Are the IRA Heroes?

[Wanderjar]

They're terrorists. Not freedom fighters.

They're not mutually exclusive.

Yes they are. The IRA are criminals and terrorists. Northern Ireland has repeatedly stressed that they don't want to be part of the Republic. That's been the case since the 'Home Rule' argument since 1912. The IRA are nothing but thugs and murderers, there is nothing about them to admire whatsoever.

[The New Sea Territory]

They're not mutually exclusive.

Yes they are. The IRA are criminals and terrorists. Northern Ireland has repeatedly stressed that they don't want to be part of the Republic. That's been the case since the 'Home Rule' argument since 1912. The IRA are nothing but thugs and murderers, there is nothing about them to admire whatsoever.

All revolutions are lead and fought by "thugs and murderers". "Terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are both loaded terms.

[Wanderjar]

Yes they are. The IRA are criminals and terrorists. Northern Ireland has repeatedly stressed that they don't want to be part of the Republic. That's been the case since the 'Home Rule' argument since 1912. The IRA are nothing but thugs and murderers, there is nothing about them to admire whatsoever.

All revolutions are lead and fought by "thugs and murderers". "Terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are both loaded terms.

I fail to see the distinction. Blowing up innocent people, staging riots hoping to get British troops to fire on people, and destroying communities because they're a Protestant majority seems pretty thuggish and terroristic to me.

[Alyakia]

staging riots hoping to get British troops to fire on people

oh please tell me your views on bloody sunday

[The New Sea Territory]

All revolutions are lead and fought by "thugs and murderers". "Terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are both loaded terms.

I fail to see the distinction. Blowing up innocent people, staging riots hoping to get British troops to fire on people, and destroying communities because they're a Protestant majority seems pretty thuggish and terroristic to me.

Right, and literally every revolution in history is guilty of that. People still call the other revolutionaries "freedom fighters". Why don't you stop using loaded terms? The IRA is guilty of plenty of atrocities, but none unique to them from a historical perspective.

More importantly, Protestants and the British sodomized Ireland in the 1600s and 1700s. You can thank people like Oliver Cromwell and Protestant colonists for most of the problems in modern Northern Ireland. They subjugated the Irish Catholic natives and stole their land. So, really, when compared to the amount of destruction that British invaders caused Ireland, what the IRA has done is next to nothing. Stealing land, slaughtering innocent people and British politicians saying that the Potato Famine was God's way of punishing the Irish people "...seems pretty thuggish and terroristic to me".

The point of this is not to say that the IRA is good, but that without British colonialism and militant Protestants, none of these problems would exist. The real blame here is people who have been dead for hundreds of years. Secondly, that there is a serious amount of guilt on both sides of this conflict. Third, the continued use of dramatic language like "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" does nothing but sensationalize what could be a rational conversation.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Yes they are.

Bull shit.

"Freedom fighters" = winners
"Terrorists" = losers

[New Carloso]

The vast majority of people in Ireland do not support the Irish Republican Army. Stating that is a blatant lie. The IRA, just like any paramilitary organisation which were involved in 'The Troubles' were terrorist organisations. This applys to Unionist factions as well though the violence committed by the multiple groups that referred to themselves as IRA is much more infamous.

Source: Am Irish

Also another lie by the now dead OP; the IRA of the War of Independence isn't the same as the terrorists involved in Northern Ireland.

[Toolsbergia]

No.
Northern Ireland belongs to Great Britian, and it should remain that way.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

No.
Northern Ireland belongs to Great Britian, and it should remain that way.

Nowhere should belong to anywhere. Everywhere should belong to its own inhabitants.

[Rostogovia]

I fully support pre good Friday groups (Namely the Provisional IRA .), however I thoroughly condemn the Real IRA and any other dissident group that intentionally targets civilians. The provos limited all of their actions to RUC and Military targets, while The RIRA intentionally targeted civilians. Attacks on British military targets are perfectly justified as per the rules of warfare due to them being an enemy belligerent, but attacks on civilians are never justified.

In short, The Official IRA were heroes of the highest degree, but the RIRA are nothing more than murderous scumbags.

[Ardoki]

The vast majority of people in Ireland do not support the Irish Republican Army. Stating that is a blatant lie. The IRA, just like any paramilitary organisation which were involved in 'The Troubles' were terrorist organisations. This applys to Unionist factions as well though the violence committed by the multiple groups that referred to themselves as IRA is much more infamous.

Source: Am Irish

Also another lie by the now dead OP; the IRA of the War of Independence isn't the same as the terrorists involved in Northern Ireland.

When I visit the family of my mother in Ireland, they seem very pro-Republican and they have made statements supportive of a united Ireland.

[Ardoki]

No.
Northern Ireland belongs to Great Britian, and it should remain that way.

Not if the majority of the people of Ireland want it united.

[New Carloso]

The vast majority of people in Ireland do not support the Irish Republican Army. Stating that is a blatant lie. The IRA, just like any paramilitary organisation which were involved in 'The Troubles' were terrorist organisations. This applys to Unionist factions as well though the violence committed by the multiple groups that referred to themselves as IRA is much more infamous.

Source: Am Irish

Also another lie by the now dead OP; the IRA of the War of Independence isn't the same as the terrorists involved in Northern Ireland.

When I visit the family of my mother in Ireland, they seem very pro-Republican and they have made statements supportive of a united Ireland.

It really depends on where you live and the attitude your relations have towards the north. To be honest, I live about as far away as you can get from Northern Ireland; Co. Waterford. I'm sure people are much more pro-unity in places like Dublin. The last people I can find by Red C in 2010 had 57% of people in the Republic of Ireland voting in favour of unification.

At the end of the day, its a question of whether or not the people of Northern Ireland want. Apparently, they want a border commission to redefine the borders but they flatly refuse to join the rest of Ireland; they're better off economically to stay within the United Kingdom.

[Marcurix]

Again the tactics used are what makes a "terrorist". Causes are often complex and debatable. Deliberately murdering civilians especially your own for political purposes is the very definition of terrorism.

The British army and the Unionist paramilitaries also targeted civilians, in fact they killed a far greater proportion of civilians than Republican paramilitaries did.

A key point your missing here is the tactics used for the British army. Near 300,000 troops passed through N.Ireland during the troubles, and not only did they kill the least of any group, they also didn't go round putting bombs in public places. A key point in terrorism is the terror aspect.

The PIRA killed more civilians than any other group, and the loyalist parliamentarians killed a large number of civilians because they engaged in a similar manner of behaviour.

No.
Northern Ireland belongs to Great Britian, and it should remain that way.

Not if the majority of the people of Ireland want it united.

You mean Northern Ireland.

The vast majority of people in Ireland do not support the Irish Republican Army. Stating that is a blatant lie. The IRA, just like any paramilitary organisation which were involved in 'The Troubles' were terrorist organisations. This applys to Unionist factions as well though the violence committed by the multiple groups that referred to themselves as IRA is much more infamous.

Source: Am Irish

Also another lie by the now dead OP; the IRA of the War of Independence isn't the same as the terrorists involved in Northern Ireland.

When I visit the family of my mother in Ireland, they seem very pro-Republican and they have made statements supportive of a united Ireland.

And?

[Ardoki]

The British army and the Unionist paramilitaries also targeted civilians, in fact they killed a far greater proportion of civilians than Republican paramilitaries did.

A key point your missing here is the tactics used for the British army. Near 300,000 troops passed through N.Ireland during the troubles, and not only did they kill the least of any group, they also didn't go round putting bombs in public places. A key point in terrorism is the terror aspect.

The PIRA killed more civilians than any other group, and the loyalist parliamentarians killed a large number of civilians because they engaged in a similar manner of behaviour.

A greater percentage of British Army victims were civilians, than percentage of IRA victims. The Unionists were even worse.



The IRA were the greater of the three evils (the other two evils being the British Army and the Unionists).

Not if the majority of the people of Ireland want it united.

You mean Northern Ireland.

Nope.

[Marcurix]

A key point your missing here is the tactics used for the British army. Near 300,000 troops passed through N.Ireland during the troubles, and not only did they kill the least of any group, they also didn't go round putting bombs in public places. A key point in terrorism is the terror aspect.

The PIRA killed more civilians than any other group, and the loyalist parliamentarians killed a large number of civilians because they engaged in a similar manner of behaviour.

A greater percentage of British Army victims were civilians, than percentage of IRA victims. The Unionists were even worse.

The IRA were the greater of the three evils (the other two evils being the British Army and the Unionists).

Only if you completely ignore my point, which you seem to have done.

When you grasp that hundreds of thousands of troops took part in this operation, in comparison to a few thousand for the PIRA, you can start to understand the tactics and methods.

Then you'll see why your "greater of three evils" is inherently false, because all you did was look at numbers on a paper.

You mean Northern Ireland.

Nope.

Then your opinion is inherently self-defeating, obstructive and most likely contradictory.

[Ardoki]

A greater percentage of British Army victims were civilians, than percentage of IRA victims. The Unionists were even worse.

The IRA were the greater of the three evils (the other two evils being the British Army and the Unionists).

Only if you completely ignore my point, which you seem to have done.

When you grasp that hundreds of thousands of troops took part in this operation, in comparison to a few thousand for the PIRA, you can start to understand the tactics and methods.

Then you'll see why your "greater of three evils" is inherently false, because all you did was look at numbers on a paper.

If the majority of people the British Army killed are civilians, that isn't good. I understand why you try to justify this mass murder, however I don't subscribe to the twisted logic you do.

It doesn't matter how many soldiers were involved in an operation, if the majority of dead are civilians it is bad in all cases.

[Marcurix]

Only if you completely ignore my point, which you seem to have done.

When you grasp that hundreds of thousands of troops took part in this operation, in comparison to a few thousand for the PIRA, you can start to understand the tactics and methods.

Then you'll see why your "greater of three evils" is inherently false, because all you did was look at numbers on a paper.

If the majority of people the British Army killed are civilians, that isn't good. I understand why you try to justify this mass murder, however I don't subscribe to the twisted logic you do.

It doesn't matter how many soldiers were involved in an operation, if the majority of dead are civilians it is bad in all cases.

You're funny. Really, you are.

Because the inherent ignorance you hold of the situation is astounding. Does it matter how many took part? Yes it does. Why? Because it shuts down your notion of mass murder, at least as a general notion, as something committed as a rule by the British army.

It reveals, should you ever actually decide to research the subject, that the army used inherently less manners of deadly force. They arrested, they followed some rule of law, which is more than can be said of any other group involved in the conflict, they used civilians as cover for example.

Did they fuck up? Sure, doesn't change the fact you were more likely to be killed by an IRA member than a British soldier if you met one in the street.

So just because someone disagrees with you is not twisted logic, rather twisted logic would be what you displayed: holding one level of rights for yourself while denying them to another. That quite twisted, indeed.

Edit:

It should be noted that I do condemn actions of appalling nature committed by any side. But for those who are going to post those numbers and stumble through the "but, but but percentages" jumble are going to be disappointed, that approach has been dismissed, academically and otherwise, because it ignores the tactics, impacts, methods and other such important factors that took place in this conflict.

In short its used to downplay, and it won't be acceptable.

People would do well to realize this is a very recent conflict that's more than a page in a history book, there are many young people alive today, some on this forum, that experienced this.

[Ardoki]

If the majority of people the British Army killed are civilians, that isn't good. I understand why you try to justify this mass murder, however I don't subscribe to the twisted logic you do.

It doesn't matter how many soldiers were involved in an operation, if the majority of dead are civilians it is bad in all cases.

You're funny. Really, you are.

Because the inherent ignorance you hold of the situation is astounding. Does it matter how many took part? Yes it does. Why? Because it shuts down your notion of mass murder, at least as a general notion, as something committed as a rule by the British army.

It reveals, should you ever actually decide to research the subject, that the army used inherently less manners of deadly force. They arrested, they followed some rule of law, which is more than can be said of any other group involved in the conflict, they used civilians as cover for example.

Did they fuck up? Sure, doesn't change the fact you were more likely to be killed by an IRA member than a British soldier if you met one in the street.

So just because someone disagrees with you is not twisted logic, rather twisted logic would be what you displayed: holding one level of rights for yourself while denying them to another. That quite twisted, indeed.

So you are basically saying that because there were a lot of British soldiers in the north of Ireland, it was okay that the majority of their victims were civilians? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying.

[Marcurix]

So you are basically saying that because there were a lot of British soldiers in the north of Ireland, it was okay that the majority of their victims were civilians? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying.

No.

What I've been saying is that if you're only going to pick those numbers off the spreadsheet, and claim evils based solely on percentages, you're going to give a very misleading conclusion on the conflict. Clean one side while dirtying the other.

It's not right, fair, or in anyway reasonable to do that.

[Ardoki]

So you are basically saying that because there were a lot of British soldiers in the north of Ireland, it was okay that the majority of their victims were civilians? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying.

No.

What I've been saying is that if you're only going to pick those numbers off the spreadsheet, and claim evils based solely on percentages, you're going to give a very misleading conclusion on the conflict. Clean one side while dirtying the other.

It's not right, fair, or in anyway reasonable to do that.

You say no, yet everything else you have said points to the opposite conclusion.

[Marcurix]

No.

What I've been saying is that if you're only going to pick those numbers off the spreadsheet, and claim evils based solely on percentages, you're going to give a very misleading conclusion on the conflict. Clean one side while dirtying the other.

It's not right, fair, or in anyway reasonable to do that.

You say no, yet everything else you have said points to the opposite conclusion.

That would be because you're not really getting what I'm saying, or deliberately choosing to ignore it.

Does the number of Britsh soldiers matter? Yes. Did I say that excused the civilians deaths? No.

What I did say was that it pointed to a different use of tactics and such, that disputed your initial claim of lesser evil.

This comes from you taking percentages and asserting something that ignores a range of factors in what was a complex conflict.

[Ardoki]

You say no, yet everything else you have said points to the opposite conclusion.

That would be because you're not really getting what I'm saying, or deliberately choosing to ignore it.

Does the number of Britsh soldiers matter? Yes. Did I say that excused the civilians deaths? No.

What I did say was that it pointed to a different use of tactics and such, that disputed your initial claim of lesser evil.

This comes from you taking percentages and asserting something that ignores a range of factors in what was a complex conflict.

The tactics (means) are irrelevant, what is of more importance is the end result.

[Vallermoore]

One could argue that the 1st IRA was fighting for Irish freedom, but the Provos are terrorist thug gangsters who have no redeeming features whatsoever.

[Marxist Nations]

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. And vise versa.
Overall I'd say I sympathize with the IRA tho.