Free Staters and their hypocrisy on their violent, bloody past

[Angelo]

Whilst I'd agree that not only political parties in the South are hypocritical regarding the violence that founded their state, so too are Unionists. The reality is that both Irish jurisdictions were founded on violent rebellion against the government of the time. However your insistence on labelling people from the South of this Island deflects from the point you are trying to make. No need to be so provocative.

That doesn't flow one way.

[Applesisapples]

Whilst I'd agree that not only political parties in the South are hypocritical regarding the violence that founded their state, so too are Unionists. The reality is that both Irish jurisdictions were founded on violent rebellion against the government of the time. However your insistence on labelling people from the South of this Island deflects from the point you are trying to make. No need to be so provocative.

That doesn't flow one way.

Two wrongs?

[Angelo]

Whilst I'd agree that not only political parties in the South are hypocritical regarding the violence that founded their state, so too are Unionists. The reality is that both Irish jurisdictions were founded on violent rebellion against the government of the time. However your insistence on labelling people from the South of this Island deflects from the point you are trying to make. No need to be so provocative.

That doesn't flow one way.

Two wrongs?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[smelmoth]

This has been a great win for the forum republicans.

This thread is a bit like those cabaret clubs in Berlin that did so very much to stop the rise of Hitler

The fact that you have been shown up to be an ignorant hypocrite who tried to diversify away from the subject of the thread has been noted by all contributors.

Ignorant of what facts?
Hypocritical on which points?

The thread is about free state hypocrisy on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past.

Can you sum your comments on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past on this thread.

If you look back at your contributions, we will see you have instead tried to spam with posts unrelated to the thread. Now why would you do that?

Listen wee man you must by now have realised the fatal flaw in the construction of this thread. Some people in the south might think that the old IRA were a good thing. Others might think them a bad thing. It's only hypocrisy if they apply a double standard. If the people of the south are applying a double standard it must be to some other conflict. You know what the other conflict is. I know what it is. But you just don't want to talk about what the other conflict is.

As for the old IRA I have went further than any other poster. I have set out a 3 stage test to apply to each of their actions. Do you want to catalogue the actions or a highlights reel?

[Angelo]

This has been a great win for the forum republicans.

This thread is a bit like those cabaret clubs in Berlin that did so very much to stop the rise of Hitler

The fact that you have been shown up to be an ignorant hypocrite who tried to diversify away from the subject of the thread has been noted by all contributors.

Ignorant of what facts?
Hypocritical on which points?

The thread is about free state hypocrisy on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past.

Can you sum your comments on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past on this thread.

If you look back at your contributions, we will see you have instead tried to spam with posts unrelated to the thread. Now why would you do that?

Listen wee man you must by now have realised the fatal flaw in the construction of this thread. Some people in the south might think that the old IRA were a good thing. Others might think them a bad thing. It's only hypocrisy if they apply a double standard. If the people of the south are applying a double standard it must be to some other conflict. You know what the other conflict is. I know what it is. But you just don't want to talk about what the other conflict is.

As for the old IRA I have went further than any other poster. I have set out a 3 stage test to apply to each of their actions. Do you want to catalogue the actions or a highlights reel?

"Wee man"

Can you post something that stays on the topic of the thread and not the incoherent, rambling mess you have put above.

People of low IQ like yourself really should cut out the condescending terms, it's not a good look.

[Snapchap]

it was you who said that you that campaign was legitimate but that you were not happy about the deaths. Its not me who is trying to separate the two. Its you

And? Are you suggesting that someone who feels they had no choice but to take up arms to effect change, must enjoy killing? Is that what you are trying to say?

No. I have never said that. You keep bringing it up as i had said. But I haven't. Illuminating. No end up doing "an Angelo"

You stated that it isn't possible to separate the notions of taking part in an armed conflict and being happy about killing. Patent nonsense.

Does that mean that those who engaged in it did so because they just wanted an excuse to kill people?

I did not say that and my reason for not saying that is because there will not be a single motivation that covers all combatants or even all combatants on one side. I don't think anyone would disagree that some of the willing participants in the troubles were just wrong'uns who would have ended up in trouble whenever and wherever they where born. That applies to all sides.
Taking a life and meaning to take a life is a pretty big rubicon to cross. If you really want to set out a case that a given individual did not want to take life but did so out of real (actually real not some twisted/imagined self justification) then set it out and I will read it and respond.

Why do you only apply that to the Troubles then? The Old IRA targeted and killed the same and likely a higher proportion of civilians than the PIRA. Safe to assume there were just some bad apples in the basket there too? You say that there is no single motivation, yet you refute my suggestion that it's possible to engage in conflict but not be happy at having to do so, and happy at having to feel you have have no choice but to kill. You are the one arguing that if you engage in armed conflict, you must automatically be happy about killing others. That is utter tripe.
I would argue that just like Francis Hughes, Michael Collins didn't want to be involved in war and involved in killing, but did so because he believe the ends justified the means. Are you suggesting I'm wrong? That Collins just wanted the thrill of killing and hid behind a "twisted/imagined self justification"?

Show me the quote where I have only applied this to the troubles? I am accusing you of making things up and having faux arguments. Demonstrate your credibility by producing the quote or quotes that your argument is based upon.

See the bit I put in bold. You limited your question to those taking part in The Troubles, in a thread not specifically about the Troubles, but about the founding of the free state.

A belief that the end justifies the means does't justify it. If someone burgles your house to fund their drug habit I am sure that they would feel that the end (getting their fix) justified the means (pilfering your stuff). So that is ok then?

A loyalist who feels that his community is under attack kidnaps and murders a catholic feels he is justified. Is that ok then? Should we have a commemoration for that individual then?

A belief that the end justifies the means is not a justification its a self-justification. Don't fall for it.

That's why I sad Collins did what he did "because he believed the ends justified the means. What was that you were saying about faux arguments? Do you believe the Old IRA campaign was justified?

An overwhelming majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not take up arms.

And? The overwhelming majority of people didn't join the Old IRA either. I know countless people who weren't members of the IRA but who supported them and provided safe houses and shelter etc.

Ok. You win. Add the number of people who provided safe houses to the number of direct combatants and STILL an overwhelming majority of people suffering oppression didn't engage in an armed struggle.

Of course the overwhelming majority didn't engage in it. Where did I claim otherwise? Faux arguments? What I did do was address the ridiculousness of your argument. So what the majority didn't join the PIRA. A majority didn't join the Old IRA either.

A vast majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not support those that did take up arms.

Any stats to back up your "vast majority" claim?

Election results during the armed struggle when and where SF ran candidates.

That old absolute chestnut. I already addressed this just a few posts ago. For the majority of the conflict, SF barely functioned and people who dared put their heads above the parapet to join SF, be seen working for the party, or to run as a candidate, set themselves up as targets for state assassination. Does that sound like a party competing in a fair and level playing field? I don't think even you would be as ignorant enough to say yes. Combine that with the fact that many nationalists did not engage for years with electoral politics in the north and you get the picture. So to suggest that SF' electoral performance was an accurate gauge of support for the armed struggle is utterly daft. My own family was fairly typical of many nationalist areas for many years of the conflict - we supported the right to armed struggle but did not engage with electoral politics for many years.

Why so if it was inevitable/there was no other choice? Its simply wrong to say there was no other choice or that the only other choice that catholics/nationslists faced was to sit and do nothing. The majority did not take up arms and their chances of progressing their lot could have been made a lot easier if the armed campaign was not going on around them suppressing life chances and fueling suspicions of community of another.

Of course, it's very easy for someone sitting in the comfort of the south, who to quote Waterford Whispers today "at the last count, lost no relatives", so sit in judgement at how the nationalist community in the north reacted. Particularly when we see how their grandparents reacted to much less provocation in 1921. But like every sanctimonious southerner, when asked what alternative would have brought us to here we are today without armed struggle, there's never an answer. So maybe you can furnish me with one. Peaceful protest? Many sacrifice ourselves in a few more Bloody Sundays?

Again another faux argument.

How so? I asked you to furnish me with a guide to how we could have gotten to where we are now without armed conflict. Bearing in mind that the peaceful route was tried and the state reacted to that at Burntollet and in Derry with ruthless brutality.

Within the trouble there is a litany of atrocities that there was not and could not be any justification for. There was no upside to these. How do you account for these? Is it a case that if there is oppression then an armed response is automatically ok and we just have to accept that there will be atrocities along the way.

Has there been an armed conflict in history, anywhere, by any group, where this has not also been the case? The same happened, to a proportionally greater extent, in the Tan War. Do you accept that it was a legitimate campaign by the Old IRA, despite the utter savagery in involved and the high proportion of old IRA atrocities that there can be no justification for?

Your first argument is frankly bollocks. A contention (that I don't dispute) that innocent casualties are inevitable does not excuse them away. If I drive at 80 mph, in the wrong direction and across both lanes of a motorway there will be inevitably be casualties. Hardly an excuse or a rationale though is it?

Your second argument is more interesting. The test that I would apply would be did the acts of the old IRA have popular support (I would say democratic support if there had of been elections), where they assured of achieving their outcome and was there any workable alternative. Happy to consider any act that you think meets all 3.

How is it bollocks ffs. My point, clearly, was that the inevitability of civilian victims does not automatically mean a conflict is unjustified. You were the one who implies otherwise by asking how I could "account for" atrocities where civilians lost their lives.
And as for the questions regarding the Old IRA, I have stated my view on that conflict a thousand times here. Perhaps you could tell me if YOU think it was justified?

You have to forge a link between the oppression, the resolution of the oppression and the violent act. Can you draw a link between all the acts that you consider legitimate and how it did or even could address some act of oppression?

I already did. Read up on Canary Wharf, for instance. The above line from you just equates to the claim, again, that the IRA campaign achieved nothing and that what we have today could have been achieved without it. But, again, you offer no step-by-step guide to exactly how. Was there an alternative to conflict in 1921? If not, then how on earth could a nationalist population, living under a more oppressive regime, have had an alternative option. If you think that conflict in the six counties was not an inevitability, then you are far more detached from the reality of what life was like here than even I was giving you credit for.

So that is Canary Wharf chaulked off. Whats up next? Presumably you are going to justify every act?

Seriously. For a man that likes to accuse me of engaging in faux arguments, you've just produced quite a list of them yourself. This one takes the biscuit. I've lost count of the number of times that I've state on this board that the PIRA, just like the Old IRA, carried out acts that were unjustified. Similarly, I've lost count of the number of times clowns like you still attempt to accuse me of trying to justify every action. It's not inconsistent to support an armed campaign and to believe that certain actions that took place in it were unjustifiable. Most people would support the allied fight in WW2. Does that mean they "presumably jutify" the carpet bombing of Dresden? Cop yourself on.

[Snapchap]

So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.

Would you have stood for a party knowing that you were setting yourself up as a target for a state sponsored assassination? SF members and workers were targeted for their membership. Does that sound like a party that was competing for votes in a fair and level electoral playing field to you?

Another belter.

SF were busy harrassing people outside polling stations trying to stop them voting.

And did republicanism have some sort of embargo on not targeting the lives of political candidates or was it only wrong when other people did it?

So nationalists in the six counties were disengaged form political/electoral involvement because SF? You really don't know the first f**king thing about what it was like to live through conflict, do you.

And this specific argument has nothing to do with the legitimacy or otherwise of targeting political party candidates. The issue is specifically that you wanted to use the electoral performance of SF as a barometer to test nationalist support for the republican movement, even though SF were barely organised as a party and people associated with it set themselves up as assassination targets - so to think that this is a suitable way to gauge nationalist support for republican movement is just plain stupid. My own family, throughout the conflict, supported the PIRA campaign as legitimate. We never engaged in electoral politics until the latter years. That was just the norm for so many. Your problem is that you live in the south and just don't understand why. The problem is that you don't realise the extend to which you don't understand.

You do get it that I lived through the troubles in the north.

Stop making these things up.

I find it hard to believe, given some of the pure nonsense you've been posting here. My guess is you're with from the south, or from the north and grew up in peace times. Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.

[Snapchap]

It's quite delicious to see all our resident Provos suddenly coming across as the bastard love children of Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards. 

Their self hatred must be off the charts.

They hate the IRA of the war of independence era because they were led and manned by Southerners

And the key point

They Won

They drove the Brits out of their areas

Something they couldn't achieve in the north

They failed. They wanted to free ireland. They didn't

True, they only managed to free 26 of our counties.

I guess you didn't participate much the 2016 celebrations/commemorations? The Wolfe Tone songbook must make you puke?

No, why would I "puke" at commemorating the Old IRA? I'm not foolish enough to argue that their campaign was unjustified purely because they didn't achieve everything they set out to achieve.

[johnnycool]

What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?

Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?

Was it OK back then?

Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok

I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.

I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA  killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?

Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about?  The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?

I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.

You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.

Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?

So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?

Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.

I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.

I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign

Your careful use of language is revealing. You say the PIRA "targeted" civilians in a "sick and twisted strategy", but that civilians "got hurt or killed" by the Old IRA. They were TARGETED by the Old IRA. In the same, if not higher proportion than they were targeted by the PIRA did. So you're notion that it's "some leap" between targeting civilians in 1921 and targeting them in 1969 is just a symptom of your complete and utter hypocrisy. With your word games like that you could end up writing headlines for the Indo if you're not careful.

The provisonals deliberately targeted and wanted to kill/injure as as innocent people as possible when they planted bombs in places like Canary Wharf. Is that clear enough? If that's not terrorism, what is? Clearly we aren't going to agree on this so I'll be saying no more on this

There's

Is that why they phoned in warnings for those bombs?

You really immune to bombing/killing in the north. A bomb has only one purpose, to detonate and kill/destroy anything in it's area. I'm not aware of any military targets in Canary Wharf. Lots of normal office workers based around there.

Gerry Adams did say the bombing was the fault of the British government so maybe I'm wrong blaming the IRA

It was a very strategic target that impacted the financial economy of the City of London greatly and certainly got the Brits to the table.

Not like the Brits to bomb factories and the likes during WW2 and various different infrastructure in Iraq and the likes.

[tonto1888]

Acknowledging the victims of the Provos were real people must not be allowed

They must be airbrushed from history

Did you know him dublin7, sounds like you did or did you copy paste that out of a newspaper clipping.

He clearly and went and googled the victims

Yeah, this is a lie.

What are you on about now?

[sid waddell]

Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.

A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership

[johnnycool]

Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.

A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership

Ha ha, Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Snapchap]

Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.

A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership

You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.

[GetOverTheBar]

Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.

A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership

Not strictly true, Michelle O'Neill father, uncle and cousin(s) were deeply involved in the troubles.

[sid waddell]

Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.

A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership

You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.

If you didn't want to be accused of doing that, you shouldn't have done it

A bit how if the PIRA don't want to be accused of being murderers, they shouldn't have been a murder gang

Anyway, I thought you were ignoring me?

Doesn't look like it