Are the IRA Heroes?

[The Alexanderians]

And I was asking for the whole song.

here's a lyric video by 1916 their version is my favorite but Scythian has a more traditional one.

[Glasgia]

Tiocfaidh ár lá, but not with rifles and nail bombs. Before the Sabotage Campaign, the IRA were heroes and they fought valiantly for a united Ireland. Without them, the majority Irish people would've endured many more years of oppression and prejudice - Unfortunately, their fight was ended by those who had previously fought with them and terror allowed to continue unhindered in the north. However, with the inclusion of some incidents previous, after the civil war the IRA turned on those who the Irish people and formed their own campaign of terror - Abandoning their championing of the Irish workers and protection of Catholics in the north, in exchange for an offensive conflict and pure terrorism.

And I was asking for the whole song.

OOOoooooohhhh

Come out come out ye Black and Tans, come out and fight me like a man,
Show your wives how you medals out in Flanders,
Tell them how the IRA, made you run the hell away,
Through the green and lovely lanes of Killeshandra

[Dumb Ideologies]

Murderers who brought grief to countless families and suffering to their own people.

[Glasgia]

I feel like I need to repeat my point and differentiate.

The original IRA fought from 1917 to 1922 and were successful in securing the independence of the south of Ireland from British rule.

In 1922 the IRA split between those who opposed the Anglo-Irish treaty and the partition of Ireland, the "irregulars", and pro-treaty National Army. Those who didn't defect to the Irish Free State were defeated in the Irish Civil War by the British-backed National Army.

Following the civil war, the remaining IRA moved towards social activism in Ireland - often protecting the rights of small farmers against landowners - and protecting the Catholic population in the north of Ireland against sectarian violence.

After being banned by de Valera's government, the IRA began to lose it's core political support and became more militant. Between 1935 and 1969, the IRA conducted multiple "sabotage" (feel free to interpret this either as terrorism or freedom fighting) campaigns against the British state as well as opposition to them in the Irish government.

In 1969, a split in the IRA formed between the "official" - a Marxist group who believed violence worked against the working class on both sides of the divide and wanted to form a parliamentary group- and the "provisional". It was the PIRA who continued the fight against the British and Protestant presence in the north of Ireland until 1997 and the Good Friday Agreement.

Since the ceasefire with the provisional, many splinter groups such as the RIRA have attempted to continue the IRA's legacy - mostly without success.

I believe that the IRA were in the right during the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War - Although whether some individual members can be seen as heroes is certainly questionable. Following that, I support much of their work until the split of much of the organisation's left wing in the 30s and the descent in backwards-looking conservative nationalism and ultimately terrorism.

[New Yuktobanian Republics]

Terrorists still.
All of em.

#RuleBritannia

[The Alexanderians]

Terrorists still.
All of em.

#RuleBritannia

#Ifeelawhiskeyfueledteaspartycomingon

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Depends entirely on who you ask.

To the more fervent Republican, the IRA are heroes. To protestants, the IRA are villains. To me, the IRA have some valid grievances, but their methods of solving these grievances are not commendable.

[United Marxist Nations]

Depends entirely on who you ask.

To the more fervent Republican, the IRA are heroes. To protestants, the IRA are villains. To me, the IRA have some valid grievances, but their methods of solving these grievances are not commendable.

While I do think they should have limited their attacks only to the British Army and the Unionist paramilitaries, there was really no recourse except for violent action; Bloody Sunday proved that.

[Novus America]

I feel like I need to repeat my point and differentiate.

The original IRA fought from 1917 to 1922 and were successful in securing the independence of the south of Ireland from British rule.

In 1922 the IRA split between those who opposed the Anglo-Irish treaty and the partition of Ireland, the "irregulars", and pro-treaty National Army. Those who didn't defect to the Irish Free State were defeated in the Irish Civil War by the British-backed National Army.

Following the civil war, the remaining IRA moved towards social activism in Ireland - often protecting the rights of small farmers against landowners - and protecting the Catholic population in the north of Ireland against sectarian violence.

After being banned by de Valera's government, the IRA began to lose it's core political support and became more militant. Between 1935 and 1969, the IRA conducted multiple "sabotage" (feel free to interpret this either as terrorism or freedom fighting) campaigns against the British state as well as opposition to them in the Irish government.

In 1969, a split in the IRA formed between the "official" - a Marxist group who believed violence worked against the working class on both sides of the divide and wanted to form a parliamentary group- and the "provisional". It was the PIRA who continued the fight against the British and Protestant presence in the north of Ireland until 1997 and the Good Friday Agreement.

Since the ceasefire with the provisional, many splinter groups such as the RIRA have attempted to continue the IRA's legacy - mostly without success.

I believe that the IRA were in the right during the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War - Although whether some individual members can be seen as heroes is certainly questionable. Following that, I support much of their work until the split of much of the organisation's left wing in the 30s and the descent in backwards-looking conservative nationalism and ultimately terrorism.

How were they right in the Civil War? The Anglo-Irish Treaty was the best deal possible for Ireland. Any reasonable person was surprised Ireland got so much. The British were not leaving the North, and the Irish had no way to take the North. It simply was not going to happen.

Ireland had suffered so much harm, it needed peace. The last thing it needed was Irish killing Irish. An "IRA" victory in the Civil War would have resulted in a return of Brtish occupation. it would have been a disaster and likely the end of Irish independence. It would have NEVER won one inch of Northern Ireland.

I mean again, Americans did not murder George Washintgton because he failed to get Canada.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Depends entirely on who you ask.

To the more fervent Republican, the IRA are heroes. To protestants, the IRA are villains. To me, the IRA have some valid grievances, but their methods of solving these grievances are not commendable.

While I do think they should have limited their attacks only to the British Army and the Unionist paramilitaries, there was really no recourse except for violent action; Bloody Sunday proved that.

So you feel it was justified?

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I feel like I need to repeat my point and differentiate.

The original IRA fought from 1917 to 1922 and were successful in securing the independence of the south of Ireland from British rule.

In 1922 the IRA split between those who opposed the Anglo-Irish treaty and the partition of Ireland, the "irregulars", and pro-treaty National Army. Those who didn't defect to the Irish Free State were defeated in the Irish Civil War by the British-backed National Army.

Following the civil war, the remaining IRA moved towards social activism in Ireland - often protecting the rights of small farmers against landowners - and protecting the Catholic population in the north of Ireland against sectarian violence.

After being banned by de Valera's government, the IRA began to lose it's core political support and became more militant. Between 1935 and 1969, the IRA conducted multiple "sabotage" (feel free to interpret this either as terrorism or freedom fighting) campaigns against the British state as well as opposition to them in the Irish government.

In 1969, a split in the IRA formed between the "official" - a Marxist group who believed violence worked against the working class on both sides of the divide and wanted to form a parliamentary group- and the "provisional". It was the PIRA who continued the fight against the British and Protestant presence in the north of Ireland until 1997 and the Good Friday Agreement.

Since the ceasefire with the provisional, many splinter groups such as the RIRA have attempted to continue the IRA's legacy - mostly without success.

I believe that the IRA were in the right during the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War - Although whether some individual members can be seen as heroes is certainly questionable. Following that, I support much of their work until the split of much of the organisation's left wing in the 30s and the descent in backwards-looking conservative nationalism and ultimately terrorism.

How were they right in the Civil War? The Anglo-Irish Treaty was the best deal possible for Ireland. Any reasonable person was surprised Ireland got so much. The British were not leaving the North, and the Irish had no way to take the North. It simply was not going to happen.

Ireland had suffered so much harm, it needed peace. The last thing it needed was Irish killing Irish. An "IRA" victory in the Civil War would have resulted in a return of Brtish occupation. it would have been a disaster and likely the end of Irish independence. It would have NEVER won one inch of Northern Ireland.

I mean again, Americans did not murder George Washintgton because he failed to get Canada.

I agree. I think that whilst the Anglo-Irish Treaty was flawed and did not grant Ireland total independence, I think that- for the time- it was the best deal possible, for both the North and the South. Even Michael Collins viewed the Treaty as a temporary measure, hoping to revise it over time to eventual sovereignty. It was de Valera with his rather scheming ways that ultimately ended any hope of peace.

[Novus America]

Depends entirely on who you ask.

To the more fervent Republican, the IRA are heroes. To protestants, the IRA are villains. To me, the IRA have some valid grievances, but their methods of solving these grievances are not commendable.

While I do think they should have limited their attacks only to the British Army and the Unionist paramilitaries, there was really no recourse except for violent action; Bloody Sunday proved that.

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.

[United Marxist Nations]

While I do think they should have limited their attacks only to the British Army and the Unionist paramilitaries, there was really no recourse except for violent action; Bloody Sunday proved that.

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.

Hence why I just said I don't approve of that. What I approve of are the attacks on the British Army and Loyalist Paramilitaries (the latter of which primarily targeted civilians, unlike the IRA).

[Novus America]

How were they right in the Civil War? The Anglo-Irish Treaty was the best deal possible for Ireland. Any reasonable person was surprised Ireland got so much. The British were not leaving the North, and the Irish had no way to take the North. It simply was not going to happen.

Ireland had suffered so much harm, it needed peace. The last thing it needed was Irish killing Irish. An "IRA" victory in the Civil War would have resulted in a return of Brtish occupation. it would have been a disaster and likely the end of Irish independence. It would have NEVER won one inch of Northern Ireland.

I mean again, Americans did not murder George Washintgton because he failed to get Canada.

I agree. I think that whilst the Anglo-Irish Treaty was flawed and did not grant Ireland total independence, I think that- for the time- it was the best deal possible, for both the North and the South. Even Michael Collins viewed the Treaty as a temporary measure, hoping to revise it over time to eventual sovereignty. It was de Valera with his rather scheming ways that ultimately ended any hope of peace.

"[The treaty is] not the ultimate freedom that all nations aspire and develop, but the freedom to achieve freedom."

Michael Collins

Britain still had overwhelming military superiority, so some sort of negotiated truce was the only hope for peace. Had the treaty not been signed the war would have continued, and Ireland would have only lost more lives with nothing gained.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I agree. I think that whilst the Anglo-Irish Treaty was flawed and did not grant Ireland total independence, I think that- for the time- it was the best deal possible, for both the North and the South. Even Michael Collins viewed the Treaty as a temporary measure, hoping to revise it over time to eventual sovereignty. It was de Valera with his rather scheming ways that ultimately ended any hope of peace.

"[The treaty is] not the ultimate freedom that all nations aspire and develop, but the freedom to achieve freedom."

Michael Collins

Britain still had overwhelming military superiority, so some sort of negotiated truce was the only hope for peace. Had the treaty not been signed the war would have continued, and Ireland would have only lost more lives with nothing gained.

Most likely, yes.

[Glasgia]

I feel like I need to repeat my point and differentiate.

The original IRA fought from 1917 to 1922 and were successful in securing the independence of the south of Ireland from British rule.

In 1922 the IRA split between those who opposed the Anglo-Irish treaty and the partition of Ireland, the "irregulars", and pro-treaty National Army. Those who didn't defect to the Irish Free State were defeated in the Irish Civil War by the British-backed National Army.

Following the civil war, the remaining IRA moved towards social activism in Ireland - often protecting the rights of small farmers against landowners - and protecting the Catholic population in the north of Ireland against sectarian violence.

After being banned by de Valera's government, the IRA began to lose it's core political support and became more militant. Between 1935 and 1969, the IRA conducted multiple "sabotage" (feel free to interpret this either as terrorism or freedom fighting) campaigns against the British state as well as opposition to them in the Irish government.

In 1969, a split in the IRA formed between the "official" - a Marxist group who believed violence worked against the working class on both sides of the divide and wanted to form a parliamentary group- and the "provisional". It was the PIRA who continued the fight against the British and Protestant presence in the north of Ireland until 1997 and the Good Friday Agreement.

Since the ceasefire with the provisional, many splinter groups such as the RIRA have attempted to continue the IRA's legacy - mostly without success.

I believe that the IRA were in the right during the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War - Although whether some individual members can be seen as heroes is certainly questionable. Following that, I support much of their work until the split of much of the organisation's left wing in the 30s and the descent in backwards-looking conservative nationalism and ultimately terrorism.

How were they right in the Civil War? The Anglo-Irish Treaty was the best deal possible for Ireland. Any reasonable person was surprised Ireland got so much. The British were not leaving the North, and the Irish had no way to take the North. It simply was not going to happen.

Ireland had suffered so much harm, it needed peace. The last thing it needed was Irish killing Irish. An "IRA" victory in the Civil War would have resulted in a return of Brtish occupation. it would have been a disaster and likely the end of Irish independence. It would have NEVER won one inch of Northern Ireland.

I mean again, Americans did not murder George Washintgton because he failed to get Canada.

I am saddened by the loss of Michael Collins in the fighting - However, he was not murdered. It was war and he was a casualty.

The Anglo-Irish treaty enforced the sectarian divide already present in Ireland. It served as a mandate for the terrorisation of Irish Catholics in the north, defining the new "Northern Irish" state as a Protestant one and therefore ensuring that the state would continue the oppression of Catholics in the period following - And similarly, it allowed Protestants in the south to be viewed as "non-Irish" and persecuted the same. Although a continuation of the war would've been harsh on Irish people both sides of the border, it was necessary to prevent the mess that ensued - Creating a united Irish state, rather than a distinctly Catholic "free state" in the south and a distinctly Protestant "Northern Irish" state in the north.

[New Werpland]

no

[Novus America]

How were they right in the Civil War? The Anglo-Irish Treaty was the best deal possible for Ireland. Any reasonable person was surprised Ireland got so much. The British were not leaving the North, and the Irish had no way to take the North. It simply was not going to happen.

Ireland had suffered so much harm, it needed peace. The last thing it needed was Irish killing Irish. An "IRA" victory in the Civil War would have resulted in a return of Brtish occupation. it would have been a disaster and likely the end of Irish independence. It would have NEVER won one inch of Northern Ireland.

I mean again, Americans did not murder George Washintgton because he failed to get Canada.

I am saddened by the loss of Michael Collins in the fighting - However, he was not murdered. It was war and he was a casualty.

The Anglo-Irish treaty enforced the sectarian divide already present in Ireland. It served as a mandate for the terrorisation of Irish Catholics in the north, defining the new "Northern Irish" state as a Protestant one and therefore ensuring that the state would continue the oppression of Catholics in the period following - And similarly, it allowed Protestants in the south to be viewed as "non-Irish" and persecuted the same. Although a continuation of the war would've been harsh on Irish people both sides of the border, it was necessary to prevent the mess that ensued - Creating a united Irish state, rather than a distinctly Catholic "free state" in the south and a distinctly Protestant "Northern Irish" state in the north.

He was not killed on the battlefield. And killing him was unnecessary and served no purpose. Killing can be murder in the context of war. Again this is like the American revolutionaries killing George Washington.

A United Irish State independent of the UK was simply NEVER going to happen. More fighting would have NEVER achieved that. All or nothing is stupid when you are guaranteed to get nothing. How could have more fighting achieved a United Ireland? The British and the majority of people in Northern Ireland would never had accepted that, no matter how much the fighting dragged on. Plus it is not like the war was going that well for Ireland at the time of the treaty. Had the fighting continued Ireland would have lost more territory and freedom, and perhaps independence altogether. Had the Irish occupied Belfast and forced the British Army to surrender it might be different. But that is not the situation when the treaty was signed, the Irish forces were short on men and weapons and posed no threat to the British control of the North. The IRA taking the North was NOT going to happen any more than pigs were going to fly. The treaty did not cause the sectarian divide. It was already there and not going away. More fighting would have just made it worse.

Fighting for the impossible is simply a waste of lives. Again nobody says the Anglo-Irish treaty was perfect. But it was the best Ireland was ever going to get. More fighting would not have gained anything, and likely have lost everything.

[Ardoki]

While I do think they should have limited their attacks only to the British Army and the Unionist paramilitaries, there was really no recourse except for violent action; Bloody Sunday proved that.

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.

Casualty Responsibilities
Republican paramilitary groups 2058
Loyalist paramilitary groups 1026
British security forces 363

Of those killed by British security forces:
187 (~51.5%) were civilians
145 (~39.9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
18 (~4.9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
13 (~3.5%) were fellow members of the British security forces

Of those killed by Republican Parties:
1080 (~52%) were members/former members of the British security forces
723 (~35%) were civilians
187 (~9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
57 (~2.7%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
11 (~0.5%) were members of the Irish security forc

All these numbers are too high, but it appears the Republicans killed more civilians and Irish people

They killed fewer civilians as a ratio to total casualties compared to either the security forces, and, especially, the Loyalist militias, which you left out:

Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries:

877 (~85.4%) were civilians
94 (~9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
41 (~4%) were members of republican paramilitaries
14 (~1%) were members of the British security forces

[WCJNSTBH]

Gerry Adams, ex-IRA member, patriot, and hero to the Irish people. It was only in 2006 that he was removed from the US terrorist watchlist, something I find he should have never been on in the first place.

The Irish Republican Army, from '17 to '94 they fought to free my beautiful country, but alas the terrorist armies of Britannia were victorious.

That wasn't the case for the first War of Independence when Britannia's sons were forced back to London, and the RA was victorious. The Brits have called them terrorists in spite of their heroic victory, so NSG, do you think the RA were terrorists, or heroes?

If you couldn't tell, I find them to be incredibly heroic and its no surprise the people of Ireland love them. Tiocfaidh Ar La! Sing up the RA!

They are Heroes.
They fine examples of men of Action.
They are criminals.
They are prime examples violent men making violence upon their fellow man, over nothing more precious than dirt.

Rather, the answer to your question depends entirely on where you are standing. They are not one thing to all people.

[Reutoa]

Fvck them all to hell, one killed my third cousin in those stupid bombings in United Kingdom that they claim to be "Freeing Ireland", I hope they all go to hell, and don't get special treatment from the devil!



These Idiots think that United Kingdom is forcing Northern Ireland to stay in the U.K., when 80% want to stay, those guys are terrorists that need to pay for there crimes.



God Save Queen and Country!

[The New Sea Territory]

I tend to side for Ireland in most Northern Ireland debates, but it would be a stretch to call the IRA "heroes". "Anti-heroes" would probably fit more.

[MrBone]

Their cause is just but ill-done.

[Mushrenia]

If necklacing makes an extremist into a saint, then I suppose car bombings make extremists into heroes.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

They're terrorists. Not freedom fighters.

They're not mutually exclusive.