• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

More justifiable: PIRA or OIRA campaign?


Concerned Irishman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
1,307
With iterations of the political wings of both organizations (SF in the north, and sticky-controlled Labour in the south) in Government on both sides of the border, is the time right to appraise the aims and methods of both the OIRA and the PIRA in relation to one another, given that the split was for ideological, tactical and strategic visions. Did either organization achieve what it set out to do? To what extent did their purposes change?

Was the split even necessary in the end? The Shinners seem to have come to the same conclusions the Stickies did about the legitimacy of NI etc, only several decades later. Makes you wonder if any of the feuding and death even meant anything in the end
 


R

Ramps

The taking of human life is only justified in the most grave of circumstances AND where there is no peaceful alternative, even if that route is slow and tedious. Violence in Ireland, north and south, was never justified, in my opinion, since Irish people had political avenues open to them and never faced injustices on a scale that required killing and maiming.

Both versions of the IRA learned this eventually. Violence always brings unforeseen bitterness and division.
 

irishpancake

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
17,837
The taking of human life is only justified in the most grave of circumstances AND where there is no peaceful alternative, even if that route is slow and tedious. Violence in Ireland, north and south, was never justified, in my opinion, since Irish people had political avenues open to them and never faced injustices on a scale that required killing and maiming.

Both versions of the IRA learned this eventually. Violence always brings unforeseen bitterness and division.
And what then of the Real OIRA....




 
R

Ramps

And what then of the Real OIRA....




Unjustified also. If MLK was happy to use peaceful methods to remedy the injustices those he represented faced, then I think Irish people could have done the same.

Note: I think you could reasonably defend those who used violence in the very early days of the Troubles in NI, when the situation was very volatile and the State's response was inadequate; but I differentiate between those "defensive" actions and the muderous campaign to bring about a UI against the wishes of the majority of people in NI that later emerged.
 

bye bye mubarak

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
3,454
The taking of human life is only justified in the most grave of circumstances AND where there is no peaceful alternative, even if that route is slow and tedious. Violence in Ireland, north and south, was never justified, in my opinion, since Irish people had political avenues open to them and never faced injustices on a scale that required killing and maiming.

Both versions of the IRA learned this eventually. Violence always brings unforeseen bitterness and division.
Romantics illusion I'm afraid. The achievement of an Irish Republic would not have happened only for armed violence. As for the North, when the two were one IRA the arguement was made not to move arms into the north, but the continued violence of state oppression and UVF bombs and sectarian murders, meant the people up there needed defending.
 

ned green

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
2,120
Both wings appear very comfortable in government,the Provos share power in Stormont with the DUP,and the Stickies are enjoying the trappings of power alongside their Blueshirt partners in the Dail.Its a pity that both are implementing cutbacks and austerity in both jurisdictions.
 

Seanie Lemass

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
20,128
Romantics illusion I'm afraid. The achievement of an Irish Republic would not have happened only for armed violence. As for the North, when the two were one IRA the arguement was made not to move arms into the north, but the continued violence of state oppression and UVF bombs and sectarian murders, meant the people up there needed defending.

In 1969 Goulding had been persuaded by the Communist Party line that moderate demands for civil rights would unite the working class. Some of those geniuses as late as 1968 were describing Paisleyism as a potentially 'progressive' element because they were breaking up the Unionist party! They also blamed the 'ultra leftists' in Peoples Democracy and 'right wing Catholics' for the violence and for having 'provoked' the loyalists :roll:

In fairness when this was exposed as a crock of snake oil, the stickies did attempt some form of resistance alongside the more effective Provos but the Stalinist contagion had taken too deep a hold by that stage and they were more interested in killing other republicans than taking on the Brits and continued to do that for years after their so-called ceasefire which applied to no-body except the Brits and the loyalist death squads.
 

Concerned Irishman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
1,307
But they still came to the same conclusions in fairness. SF and DL anyway (perhaps not the WP) aren't a million miles away from each other in terms of anything really, are they?
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,156
Romantics illusion I'm afraid. The achievement of an Irish Republic would not have happened only for armed violence. As for the North, when the two were one IRA the arguement was made not to move arms into the north, but the continued violence of state oppression and UVF bombs and sectarian murders, meant the people up there needed defending.
Certainly a self governing Ireland was an achievement but the Republic was declared by a bunch of right-wing ultra -Catholics in cohoots with a deluded supposedly leftwing party whose members thought you could be a Republican while putting your loyalty to your church ahead of your loyalty to the nation-the mind boggles.No thought was given to the fact that this further distanced us from the goal of uniting Ireland some day and is a fair indication of how far down the list of priorities this was for these Rome Rulers especially as FF had refrained from doing so for that very reason.Harry W has put his finger on it recently when he said that FG ,being challenged on their Republican credentials ,decided to play the green card in the hope of improving their image in this regard.Sordid stuff.

The whole Republican agenda,despite its declared aims,has resulted in what could be the permanent division of Ireland into two political entities.I can imagine that after a century of attempting to get our own government here there was a huge sense of relief that it had finally come for most of the country-almost that we could breathe again having devoted so much of our political effort to its achievement.But the unquestioning acceptance of the Republican side of the story has resulted in their being so confident of their righteousness that they dont need the permission of the people to wage war -against our fellow Irish no less.Whatever about the Rome Rulers the Republicans are way out ahead when it comes to sowing the seeds of division on our island.
 

irishpancake

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
17,837
Unjustified also. If MLK was happy to use peaceful methods to remedy the injustices those he represented faced, then I think Irish people could have done the same.

Note: I think you could reasonably defend those who used violence in the very early days of the Troubles in NI, when the situation was very volatile and the State's response was inadequate; but I differentiate between those "defensive" actions and the muderous campaign to bring about a UI against the wishes of the majority of people in NI that later emerged.
I find it slightly peculiar that you feel there was some justification for the O/PIRA violence in the early days of the just past Northern conflict, but find that the so-called Old IRA, were unjustified, when fighting in a War of Independence, with the mandate of the First Dáil, Sinn Féin having democratically scooped the Irish seats in the 1918 GE.

It's an interesting POV to have, considering the Democratic mandate the Old IRA claimed in the War against the British.

Interesting broadcast here from the RTE Archives

Dáil Éireann 1919 - RTÉ Archives


Members of the First Dáil, 10 April 1919

First row, left to right: Laurence Ginnell, Michael Collins, Cathal Brugha, Arthur Griffith, Éamon de Valera, Count Plunkett, Eoin MacNeill, W. T. Cosgrave and Ernest Blythe. Kevin O'Higgins is in the third row (right)

See here

Perhaps if we are lucky at some stage in the future, the descendants of these men, in FFG might again form a Government, or Opposition, and we can start real Politics in this Republic, at last.

Maybe, even now, Labour can stop waiting, though I doubt it very much.

Of course, using MLK as an example for actions taken long before he was born, is ever so slightly irrelevent??

But, of course, NICRA and PD did attempt to utilise the peaceful civil rights methods espoused by King and indeed Gandhi..........

only to be met with such a violent reaction from the forces of "Law and Order", RUC, B-Men, Paislyites, and the assembled Loyalist Paramilitaries, culminating with the Ultimate Solution of the Para's in Derry in 1972.









The Victims


So, where does one go then??? The back of the bus??
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,156
I find it slightly peculiar that you feel there was some justification for the O/PIRA violence in the early days of the just past Northern conflict, but find that the so-called Old IRA, were unjustified, when fighting in a War of Independence, with the mandate of the First Dáil, Sinn Féin having democratically scooped the Irish seats in the 1918 GE.

It's an interesting POV to have, considering the Democratic mandate the Old IRA claimed in the War against the British.

Interesting broadcast here from the RTE Archives

Dáil Éireann 1919 - RTÉ Archives


Members of the First Dáil, 10 April 1919

First row, left to right: Laurence Ginnell, Michael Collins, Cathal Brugha, Arthur Griffith, Éamon de Valera, Count Plunkett, Eoin MacNeill, W. T. Cosgrave and Ernest Blythe. Kevin O'Higgins is in the third row (right)

See here

Perhaps if we are lucky at some stage in the future, the descendants of these men, in FFG might again form a Government, or Opposition, and we can start real Politics in this Republic, at last.

Maybe, even now, Labour can stop waiting, though I doubt it very much.

Of course, using MLK as an example for actions taken long before he was born, is ever so slightly irrelevent??

But, of course, NICRA and PD did attempt to utilise the peaceful civil rights methods espoused by King and indeed Gandhi..........

only to be met with such a violent reaction from the forces of "Law and Order", RUC, B-Men, Paislyites, and the assembled Loyalist Paramilitaries, culminating with the Ultimate Solution of the Para's in Derry in 1972.









The Victims


So, where does one go then??? The back of the bus??
There's no doubt thet Bloody Sunday escalated the troubles out of all proportion for exactly the reasons you say.What were Nationalists to do when the peaceful route was denied them.It was bound to result in violence whether justified or not and it is to the eternal credit of the stickies that they called a ceasefire later that year even if it was only after two very nasty actions against the British Army had lost them support.How much could we all have been saved if the others had had a similar ability to see the futility of it.
 

Tommythesash

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
5,214
The taking of human life is only justified in the most grave of circumstances AND where there is no peaceful alternative, even if that route is slow and tedious. Violence in Ireland, north and south, was never justified, in my opinion, since Irish people had political avenues open to them and never faced injustices on a scale that required killing and maiming.
The mother of all political avenues, democracy itself, was completely ignored by the British after the Irish general election of 1918 saw 46.9% of the vote go to Sinn Fein. What other political avenue was left?
 

Lain2016

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
7,713
The taking of human life is only justified in the most grave of circumstances AND where there is no peaceful alternative, even if that route is slow and tedious. Violence in Ireland, north and south, was never justified, in my opinion, since Irish people had political avenues open to them and never faced injustices on a scale that required killing and maiming.

Both versions of the IRA learned this eventually. Violence always brings unforeseen bitterness and division.
If your arguement is about the morality of using violence then you are putting yourself on the same side of the moral arguement as the IRA, the Brits and so on.

The only question here is whether the taking of human life is right in ANY circumstance.

After that you are merely down to political bias and/or current fashions and fads.

Iow you have to be a genuine pacifist...

imo pacifism is immoral...
 

irishpancake

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
17,837
There's no doubt thet Bloody Sunday escalated the troubles out of all proportion for exactly the reasons you say.What were Nationalists to do when the peaceful route was denied them.It was bound to result in violence whether justified or not and it is to the eternal credit of the stickies that they called a ceasefire later that year even if it was only after two very nasty actions against the British Army had lost them support.How much could we all have been saved if the others had had a similar ability to see the futility of it.
[Just an aside, I know most ppl use Nationalist/Nationalist People/Catholic as a descriptive term for Republicans in the Northern context, and I understand it.

But I would not be in any hurry to rally to any Nationalist flag...whether it is Golden Dawn in Greece, or Serbian or Croatian in the Balkans, or indeed the potential disaster that is Cyprus....ppl forget that it is not long since internecine violence lead to that Island's partition into Greek and Turkish States....and that the Greek fighters EOKA, were rabidly Right-wing Nationalists, whose ultimate aim was enosis, Union with Greece, the end of British Rule and Independence, leading to that Union with Greece, despite the other Community's wishes]

However, I got side-tracked, as usual!!! sorry

You ask a question....

What were Nationalists to do when a peaceful route was denied them??

You understand the violence which ensued, and then you say it is to the eternal credit of the Sticky OIRA faction that they called a ceasefire.

Did this stop the violence?

Who did they cease firing on?

And who did they train their non-decommissioned weapons on?

Did they not lose support from the Republican population, thereby becoming a discredited force, who descended to a cycle of violence and assassination against their one-time comrades.

Can you see why I might wonder about their ability to see the futility of violence....

after all, no-one could ever accuse the Sticks of being pacifists, right?

Which leads nicely to the OP's questions: and some other questions which follow on from there.

Was the split even necessary in the end? The Shinners seem to have come to the same conclusions the Stickies did about the legitimacy of NI etc, only several decades later. Makes you wonder if any of the feuding and death even meant anything in the end
Have the "Shinners" come to the same conclusions about the legitimacy of the Six County State?

Did the Stickies ever believe the NI State was illegitimate?

Or had they another, Stalinist agenda, which even saw elements in extreme Loyalism, as the UWC, etc as allies in a workers struggle??

Also, their espousal of and encouragement of policies by Ministers such as CCO'B, in muzzling the voices of those involved in the physical force struggle in NI.

Their infiltration of the Irish Labour Party is the culmination of 30 years of dismantling parties they have been involved with, OSF/SF-WP/WP/NA/DL.....and now the Labour Party, who can no longer claim to have a "clean record" in relation to their political evolution to this point.

It is an interesting topic.

Thanks to the OP.
 

mangaire1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,330
the IRA campaign of the late 20th century has brought significant advances to the Nationalist population trapped in the secterian Six County statelet,
& IMO advanced the day of the eventual ending of British rule in Ireland.

the Stickies - well Gilmore, Rabitte & Co have their fat arses comfortably placed on nice soft Ministerial seats, & boy - aren't they enjoying it !
 

Dimples 77

Duplicate Account
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
19,445
The taking of human life is only justified in the most grave of circumstances AND where there is no peaceful alternative, even if that route is slow and tedious. Violence in Ireland, north and south, was never justified, in my opinion, since Irish people had political avenues open to them and never faced injustices on a scale that required killing and maiming.

Both versions of the IRA learned this eventually. Violence always brings unforeseen bitterness and division.


Division that put a UI back by decades, if not centuries.
 

Dimples 77

Duplicate Account
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
19,445
The mother of all political avenues, democracy itself, was completely ignored by the British after the Irish general election of 1918 saw 46.9% of the vote go to Sinn Fein. What other political avenue was left?
46.9% on the island of Ireland that is. A small subset of the whole UK election. It wasn't an Irish general election.

And even on the island of Ireland they didn't get 50%+1.
 

Dimples 77

Duplicate Account
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
19,445
If your arguement is about the morality of using violence then you are putting yourself on the same side of the moral arguement as the IRA, the Brits and so on.

The only question here is whether the taking of human life is right in ANY circumstance.

After that you are merely down to political bias and/or current fashions and fads.

Iow you have to be a genuine pacifist...

imo pacifism is immoral...


You say:
The only question here is whether the taking of human life is right in ANY circumstance.

I disagree. Ramps had it right -
The taking of human life is only justified in the most grave of circumstances AND where there is no peaceful alternative
 

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top