PDA

View Full Version : IRA Irish Republican Army



kallinikosdrama1992
07-02-2008, 06:19 AM
Any idea of IRA'S armament ??? I know about AR-18 but i would like any more information you have

tankgeezer
07-02-2008, 11:31 AM
Well, last I heard, (for what its worth) they were using whatever they could acquire that served them. Once years ago a man came to my gun shop, and purchased all the .357 mag pistols I had. He did this several times. The ATF locals said to go ahead and sell them, as long as the sales were legitimate, I.D., paperwork, and multi sale reporting etc. They had an idea this man was a buyer for the I.R.A., but needed to investigate to be sure. They never informed me of their findings, but the man never returned.

pdf27
07-02-2008, 12:58 PM
The majority is Soviet-designed weaponry given by Libya in the 1980s (notably Semtex, a Czech product). The rest consists of weaponry obtained legally or otherwise in the US, improvised weapons (notably mortars and VBIEDs - the IRA manufactured nearly all of these in-house) and a small amount stolen in the UK or Irish Republic.

Nickdfresh
07-02-2008, 10:22 PM
I thought they were largely DISarmed... God, I hope they are...

pdf is correct. But the "Armalite" was mainly the M-16, not the AR-18 which never existed in large numbers anyways...

They also had a collection of antiquated weapons such as Thompson sub-machine-guns and Lee Enfields. This in addition to a number of various side-arms which are useful to terrorists/guerrillas...

Chevan
07-02-2008, 11:24 PM
What is the Irish republican army?
Is this official army of Ireland?No.
I think this is pretty gang of partisans rathe than army and as any partisan group they use whatever they might stole, grab and buy .
Once i watched the film where the IRA used the even RPG-7 agains column of Brits.

pdf27
07-03-2008, 01:27 AM
What is the Irish republican army?
Is this official army of Ireland?No.
I think this is pretty gang of partisans rathe than army and as any partisan group they use whatever they might stole, grab and buy .
Once i watched the film where the IRA used the even RPG-7 agains column of Brits.
They're a Marxist terrorist group with the ambition of uniting the island of Ireland under their rule in a one-party state. I'm not aware of them using RPG-7s on any occasions however.

32Bravo
07-03-2008, 03:02 AM
They're a Marxist terrorist group with the ambition of uniting the island of Ireland under their rule in a one-party state. I'm not aware of them using RPG-7s on any occasions however.

Yes. I was fired-on on two occasions back in '72 - '73 (nothing personal :)). That was when the mesh, anti-rocket screens were placed around key points.

The Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA - Provies) were a splinter from the Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA - Stickies). The OIRA decided around '69 not to pursue their aims by use of violence (Neither of these groups were anything to do with the defence forces of the Irish Republic of Eire).

The Provies also had some 0.5 clibre Brownings and an assortment of rifles. Their preferred weapon was the AR18 Armalite. Quite a lot of their weaponry was kept in storage - not used during the campaign - ready for any major conflict with the Protestant para-militaries. one of their main proaganda objectives was to shoot down a British Army helicopter, but I forget which SAM system they possessed.

Both the Provies and the Stickies were, and are, Republican para-military groups.

The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), Ulster Defence Association (UDA), Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) and others were Loyalist or Protestant para-militaries. All of them illegal associations and considered 'terrorist' organisations by the British.

kallinikosdrama1992
07-03-2008, 04:09 AM
Well Chevan i dont agree with you . You mean they are insurgents right ??? You read about Somalia they used to buy guns , not to steel them , AK-47 , G3 , FN's and other guns . Hope you understand these things the way i write them

32Bravo
07-03-2008, 04:49 AM
In reality, each of these groups are racketeers. They each rule their turf with harsh, disciplinary measures. The preferred punishment for minor offences in republican areas is 'knee-capping' (the bullet is usually shot through the knee from the back - some chap had a mishap when he shot into a knee-cap in the Lower Falls, they have been known to use power drills when seriously pissed-off). More serious crimes receive the death sentence and the bodies usally turn up in some roadside ditch. I do recall young girls being tarred and feathered for smiling at soldiers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6966493.stm

http://youtube.com/watch?v=t2IPCtrcFuE

http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF0305/Conroy/Conroy.html

Amrit
07-03-2008, 06:35 AM
The estimates on the types and numbers of weapons acquired by the IRA over the course of the current Troubles (i.e. since 1969) can be found here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/inside/weapons.html#table1

It pretty much corresponds with the Decommissioning bodies comments (they have not released a full inverntory, but have made mention of certain types that they saw), and the Security Forces estimates.

Chevan
07-03-2008, 06:46 AM
They're a Marxist terrorist group with the ambition of uniting the island of Ireland under their rule in a one-party state. I'm not aware of them using RPG-7s on any occasions however.
Marxist?
Never heard about their marxsis or pro-communist roots.
If so the SOviet propogand would PRed them as the "brave insugrents group that fight for social independence... " and other bulsh...t. But i never heard the Soviet Mass media even hinted at it.

32Bravo
07-03-2008, 06:56 AM
The AR-18 is a cheap and sleazy rifle. Intended as a low-cost alternative weapon for countries that could not afford the latest Western rifles, it never achieved commercial success, but it has won a nasty reputation as a terrorist weapon, particularly in the hands of the Provisional IRA. Despite its pressed steel receiver and spot welds, it is a highly effective 5.56-mm rifle. The gun can be broken down for concealment without ruining the zeroing, so it can be pulled out of hiding and used immediately and accurately.


They particularly liked the folding-butt version as it was easier to conceal.
http://www.weaponryonline.com/Reviews-req-showcontent-id-15.html

Amrit
07-03-2008, 07:29 AM
Marxist?
Never heard about their marxsis or pro-communist roots.
If so the SOviet propogand would PRed them as the "brave insugrents group that fight for social independence... " and other bulsh...t. But i never heard the Soviet Mass media even hinted at it.

Not all Marxist organisations were linked with the Soviet Union, nor supported by them. The Official Irish Republican Army was and still is Marxist, in the sense of the 1960s development of western socialist ideology (with it's own interpretation of euro-communism).

The Provisional IRA was and still is an amalgamation of socialistic and religious ideologies, but based upon direct action. Religous sectarianism is at the core of it's rationale but its political manifestos are laced by visions of socialistic ideals rather than catholic religious fundamentalism.

However, the IRA was always pragmatic and it's affiliations, going back most of the C20th would raise eyebrows. Infact, it was more successfulin interesting the Germans in supporting their cause than in interesting the Soviet Union.

pdf27
07-03-2008, 07:34 AM
Yes. I was fired-on on two occasions back in '72 - '73 (nothing personal :)). That was when the mesh, anti-rocket screens were placed around key points.
Yeah, should have remembered that. Still, given that I wasn't born until 1980 some things do tend to be a tadge remote ;)


Marxist?
Never heard about their marxsis or pro-communist roots.
If so the SOviet propogand would PRed them as the "brave insugrents group that fight for social independence... " and other bulsh...t. But i never heard the Soviet Mass media even hinted at it.
Couple of possible reasons for that. The most likely is simply that they were the wrong type of Marxist - the Soviets were never keen on encouraging Communist revolutions where the wrong type of Communist (i.e. one who wouldn't follow their instructions) was in charge. Hence if the IRA were ideologically closer to say Tito or Mao they wouldn't get Soviet support.
The other possibility is that they were simply scared of giving non-Russian nationalities within the Soviet Union the idea that taking up an "armed struggle" for independence from the Soviet Union was possible. Given that the Soviet Union had perpetual problems with unruly nationalities within it (e.g. the Chechens today), I can see them being less than keen on supporting an organisation like the IRA.

pdf27
07-03-2008, 07:37 AM
The Provisional IRA was and still is an amalgamation of socialistic and religious ideologies, but based upon direct action. Religous sectarianism is at the core of it's rationale but its political manifestos are laced by visions of socialistic ideals rather than catholic religious fundamentalism.
Quite. Which can produce some funny moments, as when Sinn Fein's* official ambassador to Cuba was arrested with a couple of known IRA bomb-makers while on a visit to the FARC narco-terrorist group in Columbia. Funnily enough this didn't go down well with the United States!

* Sinn Fein are the political wing of the Provisional IRA, and the leader of Sinn Fein is generally believed to have a seat on the Army Council, the governing body of the IRA.

32Bravo
07-03-2008, 08:03 AM
Yeah, should have remembered that. Still, given that I wasn't born until 1980 some things do tend to be a tadge remote ;)



By 'nothing personal' I was referring to attacks on moi, not referring to yourself - young sprog! ;)

tankgeezer
07-03-2008, 09:33 AM
I also sold the civi version of the AR18, it was called the AR180. semi only, it was not the quality goods that the AR 15-16's were, but worked well enough, it was a clunky rifle, didnt point naturally, I never cared for it personally, but they were available in a time that there were not 30 available AR15's in the entire U.S. I know this because (I must be a weirdo magnet) a member of a militia group, dropped in to order some firearms, said he was from a local church, and needed guns for their security people. For this type of thing used police trade-ins are the thing. But this fellow said that they wanted the AR 15. I replied that I could find them one, he said they wanted 30 of them, and 25,000 rds ammo. Some church you have there i'm thinking, I said I'll check around, so call me in 2 days. After he left, another call to the ATF guys, who said if its legit, sell them, we will investigate.(that means if there is a problem they will confiscate the guns from the buyer) I called round, found 3 AR15's (for premium prices) which didnt interest the fellow from the "church". Dont know if the ATF ever got anywhere, but they did infiltrate the group.

Nickdfresh
07-03-2008, 10:16 AM
They're a Marxist terrorist group with the ambition of uniting the island of Ireland under their rule in a one-party state.

Not exactly true. The actual "Marxist-Leninists" controlled the organization in the late-1960s. But a split happened after the "Battle of Bogside" --in which events unfortunately transformed the IRA from a group of grumpy old communists more apt at uniting a pub under one beer tab than they were at anything else-- to what was seen as a Catholic militia and self-defense force. The organization split around 1969 into two factions. (see the "Life of Brian" 'terrorist splinter groups' scene for more info :)). The leadership caste was thrown into the "Official" Irish Republican Army (OIRA), which was still seeing things purely in an unrealistic ideological argument of class warfare and hoped that liberating the proletariat or both Protestant and Catholic workers would lead to a united Ireland. Unfortunately, they ignored the fact that the Protestants had their own paramilitaries/militias/terrorist/guerrilla groups such as the Ulster Defense Force and the "Red Hand Commando" that likened being "commandos" to cutting people to death with knives as they were tied up, and it is a fact that these Protestant paramilitaries actually drew the first serious blood of the modern round of "Troubles" in the late 60s when they undertook a campaign of what can be called ethnic cleansing against Catholic community, which involved lovely tactics like: serial murder torture killings, shooting people that might or might not be Catholics on the street, and depriving the entire community of their basic civil and economic rights. The OIRA were subsumed by the "Provos" as they were as likely to kill their main rivals as they were to kill British troops and Protestant loyalists. Perhaps even a little more so willing...The OIRA became the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) I believe.

The "Provisional" Irish Republican Army was regrouped and transformed into a more pragmatic organisation that saw itself as a sectarian militia . They still adhered to general socialist principles; but were such good nefarious businessmen that the American La Cosa Nostra would look upon them with envy. So, they're probably greedy capitalists like everyone else despite the rhetoric, as a lot of being a terrorist/freedom fighter for Eire seemed to involve what can be termed 'organized crime.' At any rate, due to the successful British "carrot and stick" approach to counterinsurgency along with very genuine social reforms in Northern Ireland such as powersharing, the moderating of actual IRA leaders such as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness into competent middle-class politicians and technocrats, a general war-weariness of all combatants in Northern Ireland who are getting on into their 50s and 60s, the emergence of Eire as Europe's little economic tiger, and yes --9/11-- have all had an impact of deterring further violence from the stupid bastards that still want to kill people there...


I'm not aware of them using RPG-7s on any occasions however.

I am aware of a case in 1998, after the Good Friday Accord broke down, the PIRA fired RPGs at an RUC-station I believe...

Chevan
07-03-2008, 11:44 AM
Couple of possible reasons for that. The most likely is simply that they were the wrong type of Marxist - the Soviets were never keen on encouraging Communist revolutions where the wrong type of Communist (i.e. one who wouldn't follow their instructions) was in charge. Hence if the IRA were ideologically closer to say Tito or Mao they wouldn't get Soviet support.

Hmmm, soviets indeed very much helped both the Mao and Tito in certain critical periods for them , even when they "didn't folow soviet instructions" .
Actualy there were the tentions among the Communists states - the China, Yugoslavia were pretty independent and sometimes even hostitle to the SU.
But , thrue is , dear pdf , that Soviet supplied not just the pro-communists groups in fight , but even the any states/powers who fight against their ideological enemies, kinda Arabs during the Isreal-Arad conflict. Egupth and Syria ,as you probably know, was far from any communists ideology.


The other possibility is that they were simply scared of giving non-Russian nationalities within the Soviet Union the idea that taking up an "armed struggle" for independence from the Soviet Union was possible. Given that the Soviet Union had perpetual problems with unruly nationalities within it (e.g. the Chechens today), I can see them being less than keen on supporting an organisation like the IRA.

Oh common, the USSR had no any perpetual problems in the 1960-80 , becouse all of the "unruly nationalities" already were busy , working hard in the Syberia :D
Soviets actualy know how effectively supress the ethnical conflict from most beginning, even if it demand the rough means like deportations.
Somethning promt me , that you my friend not fully frank about Irish nationalists.
Their "wrong way of Marxism" has no any relation at the socialism, communism or other social order or ideology.
It seems they were the group of national-biased extremists, who think that Brits has not deserved to rule by the Ireland.
This is simple ethnical extremists( probably with mixture of religion one) who only think that the are "better' than their neighbourds - brits. The tupical local national separatism.
Therefore i think Soviets even did not look at the IRA as for the object of soviet help.
The ethnical and religious fanatics are not a proper aim for that.
Althought as you may be know the CIA and MI6 planned to assist the Western Ukrainian Extremists ( until the KGB has finished them all in 1953).

Chevan
07-03-2008, 11:51 AM
Not exactly true. The actual "Marxist-Leninists" controlled the organization in the late-1960s. But a split happened after the "Battle of Bogside" --in which events unfortunately transformed the IRA from a group of grumpy old communists more apt at uniting a pub under one beer tab than they were at anything else-- to what was seen as a Catholic militia and self-defense force. The organization split around 1969 into two factions. (see the "Life of Brian" 'terrorist splinter groups' scene for more info :)). The leadership caste was thrown into the "Official" Irish Republican Army (OIRA), which was still seeing things purely in an unrealistic ideological argument of class warfare and hoped that liberating the proletariat or both Protestant and Catholic workers would lead to a united Ireland. Unfortunately, they ignored the fact that the Protestants had their own paramilitaries/militias/terrorist/guerrilla groups such as the Ulster Defense Force and the "Red Hand Commando" that likened being "commandos" to cutting people to death with knives as they were tied up, and it is a fact that these Protestant paramilitaries actually drew the first serious blood of the modern round of "Troubles" in the late 60s when they undertook a campaign of what can be called ethnic cleansing against Catholic community, which involved lovely tactics like: serial murder torture killings, shooting people that might or might not be Catholics on the street, and depriving the entire community of their basic civil and economic rights. The OIRA were subsumed by the "Provos" as they were as likely to kill their main rivals as they were to kill British troops and Protestant loyalists. Perhaps even a little more so willing...The OIRA became the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) I believe.

The "Provisional" Irish Republican Army was regrouped and transformed into a more pragmatic organisation that saw itself as a sectarian militia . They still adhered to general socialist principles; but were such good nefarious businessmen that the American La Cosa Nostra would look upon them with envy. So, they're probably greedy capitalists like everyone else despite the rhetoric, as a lot of being a terrorist/freedom fighter for Eire seemed to involve what can be termed 'organized crime.' At any rate, due to the successful British "carrot and stick" approach to counterinsurgency along with very genuine social reforms in Northern Ireland such as powersharing, the moderating of actual IRA leaders such as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness into competent middle-class politicians and technocrats, a general war-weariness of all combatants in Northern Ireland who are getting on into their 50s and 60s, the emergence of Eire as Europe's little economic tiger, and yes --9/11-- have all had an impact of deterring further violence from the stupid bastards that still want to kill people there...

Oh thak to Nick we know the true now:)
As i guessed the IRA was rather group of ethnical and religion extremists than the "Socialists marxists idealists".
Therefore soviet did not assisted them - they look at them as at their class enemies as well.
BTW Nick, why are you such clever...?

Chevan
07-03-2008, 12:10 PM
Not all Marxist organisations were linked with the Soviet Union, nor supported by them. The Official Irish Republican Army was and still is Marxist, in the sense of the 1960s development of western socialist ideology (with it's own interpretation of euro-communism).

The Provisional IRA was and still is an amalgamation of socialistic and religious ideologies, but based upon direct action. Religous sectarianism is at the core of it's rationale but its political manifestos are laced by visions of socialistic ideals rather than catholic religious fundamentalism.

The socialist ideology could not be the religious one at the same time:)
The real socialism is multi religious ( or atheistic kinda USSR) .
the real Socialism could be just the international.
Actualy we saw certain from of limited , narrow socialism "not for every one" like National Socialism in Germany.
The religion socialism is something new for me:)


However, the IRA was always pragmatic and it's affiliations, going back most of the C20th would raise eyebrows. Infact, it was more successfulin interesting the Germans in supporting their cause than in interesting the Soviet Union.

Agree, the GErmany who always since the WW1 tryed to exploit the race or national problems among their enemies.
They pretty well supported all sort of separatists , sometimes is ignoring of their "non-aryan origin" like they inspired to Crimea tatars that there were Russians and Jews who are only guilt of their troubles..

Clave
07-03-2008, 12:14 PM
Some people may call it 'ideology' but blowing civilians into dog-meat is just murder, pure and simple...

I can't even begin to tell you how much I hated the IRA, and the support given to them by America in those days.

But the worst thing was that 99.9% of the Irish population wanted nothing to do with the paramilitary groups, in the same way that 99.9% of Americans were not handing over their cash to sponsor terrorism..

But, as always, it's those small percentages that do the damage...:evil:

Amrit
07-03-2008, 02:00 PM
The socialist ideology could not be the religious one at the same time:)
The real socialism is multi religious ( or atheistic kinda USSR) .
the real Socialism could be just the international.
Actualy we saw certain from of limited , narrow socialism "not for every one" like National Socialism in Germany.
The religion socialism is something new for me:)

Errr, without getting into long winded debates about Communism, Socialism and Internationalsim (I did all that at uni), and the "true" nature of it, I would say that not all communism came from the Soviet Union, nor was dictated by it. EuroCommunism developed in parallel and in many ways ways independently from the Soviet Union, lead by Gramscian interpetations rather than Leninist/Stalinist. Post WW2, Gramsci's ideas had a much greater influence on "revolutionaries" in western Europe and Latin/South America than the hardline ones from Russia.

As for religion and socialism, have a look at Liberation theology - an extremely influential idea that spread across South America and scared the catholic Church, the ant-communists and the traditional communists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology


Agree, the GErmany who always since the WW1 tryed to exploit the race or national problems among their enemies.
They pretty well supported all sort of separatists , sometimes is ignoring of their "non-aryan origin" like they inspired to Crimea tatars that there were Russians and Jews who are only guilt of their troubles..

Not just since WW1, but during too:

The Irish Republican Brotherhood held many talks with teh German High Command.

Nickdfresh
07-03-2008, 09:02 PM
Oh thak to Nick we know the true now:)
As i guessed the IRA was rather group of ethnical and religion extremists than the "Socialists marxists idealists".

Well, not exactly either.

The IRA changed it's focus, but it is something much more complex than that. I wouldn't say most of them were overly religious as there was always that divide between religion and secular ideology...

To understand the mindset, you really have to go way back to get an insight into Anglo-Irish relations...Especially to the period of 1916 to 1923...


Therefore soviet did not assisted them - they look at them as at their class enemies as well.

The PIRA probably annoyed the Soviets and more likely rejected them for fear of losing support of the segment in America of Irish Americans that supported their violence...


BTW Nick, why are you such clever...?

Eh? Something lost in translation I think. But if you're asking why I know so much about this, my family hosted a kid from Belfast for the summer months during the 1970s. I was only about six years old. But it was a rather fascinating experience, one that made me gals to have grown up in a stable, relatively democratic state...

In any case, I suggest the writings of Tim Pat Coogan (http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Tim+Pat+Coogan) for anyone interested in the subject. He's an Irish journalist with deep connections in all of the warring parties including the IRAs, UDA(s), the British military and intelligence apparatus, and what is now the Police Service of Northern Ireland as well as in the Irish security forces.

I especially recommend http://www.amazon.com/Troubles-Irelands-Ordeal-1966-1996-Search/dp/1570981442

Chevan
07-03-2008, 11:44 PM
As for religion and socialism, have a look at Liberation theology - an extremely influential idea that spread across South America and scared the catholic Church, the ant-communists and the traditional communists:

Hardly Marx even heard about Liberation theology..
becouse fundamental Marxism fully refuse any kind of religion at all - the famous bolshevics slogan - the Religion is the narco drug for peoples - comes from Marxism.
So if the somebody in IRA even know about theology - they obviously nothing know about Marxism , trying to call itself as Marxists.
The Religion biased Marxists - is the nonsense.

Chevan
07-03-2008, 11:46 PM
Eh? Something lost in translation I think. But if you're asking why I know so much about this
Yes i was asking why do you know so much....:)

Amrit
07-04-2008, 02:38 AM
Hardly Marx even heard about Liberation theology..
becouse fundamental Marxism fully refuse any kind of religion at all - the famous bolshevics slogan - the Religion is the narco drug for peoples - comes from Marxism.

Maybe so but then Marxism is as much the “opium of the masses” as orthodox religion. It has the same manifestations, and so there is no surprise that some people have attempted a sysnthesis. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat has the same structure as the Vatican.

However, I would take issue with you use of the term Orthodox Marxism - there is no such thing. From the days that his works came out there have been interpretations and schisms amongst his followers. Even in the Soviet Union, this schism lead to the spilt between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, later there were splits between Trotsky's internationalism and Stalin's nationalism. In Europe Gramsci's interepation was different from Lenin's, and both were different from the latter Marxists of the Frankfurt school, Althusserianism or Analytical Marxism of the likes of Roemer.

So, Liberation Theology is no more incongruous than any other form of Marxism


So if the somebody in IRA even know about theology - they obviously nothing know about Marxism , trying to call itself as Marxists.
The Religion biased Marxists - is the nonsense.

See above. However, do not assume that groups like the IRA are rooted within Catholicism for purely religous. One needs to understand that one of the reasons that the IRA became reactivated in 1969 was because of the violence between the Catholics and Protestants. These were not just religous divides, though one's religion placed a personin one group or another. It was no different than the civil rights fights going on in America and South Africa between blacks and whites. The ANC developed ideas from marxism - would you say that their ideas were not ortodox because they created an offshoot combining marxism and their own black african experience?

Kato
07-04-2008, 04:00 AM
Oh common, the USSR had no any perpetual problems in the 1960-80 , becouse all of the "unruly nationalities" already were busy , working hard in the Syberia :D
Soviets actualy know how effectively supress the ethnical conflict from most beginning, even if it demand the rough means like deportations.

It is an erroneous statement. The USSR did suppressed different nations but it did not solve any interethnic conflicts. It just aggravated them and created new ones.

In the 1980s there was the enormous inter-ethnic violence between Armenians and Azeris with massacres and ethnic cleansings.

Cuts
07-04-2008, 05:41 AM
Nick, There are a number of so-called splinter groups from PIRA, (CIRA, RIRA etc.,) but INLA was the first, formed in the beginning from those members that even PIRA considered too extreme !

I use the phrase 'so-called' as they were of particular tac & strat use to PIRA.
Membership of one organisation did not necessarily preclude membership of another.
For example, should PIRA call a 'ceasefire' at any stage, holidays, internal fiancial investigations and so on, they could still attack any military or civilian 'target' and claim, "It wasn't us, honest* !"

PIRA's 'decommissoning' of wps, (not disarmament,) so slowly agreed and majestically announced, really amounted to very little. Most of the items available to view were old, outdated and in poor condition.
Back in the day the AR18 and AR180 were very popular with the Players, cheap & cheerful rifles which took AR/M16 mags. In fact the Sterling twenty, thirty and forty rd mags are the cream of that type of magazine.
That the AR18 isn't a particularly accurate rifle was immaterial to them, the ranges were rarely that great and should they miss their target and kill a young mother, well that would be sorted with an apology...

As 32Bravo states, they are all largely racketeers.
Every black cab in Ulster pays protection money, nearly all one-armed bandits have a cut of their takings absorbed by the two-armed bandits, there's an awful lot of copy labelled goods, (Nike, Puma, Burberry, YSL, Gucci, etc.,) run by PIRA, plus vast amounts of bootleg CDs/DVDs.
A major source of income is fuel smuggling and certain big men, Slab Murphy for example, had extremely large holding tanks buried on their land.

The story if the 'Troubles' is a long and complicated one; religion, politics, bigotry and myth twisted horrifically together, but the British Army were first called to assist the police in protecting the Catholic minority from the Protestant majority.
While PIRA members are as good as exclusively Catholic, it should be noted that the first soldier murdered in these thirty years of sadness fell to a bullet fired from one of the Protestant groups.






* As in 'honest as the day is long.'
The longer the daylight, the less they do wrong. (Aptly, but with sincere apologies to, Madness.)

Rising Sun*
07-04-2008, 06:12 AM
As 32Bravo states, they are all largely racketeers.
Every black cab in Ulster pays protection money, nearly all one-armed bandits have a cut of their takings absorbed by the two-armed bandits, there's an awful lot of copy labelled goods, (Nike, Puma, Burberry, YSL, Gucci, etc.,) run by PIRA, plus vast amounts of bootleg CDs/DVDs.
A major source of income is fuel smuggling and certain big men, Slab Murphy for example, had extremely large holding tanks buried on their land.
My emphasis.

Are what they are now and what they started out as different things, as in other movements of a revolutionary bent?

The need for money to support the cause combined with self-identification as righteous enemies of a corrupt state or power allows such people to carry out what are normally considered criminal acts in the belief that they are engaged in a higher form of action which makes their actions moral and necessary and wholly justified rather than criminal, be they IRA, Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhof, PLO, Symbionese Liberation Army, Al Qaeda or whatever.

The problem with such revolutionary movements is that unless they achieve total control of whatever it is that they were after, usually being control of a state, they often lack the willingness to surrender to the new leadership the independent power they had. So they continue in their old ways and exploit the skills, powers and processes they used to survive and grow, including violent ones which are liberating or criminal acts depending upon your point of view, but now they do it to undermine the new leadership, either intentionally or just as a by-product of their struggle for power.

Witness Hamas and Fatah for a perfect example.

After things calmed down in Northern Ireland, the IRA and UDF aligned groups in Northern Ireland continued on the same path, and not always with the most vicious fights between those opposing elements but within them as they struggled for control of various criminal enterprises which supported their revolutionary and anti-revolutionary activities in an earlier period.

Google has let me down in finding any reference to it, but I seem to recall reading something quite some years ago (maybe 10 or more) about former IRA and UDF aligned crime gangs carving up the drug trade in Northern Ireland between themselves and taking out their own elements who didn't conform.

Nickdfresh
07-04-2008, 09:40 AM
Hmmm, soviets indeed very much helped both the Mao and Tito in certain critical periods for them , even when they "didn't folow soviet instructions" .
Actualy there were the tentions among the Communists states - the China, Yugoslavia were pretty independent and sometimes even hostitle to the SU.
But , thrue is , dear pdf , that Soviet supplied not just the pro-communists groups in fight , but even the any states/powers who fight against their ideological enemies, kinda Arabs during the Isreal-Arad conflict. Egupth and Syria ,as you probably know, was far from any communists ideology.


Oh common, the USSR had no any perpetual problems in the 1960-80 , becouse all of the "unruly nationalities" already were busy , working hard in the Syberia :D
Soviets actualy know how effectively supress the ethnical conflict from most beginning, even if it demand the rough means like deportations.
Somethning promt me , that you my friend not fully frank about Irish nationalists.
Their "wrong way of Marxism" has no any relation at the socialism, communism or other social order or ideology.
It seems they were the group of national-biased extremists, who think that Brits has not deserved to rule by the Ireland.
This is simple ethnical extremists( probably with mixture of religion one) who only think that the are "better' than their neighbourds - brits. The tupical local national separatism.
Therefore i think Soviets even did not look at the IRA as for the object of soviet help.
The ethnical and religious fanatics are not a proper aim for that.
Althought as you may be know the CIA and MI6 planned to assist the Western Ukrainian Extremists ( until the KGB has finished them all in 1953).

To answer Chevan's original question:


The IRA have had contacts with foreign governments and other illegal armed organisations.

Libya has been the biggest single supplier of arms and funds to the IRA, donating large amounts (three shipments of arms in the early 1970s and another three in the mid 1980s, the latter reputedly enough to arm two regular infantry battalions) of both in the early 1970s and mid 1980s.[74]

The IRA has also received weapons and logistical support from Irish Americans in the United States, especially the NORAID group. Apart from the Libyan aid, this has been the main source of overseas IRA support. American support has been weakened by the War against Terrorism, and the fallout from the events of 11 September 2001.[75][76]

In the United States in November 1982, five men were acquitted of smuggling arms to the IRA after they revealed the Central Intelligence Agency had approved the shipment (although the CIA officially denied this).[77] There are allegations of contact with the East German Stasi, based on the testimony of a Soviet defector to British intelligence Vasili Mitrokhin. Mitrokhin revealed that although the Soviet KGB gave some weapons to the Marxist Official IRA, it had little sympathy with the Provisionals.[78] It has received some training and support from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and has had some contact with Hezbollah. In May 1996, the Federal Security Service (FSB), Russia's internal security service, publicly accused Estonia of arms smuggling, and claimed that the IRA had contacted representatives of Estonia's volunteer defense force, Kaitseliit, and some non-government groups to buy weapons. [79][80] In 2001 three Irish men who became known as the Colombia Three were arrested after allegedly training Colombian guerrillas, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), in bomb making and urban warfare techniques. The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations in its report of 24 April 2002 concluded "Neither committee investigators nor the Colombians can find credible explanations for the increased, more sophisticated capacity for these specific terror tactics now being employed by the FARC, other than IRA training".[81]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army

Nickdfresh
07-04-2008, 04:14 PM
Yes i was asking why do you know so much....:)

Aside from hosting a kid from Northern Ireland (which from what little I remember was sort of traumatic, because he was obviously a traumatized warchild that taught my brothers how to build pipebombs!). I've also taken a few courses on Irish history and have read the books of Tim Pat Coogan.

Incidentally, Paul (the guys name) emigrated to the US when he was in his twenties and now works as an art director at a major gallery...

Nickdfresh
07-04-2008, 04:34 PM
Nick, There are a number of so-called splinter groups from PIRA, (CIRA, RIRA etc.,) but INLA was the first, formed in the beginning from those members that even PIRA considered too extreme !

Correct. I didn't realize this until I read the Wiki on it today, but in fact the OIRA still exists and their views are oddly similar to what Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labor Party have since advocated, a permanent ceasefire. Only it was in 1972!

The INLA were complete blood thirsty nuts and many were Marxists that rejected the "truce" of the OIRA but refused to join the PIRA


I use the phrase 'so-called' as they were of particular tac & strat use to PIRA.
Membership of one organisation did not necessarily preclude membership of another.
For example, should PIRA call a 'ceasefire' at any stage, holidays, internal fiancial investigations and so on, they could still attack any military or civilian 'target' and claim, "It wasn't us, honest* !"

I don't agree with that at all. There are numerous incidents throughout the "Republicanism" movement of splinter factions, and none of it was a monolithic in which everyone followed the same chain of command nor held the same beliefs. This goes right back to the Irish Civil War following their War of Independence. The IRA is in itself a giant "splinter group," since it is the regular Army of the Republic of Ireland that claims direct lineage to the original IRA of the War of Independence --set up by Michael Collins-- who was of course killed for being a "Free Stater" and despite the fact that he almost singularly built the IRA and is one of Ireland's most admired men (even by the British military of his era) is still regarded as little more than a traitor by the vain, extremists that followed him...

Secondly, there are verifiable incidents of inter-Republican warfare and assassinations that occurred during one of the truce periods during the 1970s...


PIRA's 'decommissoning' of wps, (not disarmament,) so slowly agreed and majestically announced, really amounted to very little. Most of the items available to view were old, outdated and in poor condition.
Back in the day the AR18 and AR180 were very popular with the Players, cheap & cheerful rifles which took AR/M16 mags. In fact the Sterling twenty, thirty and forty rd mags are the cream of that type of magazine.
That the AR18 isn't a particularly accurate rifle was immaterial to them, the ranges were rarely that great and should they miss their target and kill a young mother, well that would be sorted with an apology...

Yet the European commission set up to monitor the "arms decommissioning" has stated the contrary, including sophisticated shoulder SAMs were turned in. They have also stated that there is no reason to believe that the PIRA still have any significant weapons...


As 32Bravo states, they are all largely racketeers.
Every black cab in Ulster pays protection money, nearly all one-armed bandits have a cut of their takings absorbed by the two-armed bandits, there's an awful lot of copy labelled goods, (Nike, Puma, Burberry, YSL, Gucci, etc.,) run by PIRA, plus vast amounts of bootleg CDs/DVDs.
A major source of income is fuel smuggling and certain big men, Slab Murphy for example, had extremely large holding tanks buried on their land.

They may be. However, the PIRA was also the only effective policing force in Republican areas for decades, as the RUC and Ulster Defense Regiment were seen as corrupt, and more interested in keeping the Catholics in line rather than community policing.

Also, there are many an accusation of collusion between the security forces of both Northern Ireland and the British intelligence establishment, using the Protestant loyalists in groups like the UFF as essentially proxy death squads.

So, there is plenty of controversy to go around...But the IRA, with the exception of the CIRA and RIRA (who completely disgraced themselves with the Omagh bombing), are disarmed and are effectively, and successfully, engaged in politics. Not killings...

Thank God.


The story if the 'Troubles' is a long and complicated one; religion, politics, bigotry and myth twisted horrifically together, but the British Army were first called to assist the police in protecting the Catholic minority from the Protestant majority.
While PIRA members are as good as exclusively Catholic, it should be noted that the first soldier murdered in these thirty years of sadness fell to a bullet fired from one of the Protestant groups.

I couldn't agree more. However, here is an interesting assessment by the British Army as reported by the BBC...


Army paper says IRA not defeated
An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA.

The admission is contained in a discussion document released by the Ministry of Defence after a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

The 100 page document analyses in detail the army's role over 37 years.

It focuses on specific operations and gives an overview of its performance.

The six-month study, covering the period 1968-2005, was prepared under the direction of the then chief of general staff, General Sir Mike Jackson.

The document, obtained by the Pat Finucane Centre, points to a number of mistakes, including internment and highlights what lessons have been learnt.

It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".

It concedes for the first time that it did not win the battle against the IRA - but claims to have "shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence".

In a statement, the Pat Finucane Centre - a human rights group - said the document "betrays a profoundly colonial mindset towards the conflict here and those involved in it".

"Loyalist violence and the links between loyalist paramilitaries and the state has been airbrushed out of this military history," it said.

In a statement issued on Friday, an Army spokesman said: "This publication considers the high level general issues that might be applicable to any future counter-terrorist campaign that the British Armed Forces might have to undertake.

"It is critically important to consider what was learned by those who served in Northern Ireland."

Story from BBC NEWS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/6276416.stm)

Published: 2007/07/06 19:21:30 GMT

© BBC MMVIII




In any case, I hope we hear more from you Cuts...

pdf27
07-04-2008, 05:21 PM
=But the IRA, with the exception of the CIRA and RIRA (who completely disgraced themselves with the Omagh bombing), are disarmed and are effectively, and successfully, engaged in politics. Not killings...
Well, not all that many killings anyway, and they are in no way involved in witness intimidation when they do murder someone (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7476244.stm)!

32Bravo
07-05-2008, 09:24 AM
Correct. I didn't realize this until I read the Wiki on it today, but in fact the OIRA still exists and their views are oddly similar to what Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labor Party have since advocated, a permanent ceasefire. Only it was in 1972!


It was prior to '72.



I don't agree with that at all. There are numerous incidents throughout the "Republicanism" movement of splinter factions, and none of it was a monolithic in which everyone followed the same chain of command nor held the same beliefs. This goes right back to the Irish Civil War following their War of Independence. The IRA is in itself a giant "splinter group," since it is the regular Army of the Republic of Ireland that claims direct lineage to the original IRA of the War of Independence --set up by Michael Collins-- who was of course killed for being a "Free Stater" and despite the fact that he almost singularly built the IRA and is one of Ireland's most admired men (even by the British military of his era) is still regarded as little more than a traitor by the vain, extremists that followed him...

Now that's just silly. You're bandying words, or in this case names, for the sake of trying to demonstrate that you are clever.



Secondly, there are verifiable incidents of inter-Republican warfare and assassinations that occurred during one of the truce periods during the 1970s...

Of course there were/are. Some of us have witnessed them. The use of a Black & Decker power drill (as I have already alluded to) was one such.



Yet the European commission set up to monitor the "arms decommissioning" has stated the contrary, including sophisticated shoulder SAMs were turned in. They have also stated that there is no reason to believe that the PIRA still have any significant weapons...

And you believe that??

You obviosly have not witnesed the hate and distrust these two communities have for each other. That report is very niave.



They may be. However, the PIRA was also the only effective policing force in Republican areas for decades, as the RUC and Ulster Defense Regiment were seen as corrupt, and more interested in keeping the Catholics in line rather than community policing.


You call that policing? You seem to be susceptible to the propaganda.

Please explain what you mean by corrupt. You see, I would have called it bias.



Also, there are many an accusation of collusion between the security forces of both Northern Ireland and the British intelligence establishment,...

Of course they did, it was a very dirty business.



So, there is plenty of controversy to go around...But the IRA, with the exception of the CIRA and RIRA (who completely disgraced themselves with the Omagh bombing), are disarmed and are effectively, and successfully, engaged in politics. Not killings...

Now, that really is silly.



Thank God.

And that's premature.



I couldn't agree more. However, here is an interesting assessment by the British Army as reported by the BBC...

"It is critically important to consider what was learned by those who served in Northern Ireland."


In any case, I hope we hear more from you Cuts...




Nick

Unless you've trod the streets and allyways, the lanes and the hedgerows - please don't lecture Cuts, who has been there and done it. One cannot begin to understand the situation as was and still remains in Ulster, unless you've been there and tasted the hatred. It would be akin to describing to a Vietnam vet what it was like in Vietnam.

Rising Sun*
07-05-2008, 11:11 AM
One cannot begin to understand the situation as was and still remains in Ulster, unless you've been there and tasted the hatred. It would be akin to describing to a Vietnam vet what it was like in Vietnam.

But in Vietnam there was at least a clear visual difference between potential enemy and your own side, as well as other differences.

I should think it's rather harder to deal with a Vietnam type situation when the enemy looks just like you, your family, and everyone you know. And largely behaves like them as well.

32Bravo
07-05-2008, 11:37 AM
But if the good guys look the same as the bad guys, it makes no difference whether one looks like either, oneself. It still boils down to who is who - but I take your point.

Returning to Ulster: after serving there a little while, one can generally see differences in the physiognomy between the two sides. Even in different parts of England people can look distinctively different to those from a different region. It isn't fool-proof ( and it shouldn't matter anyway, because the majority, of either side, are the bad guys), but there are differences, and at times they are very obvious.

The divide between the people of Northern Ireland is not only religeous. They have different origins. For the most part, the Roman Catholic, Republicans are of Irish origin, whereas the Protestants are, again, for the most part, immigrants - particularly from Scotland.

I would argue that there are lots of similarities in the role of the security forces in different theatres of the world conducting internal security and counterr insurgency operations. The main reason being, the role of the opposition (the guerrila) is pretty much the same and similar methods being used.

As an example of lessons learned: the way the British forces conducted their operations against Basra City, when they first invaded and later entered the city, were modelled on 'Operation Motorman', which was the operation in which british forces entered the so called 'No Go' areas of Derry and Belfast in 1972. Ironically, the situation in Basra deteriorated so that later there came to be 'No Go' areas there also.

I don't mean any offence to Nick, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no substitute for experience. For example, one can spend one's childhood reading and fantasising as to what it is to have sex, but until one has been balls deep in ecstacy, one really has no real idea.

The link lists the people killed in N.I. in 1972. It also describes cause of death and by whom the killing was claimed. It might give some idea of what was going on out there at the time:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1972.html

Quite a number of home-goals among the bombers.

32Bravo
07-05-2008, 04:02 PM
I remember speaking with the driver of this Saracen in the Lenadoon. He said the was knackered after this little stunt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atbAXcu46yw&feature=related

32Bravo
07-06-2008, 05:07 AM
Young people in need of entertainment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfuo_BioPi8

A variety of arms and:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep1WEqWPNNs&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4H7UHoO68&feature=related

Of course, if the Tommies were the murderous brutes that these people would have you believe, they wouldn't need any of the protection afforded by helmets, shields and armoured vehicles - they'd have just finished it.


Hope you enjoyed it, all a little one-sidied.

Nickdfresh
07-06-2008, 05:11 AM
Well, not all that many killings anyway, and they are in no way involved in witness intimidation when they do murder someone (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7476244.stm)!

Of course they do...They're violence prone and monumentally bored...

Nickdfresh
07-06-2008, 05:33 AM
It was prior to '72.



Now that's just silly. You're bandying words, or in this case names, for the sake of trying to demonstrate that you are clever.

I have no idea what you mean by that, mate. I'm sorry if I know the history, but it's not being clever, it's providing context...


Of course there were/are. Some of us have witnessed them. The use of a Black & Decker power drill (as I have already alluded to) was one such.

Of course. But then, how did it ever get to that situation?

What were the police doing in 1969?

If they ****ing can't keep rioters from trying to burn out the Catholic population of Derry. Then they've lost all hope of the pretense of being a community police force...


And you believe that??

You obviosly have not witnesed the hate and distrust these two communities have for each other. That report is very niave.

What should I believe? There have been no major terror attacks since 1998. And the very reason Sinn Fein is doing well in elections (surpassing the the moderate SDLP) is because they have renounced "physical force."


You call that policing? You seem to be susceptible to the propaganda.

No. I call it vigilantism resulting from a failed, semi-lawless state...


Please explain what you mean by corrupt. You see, I would have called it bias.

Semantics. There were ties between the RUC and the UDR and loyalist thugs. They also largely stood aside or even in some cases took part in the rioting or the late 1960s.


Of course they did, it was a very dirty business.

Well, I guess lawlessness and killing is okay in certain circumstances then?


Now, that really is silly.


And that's premature.

Maybe. But has the terrorism largely stopped or has it not?

They've given up the Armilite to get more of the ballot box...


Nick

Unless you've trod the streets and allyways, the lanes and the hedgerows - please don't lecture Cuts,

Firstly, I'm not lecturing anyone. And secondly, don't lecture me while telling me not to lecture...


...who has been there and done it. One cannot begin to understand the situation as was and still remains in Ulster, unless you've been there and tasted the hatred. It would be akin to describing to a Vietnam vet what it was like in Vietnam.

Um, perhaps you failed to read my first response in which I lived with a kid from Northern Ireland and indeed "tasted the hatred." And your response is tantamount to saying that an American Vietnam veteran knows more about Vietnam than the Vietnamese who lived there.

Spare me. It took an American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Mitchell) to get anything ****ing done in that place to begin with. Did he walk around Armagh with an SLR or Enfield? It's precisely because he didn't that he was able to help mediate a solution rather than just repeating the cycle of violence and retribution or perpetual stalemate...

32Bravo
07-06-2008, 06:03 AM
I have no idea what you mean by that, mate. I'm sorry if I know the history, but it's not being clever, it's providing context...


That would be okay, if itwere correct.



Of course. But then, how did it ever get to that situation?

What were the police doing in 1969?


The cause of the Civil Rights Movement in the late sixties has no bearing on the cause of the IRA who jumped on the bandwagon in order to promote their own agenda, which was one of power.



If they ****ing can't keep rioters from trying to burn out the Catholic population of Derry. Then they've lost all hope of the pretense of being a community police force...


:confused: :confused:



What should I believe? There have been no major terror attacks since 1998. And the very reason Sinn Fein is doing well in elections (surpassing the the moderate SDLP) is because they have renounced "physical force."


It's not for me to tell you hat to believe, however, if you think it's finished you're very mistaken. It's simply lying dormant while the overt operations have taken a different form.




No. I call it vigilantism resulting from a failed, semi-lawless state...


It's not even that. It's racketeering gangsterism. Your version implies that the people living in these areas embrace the ideals of these groups. The majority simply wan to be left alone, to live in peace and get on with their lives. If you believe that the Provies, or their 'Loyalist' counterparts, ever brought peace and order to these areas then you are very much mistaken.



Semantics. There were ties between the RUC and the UDR and loyalist thugs. They also largely stood aside or even in some cases took part in the rioting or the late 1960s.

Well, I guess lawlessness and killing is okay in certain circumstances then?


No it isn't. But big boys games, big boys rules.




Maybe. But has the terrorism largely stopped or has it not?


Emphatically NO! But perhaps N.I. isn't newsworthy anymore.



They've given up the Armilite to get more of the ballot box...


They've handed a few over.



Firstly, I'm not lecturing anyone. And secondly, don't lecture me while telling me not to lecture...


Oh I think you were. So, fair game.




Um, perhaps you failed to read my first response in which I lived with a kid from Northern Ireland and indeed "tasted the hatred." And your response is tantamount to saying that an American Vietnam veteran knows more about Vietnam than the Vietnamese who lived there.


Actually, I did. A child's perspective makes you an expert?



Spare me. It took an American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Mitchell) to get anything ****ing done in that place to begin with. Did he walk around Armagh with an SLR or Enfield? It's precisely because he didn't that he was able to help mediate a solution rather than just repeating the cycle of violence and retribution or perpetual stalemate...

Spare you...are you kidding?

Irish-Americans have been funding the situation for decades.

Nickdfresh
07-06-2008, 06:09 AM
Well, if we're posting videos, here's the central problem with both the Republicans and Unionists, "The Michael Collin's Problem." (From the BBC's South Bank Show):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzqkoiP0TQI&feature=related

32Bravo
07-06-2008, 06:11 AM
If they ****ing can't keep....


No need to get shirty, old chap.

32Bravo
07-06-2008, 06:24 AM
Well, if we're posting videos, here's the central problem with both the Republicans and Unionists, "The Michael Collin's Problem." (From the BBC's South Bank Show):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzqkoiP0TQI&feature=related


You're obviously a true believer !

Amrit
07-06-2008, 06:57 AM
What were the police doing in 1969?

If they ****ing can't keep rioters from trying to burn out the Catholic population of Derry. Then they've lost all hope of the pretense of being a community police force...


Just a point of corrrection/clarification. It was the reserve B Specials who were often at the frontline when the Catholic population was being attacked in the late 1960s, and there was never any pretence of them being a "community police force". They were ostensibly a Unionist force, recruited from the Protestant community, and many from the same locales as the attackers. They were often complicit in the anti-Catholic actions, and were disbanded in 1970, after the Hunt Report.

pdf27
07-06-2008, 08:11 AM
Oh, and another thing I've just remembered. Gerry Adams used to answer the phones for the IRA.

One of my teachers at school grew up over there, and after the IRA nicked his parent's car for the umpteenth time for use in an attack his mum phoned up to give them an ear-bashing. Gerry Adams answered the phone with the words "Hello, IRA."

32Bravo
07-06-2008, 08:36 AM
Just a point of corrrection/clarification. It was the reserve B Specials who were often at the frontline when the Catholic population was being attacked in the late 1960s, and there was never any pretence of them being a "community police force". They were ostensibly a Unionist force, recruited from the Protestant community, and many from the same locales as the attackers. They were often complicit in the anti-Catholic actions, and were disbanded in 1970, after the Hunt Report.


Very true. Getting rid of the B Specials was one of the first and best actions of the British govermnent at the time.

The British Army entered Northern Ireland to protect the RC community from the Prods. The IRA weren't having any of that.

32Bravo
07-06-2008, 08:38 AM
In my opinion, the two most important policies of the British Army in Northern Ireland were: the use of minimum force and hearts-and-minds'.

It didn't always work as best as it could or should have, Bloody Sunday comes to mind, but for the main part it did. That was the way soldiers were trained, and their 'yellow card' - rules of engagement, not to be ignored - reinforces those policies.

Anyone reading through threads where I have partaken in discussions on irregular warfare will see that I big-up Hearts-and-minds. After serving two four month tours, one eighteen month tour and two six months tours in just about every area of N.I. since the earliest days of the recent 'Troubles' I wouldn't be advocating its use if I didn't believe it to be the right way.

I'm not a pacifist but neither do I condone needless or wanton bloodshed.

Nickdfresh
07-06-2008, 09:25 AM
You're obviously a true believer !

Yes, that things can change for the better...

32Bravo
07-06-2008, 09:34 AM
Me too, but I Doubt that supporting and funding terrorist organisations will achieve it.

Nickdfresh
07-06-2008, 09:35 AM
Oh, and another thing I've just remembered. Gerry Adams used to answer the phones for the IRA.

One of my teachers at school grew up over there, and after the IRA nicked his parent's car for the umpteenth time for use in an attack his mum phoned up to give them an ear-bashing. Gerry Adams answered the phone with the words "Hello, IRA."


Well, there's little doubt that both Gerry and Martin (Mcguinness) were senior IRA commanders that have transitioned on a very murky slope to Sinn Fein, which was effectively taken over as the IRA party by the 1950s...

What's interesting is that the intelligence establishment were unable, or unwilling, to prevent the IRA from having their own bat-phone...

Nickdfresh
07-06-2008, 09:36 AM
Me too, but I Doubt that supporting and funding terrorist organisations will achieve it.


Agreed!

Nickdfresh
07-06-2008, 09:42 AM
In my opinion, the two most important policies of the British Army in Northern Ireland were: the use of minimum force and hearts-and-minds'.

Again, totally agreed. The British Army had the unenviable position of being caught in-between warring tribes. And for many reasons, became one of them.


It didn't always work as best as it could or should have, Bloody Sunday comes to mind, but for the main part it did. That was the way soldiers were trained, and their 'yellow card' - rules of engagement, not to be ignored - reinforces those policies.

With such tensions going on, tragedies were bound to happen. Unfortunately, the British Army went from drinking tea in Catholic neighborhoods to being the equivalent of US Calvary stationed at a fort in Apache land...


Anyone reading through threads where I have partaken in discussions on irregular warfare will see that I big-up Hearts-and-minds. After serving two four month tours, one eighteen month tour and two six months tours in just about every area of N.I. since the earliest days of the recent 'Troubles' I wouldn't be advocating its use if I didn't believe it to be the right way.

I'm not a pacifist but neither do I condone needless or wanton bloodshed.

In many ways, the Irish Republican engagement in (mostly) politics and the further community dissociation of using violence can be seen as the most successful aspect of enlightened British counterinsurgency...

32Bravo
07-06-2008, 01:55 PM
The British Army had the unenviable position of being caught in-between warring tribes. And for many reasons, became one of them.

If they had become one of them, they would have finished it a long time ago.
The British Army's role as peacekeepers was always paramount. It was for the politicians to resolve the situation.




With such tensions going on, tragedies were bound to happen. Unfortunately, the British Army went from drinking tea in Catholic neighborhoods to being the equivalent of US Calvary stationed at a fort in Apache land...


A one-off incident is hardly Fort Apache. The soldiers exercised a lot of discipline for years. The Paras were the wrong people to send into those areas that day.

One should balance what the propaganda machine of the Provies milked from that situation, with the amount of lives that were protected, on both sides of the divide, from sectarian murder. The British Army was in the middle, not trying to be all things to all people, but attempting maintain some form of order. Even in the hardest of Republican areas, there were those who would prefer to see them there than not and the Army maintained a presence i.e. men on foot on the ground patrolling and policing. If the para-militaries had not continued a campaign of bombing and murder, the people would have felt they did not need them and they would have become alienated. So, they had their own agenda and they continued to try to force it through by keeping the situation hot.

Equally, the Loyalists attempted to maintain the status quo. People like Paisley and his cronies. They too had their agenda and worked at keeping their people hostile to any form of agreement. As did the loyalist para-militarists by, not only intimidating their own, but going out and commiting sectarian murder.



In many ways, the Irish Republican engagement in (mostly) politics and the further community dissociation of using violence can be seen as the most successful aspect of enlightened British counterinsurgency...

Sinn Fein have constantly made the distinction between themselves and the IRA. WHether one cares to believe it or not is an individual concern. However, those people who did elect members of Sinn Fein did so because they made that distinction. Not because they felt they were electing the IRA.

Incidentally, many soldiers with whom I served sympathised with the civil rights movement because of the injustices of the sytem in N.I. at that time. However, the IRA were not about the civil rights movement, and much of what the civil rights movement were organising against was resolved a very long time ago.

The world has changed a lot since 1969. The face of Europe and European politics has also changed. As we continue into the 21st Century as a part of Europe, the call for a united Ireland becomes somewhat academic. Add to that the situation with global terrorism and one can see why it was prudent for the IRA to declare an end to hostilites. But I would say it is not the way fo these people to give up their power bases and there is much terror and intimidation continuing in both communities today. Much of it we do not hear about as it is politically sensitive and no one wants to rock the boat. In time, when the people of N.I. learn to trust their police, then perhaps an end might come to the way of the thug and racketeer.

There is truth and there is perception, and a lot of what we perceive is what we are meant to perceive.

Let's hope that the people of those communities can find peace and hapiness.

Nickdfresh
07-07-2008, 10:27 PM
Oh, and another thing I've just remembered. Gerry Adams used to answer the phones for the IRA.

One of my teachers at school grew up over there, and after the IRA nicked his parent's car for the umpteenth time for use in an attack his mum phoned up to give them an ear-bashing. Gerry Adams answered the phone with the words "Hello, IRA."


Interestingly, I recall reading in one of Coogan's books regarding the negotiations between the IRA's "senior command" and the gov't of Harold Wilson (I think) prior to the ceasefire in the mid-1970s. The subject of "what if the media finds out that the British gov't held talks with the IRA?" was raised by an IRA member.

The answer was from one of the ministers, "then all bets are off!"

Several months later, after the truce broke-down, Gerry Adams (who was on the negotiating committee for the IRA) was picked up by the RUC. He then found himself being repeatedly punched by an interrogator who would punctuate each thrust of his fist with "all ****ing bets are off, Gerry!"

32Bravo
07-08-2008, 03:30 AM
Interestingly, I recall reading in one of Coogan's books regarding the negotiations between the IRA's "senior command" and the gov't of Harold Wilson (I think) prior to the ceasefire in the mid-1970s. The subject of "what if the media finds out that the British gov't held talks with the IRA?" was raised by an IRA member.

The answer was from one of the ministers, "then all bets are off!"



Full marks to the Wilson government for having the courage to try to find a way to peace despite the political climate.

32Bravo
07-09-2008, 10:43 AM
Interestingly, I recall reading in one of Coogan's books regarding the negotiations between the IRA's "senior command" and the gov't of Harold Wilson (I think) prior to the ceasefire in the mid-1970s. The subject of "what if the media finds out that the British gov't held talks with the IRA?" was raised by an IRA member.

The answer was from one of the ministers, "then all bets are off!"

Several months later, after the truce broke-down, Gerry Adams (who was on the negotiating committee for the IRA) was picked up by the RUC. He then found himself being repeatedly punched by an interrogator who would punctuate each thrust of his fist with "all ****ing bets are off, Gerry!"

I was going to let sleeping dogs lie, on this one. However, it concerns me that their may be an impression given that the heroes of the cause were dealing with a brutal regime. So, to redress the balance a little.
This is what happened when one of our chaps was captured by the provies. Fortunately, for him, they never quite realized whom they had, otherwise heaven help him if they had.

He had gone out alone and - when it became clear he was missing - no one new where or why. He was abducted outside a pub by a number of provies. When they had beaten him into submission, they took him to a meat factory across the border. He was then stripped naked and stuck up on a meat hook. Hanging there, they through buckets of water over him and proceeded to interrogate him with an electric cattle prodder. He stuck to his story, which was that he was sticky, from Belfast. In the end having gotten no more from him, they brought in a gunman and finished him. His remains were then put through a mincing machine and then fed to pigs.

Later when the intelligence came in, the truth of what had happened was related to the Queen, who insisted he be awarded the George Cross. Many soldiers died heroic deaths in N.I. sacrificing their own lives by shielding innocent bystanders with their own bodies, but none were awarded the George Cross, such was the power of the intelligence on the fate of this chap.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/northernireland.ireland

32Bravo
07-09-2008, 01:14 PM
Time for the IRA to catch up

Witnesses in the Robert McCartney murder case were too scared to testify. Has the peace process in Northern Ireland really filtered down to ground level?

All three of those accused of the Robert McCartney murder have been acquitted. The dead man's sister Catherine noted:

We hadn't got very high expectations. As a layperson sitting in that court listening to the evidence we have heard, would I have put someone away on that evidence? No. I wouldn't have so I can't expect the judge to do so.

Back in 2005, Sinn Féin invited all the sisters and McCartney's girlfriend to its annual conference. Gerry Adams, party president spoke about the dreadful nature of the crime, but then went on to qualify these remarks a few moments later by underwriting the extralegal political purposes of the IRA:

We know what a crime is both in the moral and legal sense, and our view is the same as the majority of people. We know that breaking the law is a crime. But we refuse to criminalise those who break the law in pursuit of legitimate political objectives.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, and despite a huge number of pious messages from both the IRA and Sinn Féin, the only witnesses to take the stand were two survivors of the attack, and a woman driver (witness C) who was simply passing by. Witnesses A and B refused to testify because even the anonymity being offered by the court was not enough to make them feel safe enough to do so.

No one – neither current nor former members – from the republican movement (including the defendants) took the witness stand. Party self interest came before the more general interests of justice.

Robert McCartney's murder was short, brutal and entirely without any political cause. Yet, since it had been carried out by an "off duty" IRA team, it caused Sinn Féin huge political embarrassment. It also pointed to a wider problem within so-called republican communities which the party had. At the time, Brendan O'Neill, writing on Spiked, observed:

In an attempt to rein the crisis in, Adams seems willing even to upset his colleagues in the IRA by taking a hard line over criminality and the McCartney murder. But where he and the IRA might succeed in resolving the McCartney affair and appeasing the grieving McCartney family, they can do little to stem the wider moral disintegration of republican communities in Northern Ireland. The McCartney murder acted as a catalyst for a deeper malaise within post-republican republican communities.

Three years later – and just over a year since the party finally recognised the police – even people firmly lodged within the "green zone" of Martin McGuinness's own movement are becoming victims. Three men in the last few months have been killed in Belfast and Derry, the latest being 23-year-old Emmet Sheils. The grief of his father and mother is as palpable as that of the McCartney sisters.

McGuinness has told the killers that they don't have a mandate for what they are doing; that they have come to a fork in the road, and it is now time to decide whether they are for a peaceful future, or not. But there is no reference to McGuinness's own problematic journey from gunman to junior statesman.

In its recent campaign to have powers of oversight on policing and justice devolved to Stormont, Sinn Féin has, rather belatedly, been lauding the ways of civil policing and the criminal justice system. Their partners in government, the Democratic Unionist party, don't believe that there is sufficient confidence in their own community, but have signalled a willingness to find an interim solution that will help build that confidence. If it bears fruit, we are not likely to know much before the end of the summer.

From the beginning, the peace process was a behaviourist project. It was never as interested in genuine changes of hearts and minds, as it was in outward behaviours. Moral consciousness and other forms of introspection were of little interest – and possibly of little practical use – to a society conditioned to profoundly self-harming behaviour.

Sinn Féin is now determined on stabilising the peace. But it needs to find a way of acquiring new habits of mind to go with its new political status. And it will need to find ways of serving the general will, rather than its own narrow, party-political self interest.

But, as Aristotle noted, it is often difficult for an individual to become virtuous if he or she has not acquired the habit of acting virtuously. The same may be said for political parties. Sinn Féin, reconciled at long last to a peaceful pursuit of its long term goal of a united Ireland, has, it seems, still to learn the power of the virtuous act.

And that may yet prove the movement's long-term undoing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/02/northernireland.gerryadams

Chevan
07-10-2008, 02:10 AM
British intell wasn't far from it at times, at least in Northern Ireland...;)
And the KGB didn't win in Afghanistan, did they?
Sure , becouse it wasn't KGB in afganistan ,but GRU and Army..
I hope you will not assert it was FBI that losed in Vietnam?
:)

Nickdfresh
07-10-2008, 08:36 AM
Sure , becouse it wasn't KGB in afganistan ,but GRU and Army..
I hope you will not assert it was FBI that losed in Vietnam?
:)


Um, the KGB was very much apart of the War effort in Afghanistan...

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACFAE9.pdf

(You can probably easily get the Russian version of that.)

And I didn't say they "lost" Afghanistan, simply that their ruthless methods failed to break the mujaheddin there...

The CIA was ever-present in Vietnam, along with Military Intelligences of the various branches...

But I'm pretty sure there was an FBI contingent there as well...

Nickdfresh
07-11-2008, 05:08 PM
I was going to let sleeping dogs lie, on this one. However, it concerns me that their may be an impression given that the heroes of the cause were dealing with a brutal regime. So, to redress the balance a little.
This is what happened when one of our chaps was captured by the provies. Fortunately, for him, they never quite realized whom they had, otherwise heaven help him if they had.

He had gone out alone and - when it became clear he was missing - no one new where or why. He was abducted outside a pub by a number of provies. When they had beaten him into submission, they took him to a meat factory across the border. He was then stripped naked and stuck up on a meat hook. Hanging there, they through buckets of water over him and proceeded to interrogate him with an electric cattle prodder. He stuck to his story, which was that he was sticky, from Belfast. In the end having gotten no more from him, they brought in a gunman and finished him. His remains were then put through a mincing machine and then fed to pigs.

Later when the intelligence came in, the truth of what had happened was related to the Queen, who insisted he be awarded the George Cross. Many soldiers died heroic deaths in N.I. sacrificing their own lives by shielding innocent bystanders with their own bodies, but none were awarded the George Cross, such was the power of the intelligence on the fate of this chap.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/northernireland.ireland

I think I've read of this incident or murder. Was he an SAS man? Something about going into a pub unauthorized and undercover and trying to mix with the locals?

In any case, it is pretty despicable treatment he received and it was bloody murder to torture kill a captive the way they did...But as you said earlier, something to the affect of: "big boy rules for big boy games."

Having said that, I condone no acts of IRA violence or murders, especially against British soldiers who were doing their job as ordered and ultimately were there to protect the Catholic minority...

But just because British soldiers could expect certain death if captured by the IRA, they were a terror group. Right? Republican members were denied basic civil rights and were in some cases, by all standards, tortured by the RUC, which was supposed to be acting at the behest and pretension of a democratic state. The facts are the vast majority of the people rounded up were Catholic Nationalists and only a small percentage of those picked up during the early "Troubles" were Presbyterian Unionists, yet violence was being conducted from both sides. So, while I applaud the Ulster gov't for not torture killing IRA suspects, one can hardly make such comparisons when they acted like a despotic regime attempting terminal ascendancy with only a thin veil of democratic legitimacy. The state is to held to a higher standard than an urban guerrilla/terror organization. And with the collusion you termed "big boy rules," there is blood on the hands of some RUC officers as well...

Nickdfresh
07-11-2008, 05:14 PM
Sinn Féin is now determined on stabilising the peace. But it needs to find a way of acquiring new habits of mind to go with its new political status. And it will need to find ways of serving the general will, rather than its own narrow, party-political self interest.

from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/ma...reland.ireland

I couldn't agree more...

They need to hand over the killers who seem to think they can stab anyone after getting pissed on some binge of Guinness and self-righteousness...

Nickdfresh
07-11-2008, 05:53 PM
I think I am done posting in this thread, BTW.

Lest anyone inquire what my personal thoughts are, I think Bono sums it all up nicely here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9c4lLnY0rA

32Bravo
07-12-2008, 10:31 AM
I think I've read of this incident or murder. Was he an SAS man? Something about going into a pub unauthorized and undercover and trying to mix with the locals?

In any case, it is pretty despicable treatment he received and it was bloody murder to torture kill a captive the way they did...But as you said earlier, something to the affect of: "big boy rules for big boy games."

Absolutely, and they wrote the rules.

As an example: in one of the above posts I added a link to the deaths of 1972. In that there are, as I described, a number of home-goals among the bombers. These came about because the timers and detonators of the bombs were pretty primitve. All around places like Belfast were what we used to refer to as 'Sleeping policemen' (these days we call them speed ramps). They were in place to cut down on the incidence of drive-by, sectarian murders. These ramps were really quite steep and if a vehicle drove into one of these without slowing to an absolute crawl, it would receive a huge jolt, hence, the premature explosions. Eventually, the Provies wised up. They would break into someones home, hold his family hostage at gunpoint and tell him where to go and park the car containing the bomb. Naturally, some of these drivers were subjected to the same fate as others who had experienced premature explosins i.e. they were blown to bits. Now if you haven't had to go about collecting the remains of those that have been spread about the street, I can assure you it is not something that one would care to take up as a career.


No he wasn't SAS. By the way, of those Britsh soldiers that have fallen into IRA hands - apart from two or three officers that were caught going walkabout in the Bogside during one of those ceasefires back in the seventies - none have lived to talk about it.

The main difference was that the PIRA was always able to milk every incident for its propoganda value. The Brits never seemed able to address this, so the Provies were able to pretty much write the story any which way they wished to. Both Adams and McGuiness are particularly adept at this, but especially Adams, who seems to resemble everyones Geography teacher. These days, the Britsh poltical parties are so full of spin, they would probably do a far better job.

Yes, this is a sensitive topic, but sometimes it's better to discuss for a clearer understanding. Particularly if one has no first-hand experience of it.

pdf27
07-12-2008, 01:04 PM
Lest anyone inquire what my personal thoughts are, I think Bono sums it all up nicely here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9c4lLnY0rA
Cheers for that, I've been looking for audio/video of that concert for ages...

Nickdfresh
07-12-2008, 06:20 PM
Cheers for that, I've been looking for audio/video of that concert for ages...


I have some lossless recordings of my favorite songs. They're yours if you want them. (that is when I get them out of storage in Virginia)

My advice is to go out and get a good copy of the VHS Hi Fi videotape, where almost ironically, the audio is FAR better than the piece of shit DVD version of Rattle and Hum --whose audio quality is reminiscent of a low quality porn DVD.

You can then record it using any digital audio program through your computer...

The CD version isn't really that good either. And it leaves off the best songs. The (U2 mix) CD I made is actually of far higher quality...

If you go to u2torrents.com, learn how to torrent, they occasionally have some high quality "soundboard" (professional either from the mixing-desk or recordings made that were never "officially released) recordings of the Denver concert that was partially used in the film...They won't torrent actual officially released material though...

Uyraell
02-14-2009, 08:15 AM
In reality, each of these groups are racketeers. They each rule their turf with harsh, disciplinary measures. The preferred punishment for minor offences in republican areas is 'knee-capping' (the bullet is usually shot through the knee from the back - some chap had a mishap when he shot into a knee-cap in the Lower Falls, they have been known to use power drills when seriously pissed-off). More serious crimes receive the death sentence and the bodies usally turn up in some roadside ditch. I do recall young girls being tarred and feathered for smiling at soldiers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6966493.stm

http://youtube.com/watch?v=t2IPCtrcFuE

http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF0305/Conroy/Conroy.html

Not only that: one girl had the lips of her mouth torn off with pliers, and yes, the girl was photographed and recorded on film post-event. In another case, a girl was tied and stood upright in a wall/cylinder of car or truck tires, over which petrol was poured and set alight....

I've lost count of the various similar events over the years that made it as far as the published media, and god alone knows what else happened that never reached the outer world.
I found all of it appalling, and still do.

Without wishing to seem racist, a retired Legionnaire friend of mine, since deceased, saw much the same in Zaire/Congo, in his time in service. I'm still as horrified at it happening in Africa, but mentally can "make sense" of it where I am unable to, regarding Ireland.

Regards, Uyraell.

32Bravo
02-14-2009, 08:23 AM
Without wishing to seem racist, a retired Legionnaire friend of mine, since deceased, saw much the same in Zaire/Congo, in his time in service. I'm still as horrified at it happening in Africa, but mentally can "make sense" of it where I am unable to, regarding Ireland.

Regards, Uyraell.


The terrorism practised by extremists does not recognise national, geographical nor racial boundrys...no actions caried out by extremists surprise or shock me anymore, but they do outrage me.

heimwehr danzig
01-16-2011, 09:39 AM
I trust that all those brits who disapprove of the Irish struggle for freedom would have surrendered promptly had the Nazis landed in 1940 and lived peacefully as collaborators with their new masters?
Britain brutally suppressed any semblance of Irish identity across 700 years of terror and oppression. Frankly the actions of units like the Black and Tans would not look out of place in Hitler's Germany or Milosevic's Serbia. Men shot without trial, entire towns and villages burned to the ground, civilians massacred in a sports ground, the list goes on.
Then, with the establishment of the apartheid state of northern Ireland Catholics were denied work and forced into ghettos were they could be targetted at will by loyalist mobs and their allies in the Police.
Like all guerilla wars it was brutal and terrible things were done by both sides, I don't deny that, but the cause was just. The goal is a free country, safe and peaceful for all.

Rising Sun*
01-16-2011, 10:09 AM
I trust that all those brits who disapprove of the Irish struggle for freedom would have surrendered promptly had the Nazis landed in 1940 and lived peacefully as collaborators with their new masters?

Could you expand on the similarities between those situations?



Britain brutally suppressed any semblance of Irish identity across 700 years of terror and oppression.

Which Britain?

The one that had Scottish incursions into Ireland before Scotland was part of what is now Britain?

Or, given your reference to 700 years of terror and oppression, the French (Normans) who invaded and settled there more than 700 years ago?


Frankly the actions of units like the Black and Tans would not look out of place in Hitler's Germany or Milosevic's Serbia. Men shot without trial, entire towns and villages burned to the ground, civilians massacred in a sports ground, the list goes on.

Frankly, I don't think you have the slightest hope of producing any evidence to support such wild statements.

Unless, perhaps, you know of an Irish Auschwitz or Dachau etc and their captives conveniently buried by the British in a peat bog somewhere, presumably by a rogue battalion of British SS pioneers which managed to fly under the anti-Nazi British radar during WWII.


Then, with the establishment of the apartheid state of northern Ireland Catholics were denied work and forced into ghettos were they could be targetted at will by loyalist mobs and their allies in the Police.
Like all guerilla wars it was brutal and terrible things were done by both sides, I don't deny that, but the cause was just. The goal is a free country, safe and peaceful for all.

Whatever you're smoking, get a better dealer.

He's cutting your stuff with shit which has seriously altered you mind. It's making you look drug ****ed.

Rising Sun*
01-16-2011, 10:24 AM
P.S.

Before anyone gets stuck into me for being pro-British, I have a lot more Irish in me than anything else and my forebears and my wife's forebears on both sides came here from Ireland, not necessarily voluntarily, six and seven generations ago.

I'm well aware of British oppression in Ireland, but heimwehr danzig's sweeping assertions are just silly.

heimwehr danzig
01-16-2011, 10:33 AM
The similarity is that when faced with Nazi invasion the Brits were happily spouting no surrender rhetoric. Preparations were made for resistance through unconventional warfare. British people enthusiastically supported the resistance efforts in occupied Europe against the Nazi presence. All this being said, how then can a British person object to attempts by Irish people to force an occupying power from their land?

The English had indeed been a mailgn presence in Ireland since the time of Henry VII, roughly 700 years before the birth of the Republic. As for the Scots, they were brought in to ensure a protestant ascendancy in the north by the usurper william of orange. In so doing they crushed the local populace, as well as defying the rightful king. All of this was done on English (and to some extent, Dutch) orders, even though it was before the act of union with Scotland.

I cannot see how exactly one would dispute the charges against the Black and Tans sir. They were more of a disgrace to the British security forces than any unit before or since. Sort of a Dirlewanger Brigade for 1920s Ireland. The robbed, burned and killed with impunity. They once burned the centre of Cork to the ground, then wore burnt corks in their hats as a reminder! Does this sound like the actions of a civilised group of men? Or how about the incident at Croke Park, when they fired into a crowd and killed upwards of a dozen fans at a gaelic football game? A Black and Tan bullet is as deadly as that from an SS Einsatzgruppen or a Serb death squad.

I know from your other posts that you are an intelligent and reasonable individual Rising Sun*, so I do not see how you can defend the existance of the British occupation in the north of Ireland. The Police force were 97% protestant and actively co-operated with loyalist terror gangs. Indeed, the reason for soldiers being sent to ulster was to protect Catholics from mobs of armed special constables. Many of the major employers would not take on Catholic workers, at least not into skilled professions and trades, because they assumed all Catholics to be terrorists.

Iron Yeoman
01-16-2011, 01:17 PM
The similarity is that when faced with Nazi invasion the Brits were happily spouting no surrender rhetoric. Preparations were made for resistance through unconventional warfare. British people enthusiastically supported the resistance efforts in occupied Europe against the Nazi presence. All this being said, how then can a British person object to attempts by Irish people to force an occupying power from their land?

The English had indeed been a mailgn presence in Ireland since the time of Henry VII, roughly 700 years before the birth of the Republic. As for the Scots, they were brought in to ensure a protestant ascendancy in the north by the usurper william of orange. In so doing they crushed the local populace, as well as defying the rightful king. All of this was done on English (and to some extent, Dutch) orders, even though it was before the act of union with Scotland.

I cannot see how exactly one would dispute the charges against the Black and Tans sir. They were more of a disgrace to the British security forces than any unit before or since. Sort of a Dirlewanger Brigade for 1920s Ireland. The robbed, burned and killed with impunity. They once burned the centre of Cork to the ground, then wore burnt corks in their hats as a reminder! Does this sound like the actions of a civilised group of men? Or how about the incident at Croke Park, when they fired into a crowd and killed upwards of a dozen fans at a gaelic football game? A Black and Tan bullet is as deadly as that from an SS Einsatzgruppen or a Serb death squad.

I know from your other posts that you are an intelligent and reasonable individual Rising Sun*, so I do not see how you can defend the existance of the British occupation in the north of Ireland. The Police force were 97% protestant and actively co-operated with loyalist terror gangs. Indeed, the reason for soldiers being sent to ulster was to protect Catholics from mobs of armed special constables. Many of the major employers would not take on Catholic workers, at least not into skilled professions and trades, because they assumed all Catholics to be terrorists.

Right, seriously, you want to open this can of worms? Reading your two posts already on this I can see you're singing directly of the IRA/Republican hymn sheet. At first I thought your various posts on the site were attempt to play devil's advocate for the SS but now i'm thinking you've come here to wind people up and that's how you get your kicks.

pdf27
01-16-2011, 02:30 PM
The Police force were 97% protestant and actively co-operated with loyalist terror gangs.
Largely because those Catholics who did joined went straight to the top of the IRA hit list. Frothing at the mouth about some of the more minor niggles in British-Irish relations while ignoring a few elephants in the room is not the way to win an argument...

heimwehr danzig
01-16-2011, 02:36 PM
Is it not possible, sir, that I am myself 'wound up' by anti Republican views when there is nothing intrinsically wrong in the Republican cause, even if one wishes to dispute the methods used to achieve those aims.
As I have said whilst playing 'devil's advocate for the SS', were we to all agree on every issue the forum would be a rather dull place to be. It is about an exchange of views as well as knowledge, and some of those views are strongly held. I would personally far rather people agreed with me than not, as any person would, however I acknowledge that is somewhat unlikely.
The difference between this post and those relating to the SS is mainly that while I have an academic interest in the SS, I actually have Irish roots and I am opposed strongly to what I see as the occupation of Ireland (any part of it) by the British crown.
Unfortunately, some of my views may be a little chiched on this matter, but I have a personal interest here, and sometimes I type rather faster that I think. Therefore, if my post appeared in any way OTT then I do apologise.
Kind regards,
HD

pdf27
01-16-2011, 02:52 PM
I am myself 'wound up' by anti Republican views when there is nothing intrinsically wrong in the Republican cause, even if one wishes to dispute the methods used to achieve those aims.
Republicans (note, Republicans, not Nationalists) turned to terrorism because the majority of the population of Northern Ireland didn't share their political aims - so they decided to start killing people until they changed their minds. Nationalists share exactly the same cause and aims, but stuck to purely peaceful means. If you're saying there is nothing wrong with the Republican cause, then you're not going to be sticking around on this forum for very much longer...

heimwehr danzig
01-16-2011, 03:03 PM
Sir, you are a staff member here, so of course I will defer to you.
I think it best if, having now stated my case, I step back from this particular thread.
I trust that, as gentlemen, we may agree to disagree.
Kind regards,
HD

Nickdfresh
01-17-2011, 06:39 PM
Heimwehr, I'm just wondering if you'd like to necropost, or start, some more inflammatory and controversial threads? I have some suggestions. You could try the infamous Bomber Harris thread, though I'm afraid it's locked... :evil:

heimwehr danzig
01-18-2011, 02:22 PM
Heimwehr, I'm just wondering if you'd like to necropost, or start, some more inflammatory and controversial threads? I have some suggestions. You could try the infamous Bomber Harris thread, though I'm afraid it's locked... :evil:

I posted based on an emotional reaction which is not what this forum is about.:oops: I apologise for agravating my fellow users.
I hope my apology will be accepted by all in the spirit in which it is given.
Kind regards,
HD

Smoking Frog
01-21-2011, 01:41 PM
I think there is a difference between todays Real IRA, Continuity IRA etc and the 'original' IRA from the 1920's
From what I've read, they were more in the 'freedom-fighter' mould (always in the eye of the beholder though) because they fought the Police and the British Army but didn't get involved in the bombing of civilian targets etc.
The frightening thing about all 'resistance' groups is that it's so easy to be labelled a 'collaborator' even if what you're doing isn't that major. I think if you declare for one side the other will get you; if you try to stay out of it, they'll both have you!

boyne_water
01-21-2011, 02:12 PM
The real rise in terrorism in N.I. was the split in 1969 of the IRA into 2 distinct groups.
The Official IRA (known as the Stickies) and the Provisional IRA(known as the Provos or PIRA)
The main disagreement(although not the only one)was that the Official IRA wanted to try using political means to realise their aims and PIRA wanted to continue the armed struggle.
Another point of tension between the 2 groups was the Officials leadership was based in Southern Ireland and that of PIRA was based in Northen Treland.The PIRA leadership felt that they were closer to the ground and knew best.
Given what happened in NI it wasn,t just criminal it was a waste of time(look at the make up of the N.I. Assembly).