it’s war crimes. But the IRA committed terrorist acts, not war crimes.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

How many innocent did the UK and US killed in WW2 compared to German soldiers, i can tell you they killed far more in their cowardly carpet bombings of German cities and you think the US being the only nation of earth to use the atom bomb to kill ONLY innocent people will be forgiven??? The IRA killed more British security forces, FACT. The British killed more civilians than IRA volunteers many of whom were merely kids with plastic bullets at point blank range. I can safely say that the IRA is more more inline with just war theory bar a few attacks that the cowardly UK and US army

The British, German and US armies committed atrocious crimes during WWII and in some cases since then. But just because THEY did terrible things, doesn’t justify anyone else doing it.

The IRA are literally as far away from just war theory as you can get. Just war theory doesn’t apply to them though, since they are not an army.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

There is no justification for the carpet bombings of innocents. NONE. When you purposely kill innocents it is murder whether it is the US army, French army, Irish republican army, British army etc. You disagree with me and i do not believe you to be my enemy so don’t slander me in this way. You hold a view that is at odds with mine and the majority of the Irish people. Fair enough, thats your right.

Actually the vast majority of Irish people do not agree with the IRA. Nowadays most don’t care all that much about a united Ireland either. At least as far as I can tell, it’s not on the radar of anyone I know bar a few families that are originally from the North.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Long story short, Irish patriots whether it be the IRB in the past of IRA are the ones who brought peace to this land and brought down tyranny, this is what they should ultimately be judged on, the end result

The IRA of the Troubles were in no way related to the IRA / IRB of the past, except by name. SO, we should judge them on their actions during the Troubles. They did nothing but cause violence.

 

[Paddy1989]

The wrongs of the United States in past wars, real or imagined, are completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the actions of the IRA were morally justified.

Are you seriously maintaining that the dropping of a bomb in 1945 has any bearing on the morality of bombing a department store in 1983? That’s a tough case to make.

Finally, you seem to be conflating the IRA of the Easter Uprising with the Provisional IRA. The Provisional IRA is the organization whose acts you’re trying to justify. Not the same bunch as the Irish Republican Army of Michael Collins. Not at all.

They are EXACTLY the same and used the same tactics though the PIRA bombs were much larger and more advanced. The bombing of a department stores was for economic damage alone which was effective, causing economic damage to your enemy is very much in line with just war their especially if there has been an effort to make sure no civilians were killed. The dropping of bombs in German cities was done indiscriminately and killed thousands of innocents at a time. They were just as much of a target as the industries they were destroying so your right there is no moral comparison.

 

[Paddy1989]

The IRA of the Troubles were in no way related to the IRA / IRB of the past, except by name. SO, we should judge them on their actions during the Troubles. They did nothing but cause violence.

They were exactly the same and the guerilla tactics of ambushes, assassinations, bomb attacks on high profile targets were identical. It was a new type of war Britain couldn’t combat. The result of the PIRA meant that the old tyrannical regime in the North has been destroyed and for the first time there is civil liberty aswell as peace. The corrup police force was dissolved and a new police force established. Would you prefer it that things go back to the past where Catholics were indiscriminately murdered, persecuted and denied equal rights??? I see where what we have moved from and the sacrifice many have made to get there. You however seem to despise this? Why?

 

[Paddy1989]

The key words above were “during the Troubles”. If you are calling me a disgrace for abhorring the organisation described above, I pity you.
**
The IRA lost their cause and were just a criminal terrorist gang many decades before they “disarmed”**.

Well then i guess you are someone who felt the Northern British regime was completely just and that a protestant state for a protestant people is what it should be??? I don’t think you understand the change that happened in the North due to the IRA. It brought about a new relatively peaceful society where both peoples are represented and live together

 

[EamonnMichael]

The key words above were “during the Troubles”. If you are calling me a disgrace for abhorring the organisation described above, I pity you.

The IRA lost their cause and were just a criminal terrorist gang many decades before they “disarmed”.

You are a disgrace and you need not pity me. Pity should be saved for the treacherous, such as yourself.

Nelson Mandela a terrorist too, was he?

 

[EamonnMichael]

Well then i guess you are someone who felt the Northern British regime was completely just and that a protestant state for a protestant people is what it should be??? I don’t think you understand the change that happened in the North due to the IRA. It brought about a new relatively peaceful society where both peoples are represented and live together

The man’s a fool.

 

[EamonnMichael]

The IRA of the Troubles were in no way related to the IRA / IRB of the past, except by name. SO, we should judge them on their actions during the Troubles. They did nothing but cause violence.

Absolute buffoon. Truly worrying.

Ironically, the people from “Northern Ireland” are better off as things are without your type of attitude.

 

[Paddy1989]

I spent my entire life in Ireland and my parents are Irish. I’m just not blind to the truth. If you were trying to defend the Unionist terrorists, I’d be incensed too. The IRA may have been morally justified once, but during the Troubles, no, they were terrorists and the exact opposite of patriots.

In fact, the British army, when they were engaged in defending the innocent civilians during the Troubles, were more patriotic than the IRA. It’s possible I got a few things mixed up, as I grew up hearing about the Troubles rather than hearing about the crimes as an adult, but in general I’m pretty sure my accusations were justified and I left out so many terrible crimes that it more than makes up for any mistakes I made. You say they did not crucify people, but I am sure I heard of people being nailed to floors. Do you deny that the IRA ever did that?

As you can see in the link below, the so called collaborators were EITHER innocent victims OR heroes standing up to terrorism who were manipulated into blowing themselves up to save their families:

nytimes.com/1990/10/25/world/7-killed-as-ira-forces-3-men-to-drive-bombs-to-security-posts.html

The IRA made the situation in the North far worse and they were a greater enemy to Ireland than the British were during the Troubles. The difference between the IRA and the US Army is that the IRA were not, in fact, an army. Any army should be answerable for it’s war crimes. But the IRA committed terrorist acts, not war crimes.

How can you say that when the British army shot dead hundreds of civilians, some of whom were civil rights protesters. No British soldier has been jailed for their actions even when their own military admitted it was wrong, tell me how did they answer for their war crimes??? You insult this country and it’s Patriots. The British army locked up 2000 innocent civilians who were jailed WITHOUT Trial until 1975, the British armies actions you could say gave the IRA the support and numbers it needed as it had done in 1916. The people called for the IRA to defend them and the IRA answered that call, the Irish defense force was doing nothing and neither was the British army to stop the tens of thousand of Catholics being removed from their homes. Hold your extremist view all you want but even modern Brits admit British actions in Ireland were mostly wrong such as internment, the aiding of loyalist gangs, secret undercover army units killing dozens of civilians.

The IRA was the same in 1969 as 1919 and used the same tactics only in a larger scale. As for calling a collaborator a hero because they aided British rule in Ireland, well we all know whose side your on so i’ll say no more. Fact of the matter is this, Sinn Fein are the largest political party on this Island and the sacrifices made by the IRA in all the ages is commemorated each year by the majority of this country. The fact that Bobby Sands funeral was one of the largest in Irish history and resulted in protests all over the world gives evidence to the solidarity shown to Irish Republicans in their quest for freedom not just by the majority of this country but millions of people in your own. You hold a minority extremist position that would sooner keep thus country under the grip of tyranny than Free. that is quite clear from your defense of British forces here who have only ever brought violence and division to this land

 

[Mintaka]

The IRA was a Maoist terrorist organization, fairly typical for the Seventies, except for being able to take over the name of a much older historical organization that actually was nationalist above all. Simply by this branding, their political wing was able to raise money from the uninformed and gullible (mostly in US cities), while other contemporary Communist terror groups like Baader Meinhof had to rely solely on Soviet funding, Chinese funding, and bank robbery. (Which is why such terrorist groups started kidnapping people and holding them for ransom. Very popular.)

The goal of the IRA was not to join the Six Counties to Eire, but rather to destabilize the Six Counties, Eire, and the UK. It succeeded in that for a long time. Their political arm was largely interested in muddying the water and fundraising, while making fine speeches.

As group members grew older and both civilian US and government Soviet funding dried up, it became less fun for the IRA to destroy things. Many of the more violent types formed splinter groups and got caught. The political wing wanted to get back on the news and go to parties. Thus, the “peace process” began.

This thread is a perfect example of how the terrorist IRA managed to survive so long. It should also give the members a nice understanding of how violent Muslim terrorist groups can gain passive support and generous funding from normal moderate Muslims living peacefully in countries far from the violence they may fund.

 

[PseuTonym]

Ireland is … an ancient nation with deep culture and history and influenced many lands and peoples in the world including your own in a HUGE way

I agree.

Ireland is not some contested region

How about Northern Ireland? If Northern Ireland isn’t contested, then it seems that it is universally agreed that Northern Ireland is simply part of the UK, and not part of Ireland.

Ireland is part of the European Union, and as recently as the Brexit referendum in the UK, the European Union was a contested region.

I don’t understand the notion that if a region is contested then its culture is somehow artificial or lacking in ancient roots. Wasn’t the Roman Empire influential both before and after it broke up? Surely the Kurdish language isn’t some recent invention like Esperanto, but it seems that there are some contested regions in Iraq and Syria.

Of course, in a sense all cultures are artificial because they are created by human beings.

Egypt has been, at various times throughout history, a contested region. Egyptian civilization was far older than the Roman Empire, but that age didn’t prevent Egypt from becoming part of the Roman Empire.

 

[Paddy1989]

The IRA was a Maoist terrorist organization, fairly typical for the Seventies, except for being able to take over the name of a much older historical organization that actually was nationalist above all. Simply by this branding, their political wing was able to raise money from the uninformed and gullible (mostly in US cities), while other contemporary Communist terror groups like Baader Meinhof had to rely solely on Soviet funding, Chinese funding, and bank robbery. (Which is why such terrorist groups started kidnapping people and holding them for ransom. Very popular.)

The goal of the IRA was not to join the Six Counties to Eire, but rather to destabilize the Six Counties, Eire, and the UK. It succeeded in that for a long time. Their political arm was largely interested in muddying the water and fundraising, while making fine speeches.

As group members grew older and both civilian US and government Soviet funding dried up, it became less fun for the IRA to destroy things. Many of the more violent types formed splinter groups and got caught. The political wing wanted to get back on the news and go to parties. Thus, the “peace process” began.

This thread is a perfect example of how the terrorist IRA managed to survive so long. It should also give the members a nice understanding of how violent Muslim terrorist groups can gain passive support and generous funding from normal moderate Muslims living peacefully in countries far from the violence they may fund.

You have no clue on basic Irish history, the IRA liberated the 26 counties of Ireland and smashed the tyrannical regime in the North bringing peace for the first time. The Soviets didn’t support the IRA or give them political funding, they did however arm and fund smaller marxist groups that existed in Ireland at the time. The political and economical goal of the IRA was based on two programs called Eire Nua and Saol Nua. Both these programs are based entirely on Catholic social teaching and distributism NOT marxism. Most IRA volunteers were practicing Catholics and thus why their political, social and economical outlook was based on this. This post seems only to slander and incite hatred for Irish patriots.

Remember the IRA re-gaining popularity from the late 60’s was due to the Nationalist population of the North demanding they help them, the IRA was forced into action by the brutality of the British state in the North, without the IRA a large section if not most of the Catholic population would have been removed from the North in a ethnic cleansing campaign that began when Nationalists demanded civil rights. Judging by your post you’d rather Ireland suffer under occupation and anti Catholicism than be free which is strange for someone on a Catholic forum

 

[EamonnMichael]

You have no clue on basic Irish history, the IRA liberated the 26 counties of Ireland and smashed the tyrannical regime in the North bringing peace for the first time. The Soviets didn’t support the IRA or give them political funding, they did however arm and fund smaller marxist groups that existed in Ireland at the time. The political and economical goal of the IRA was based on two programs called Eire Nua and Saol Nua. Both these programs are based entirely on Catholic social teaching and distributism NOT marxism. Most IRA volunteers were practicing Catholics and thus why their political, social and economical outlook was based on this. This post seems only to slander and incite hatred for Irish patriots.

Remember the IRA re-gaining popularity from the late 60’s was due to the Nationalist population of the North demanding they help them, the IRA was forced into action by the brutality of the British state in the North, without a large section if not most of the Catholic population would have been removed from the North in a ethnic cleansing campaign that began when Nationalists demanded civil rights. Judging by your post you’d rather Ireland suffer under occupation and anti Catholicism that be free which is strange for someone on a Catholic forum

Beautifully put.

 

[Paddy1989]

I agree.

How about Northern Ireland? If Northern Ireland isn’t contested, then it seems that it is universally agreed that Northern Ireland is simply part of the UK, and not part of Ireland.

Ireland is part of the European Union, and as recently as the Brexit referendum in the UK, the European Union was a contested region.

I don’t understand the notion that if a region is contested then its culture is somehow artificial or lacking in ancient roots. Wasn’t the Roman Empire influential both before and after it broke up? Surely the Kurdish language isn’t some recent invention like Esperanto, but it seems that there are some contested regions in Iraq and Syria.

Of course, in a sense all cultures are artificial because they are created by human beings.

Egypt has been, at various times throughout history, a contested region. Egyptian civilization was far older than the Roman Empire, but that age didn’t prevent Egypt from becoming part of the Roman Empire.

What i meant by this was that there is no way for Irish sovereignty to be a contestable matter whenever the majority of this nation support self determination. The partition of the North is something that most of the Irish people see as unjust as it was done through a threat of war by Britain. You will find most Irish people would rarely identify it as Northern Ireland but simply ‘‘The North of Ireland’’. The Irish people as one unit democratically decided their fate in 1919 which was rejected by Britain and even in the North today only 2 or 3 out of the 6 occupied counties would have a unionist majority. Even in light of Brexit all surveys done showed large scale support for Irish reunification in the 6 counties but Britain has stated they will not allow a border poll to go ahead. You would think Britain would learn it’s lesson here after 800 years.

 

[PseuTonym]

With Britain refusing to grant the people in the North of Ireland a vote for re-unification with the south and Republican armed groups re-arming it seems like violence from the last 800 years in the country could easily reemerge. I have created this thread to explain to many that do not understand the conflict in Ireland how Irish rebels are justified in resisting British rule.

Please explain the mismatch in tenses between the title of this thread (past tense) and the above (present tense).

What i meant by this was that there is no way for Irish sovereignty to be a contestable matter whenever the majority of this nation support self determination. …] all surveys done showed large scale support for Irish reunification in the 6 counties …]

Self-determination and reunification aren’t exactly the same thing.

There was a peaceful reunification, in the 1990s, of Hong Kong with the rest of mainland China, but that doesn’t mean that people in Hong Kong today are enjoying the fruits of self-determination.

You will find most Irish people would rarely identify it as Northern Ireland but simply ‘‘The North of Ireland’’.

The situation would be clearer if the North of Ireland were seeking status as an independent nation-state.

Self-determination is a rather abstract concept. Inevitably, there has to be some focus on abuses committed by the government of the UK before the IRA existed. However, that was a long time ago.

At one time people used phrases such as a “war department”, and wrote about applications of science and technology “to warfare”, but now such references tend to be removed and replaced with words about “national defense.” I am not an anarchist, but I imagine that some anarchists would be among the first people to point out that government isn’t a very good idea if its main value is protecting people from other governments.

Eisenhower spoke about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Isn’t it possible that there are Irish rebels in the North of Ireland who are just as clever as people in the military-industrial complex in the USA? Wouldn’t it be bad for business – if your business is being a rebel – if the situation improved in the North of Ireland?

Politicians who try to serve the people first and their political party second have a name. They are called “independents” (because they either leave or get kicked out of their political party).

 

[GEddie]

government isn’t a very good idea if its main value is protecting people from other governments.

Government is first and foremost a punishment for sin. Our first human forebears wouldn’t obey God, who offered them life everlasting without charge, so now we must obey other human beings, who take unendingly from us and offer, at best, protection from other governments.

All the more reason why killing people to replace one government with another is not per se admirable. Governments come and go; death is forever.

ICXC NIKA