Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 26th, 2018, 06:20 PM   #1

Mise Eire's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Oct 2017
From: Make-Believe Land
Posts: 92
The IRA and the PIRA


Before I elaborate, let me clarify: I do not condone terrorism, nor do I wish for this to be a contentious political debate. I am merely trying to understand a certain historical perspective....
Why do we exalt the Leaders of 1916 and Michael Collins, but we condemn the likes of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness? Hear me out! Tom Clarke tried to blow up London Bridge with dynamite in 1883. Others have argued Pádraic Pearse was a tad fanatical in his beliefs -- and the Easter Rising claimed many civilians lives and caused great destruction to Dublin. Michael Collins had many more individuals on his list for Bloody Sunday (to which I believe it was Cathal Brugha who made him shortened it due to a lack evidence).
What I'm saying is, in the past, Irish republicans and nationalists have used violence as a means to advance their cause. Many times, there were unintended causalities. So, why does it matter what decade it occurs in?
Again, I'm not a terrorist. I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to know where the line is drawn with violence and politics, and why it is drawn where it is.
Mise Eire is offline  
Remove Ads
Old February 26th, 2018, 06:28 PM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: appalacian Mtns
Posts: 4,217

One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Me personally if I were an IRA member, I'm not, I'm an American, I'd consider any UK soldier, police, politician or bureaucrat on Irish soil a legitimate target & try too avoid collateral damage. I'd avoid any attacks not in Ireland. The whole point being for them too go home.

PS, not Catholic or Protestant, I'm an Infidel.

Last edited by M9Powell; February 26th, 2018 at 06:42 PM.
M9Powell is offline  
Old February 26th, 2018, 06:53 PM   #3
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: appalacian Mtns
Posts: 4,217

The above being said, I think now is not the time for that particular battle. We have bigger fish too fry. Radical Muslims.
M9Powell is offline  
Old February 26th, 2018, 07:27 PM   #4

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 3,359

In many situations distance in time helps soften attitudes to otherwise quite barbaric actions.

However I’d say, despite the occasional attacks and terrorist action of the original IRA, they did fight a “real” war against an army and won. Had they lost I think it’s fair to say they’d be remembered as something less heroic.

The modern IRA lost their war, were preoccupied with killing civilians, rarely engaged the army in anything approaching a fight and displayed next to no heroism. If I half remember it the IRA gradually decended into petty drug dealing, bank robberies and even caused problems in the republic. Who’d glorify them? No Mount Street Bridge or Ballinalee there....but lots of shooting soldiers off duty, blowing up shops and pubs and marching bands....
Edric Streona is offline  
Old February 26th, 2018, 07:41 PM   #5
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: appalacian Mtns
Posts: 4,217

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
In many situations distance in time helps soften attitudes to otherwise quite barbaric actions.

However I’d say, despite the occasional attacks and terrorist action of the original IRA, they did fight a “real” war against an army and won. Had they lost I think it’s fair to say they’d be remembered as something less heroic.

The modern IRA lost their war, were preoccupied with killing civilians, rarely engaged the army in anything approaching a fight and displayed next to no heroism. If I half remember it the IRA gradually decended into petty drug dealing, bank robberies and even caused problems in the republic. Who’d glorify them? No Mount Street Bridge or Ballinalee there....but lots of shooting soldiers off duty, blowing up shops and pubs and marching bands....
I agree with most of that, with the exception that the first bunch didn't completely win, if they had the 2nd bunch wouldn't have existed. As long as an English soldier remains on Irish soil it'll never really end, you know that right?
M9Powell is offline  
Old February 26th, 2018, 10:17 PM   #6

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 3,359

Quote:
Originally Posted by M9Powell View Post
I agree with most of that, with the exception that the first bunch didn't completely win, if they had the 2nd bunch wouldn't have existed. As long as an English soldier remains on Irish soil it'll never really end, you know that right?
They seem turned off towards violence right now. The British soldiers are still there. Even the most rabid and left wing republicans don’t support a return to the old days. Brexit might change things.....
Edric Streona is offline  
Old February 26th, 2018, 11:34 PM   #7

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 22,168
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mise Eire View Post
Before I elaborate, let me clarify: I do not condone terrorism, nor do I wish for this to be a contentious political debate. I am merely trying to understand a certain historical perspective....
Why do we exalt the Leaders of 1916 and Michael Collins, but we condemn the likes of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness? Hear me out! Tom Clarke tried to blow up London Bridge with dynamite in 1883. Others have argued Pádraic Pearse was a tad fanatical in his beliefs -- and the Easter Rising claimed many civilians lives and caused great destruction to Dublin. Michael Collins had many more individuals on his list for Bloody Sunday (to which I believe it was Cathal Brugha who made him shortened it due to a lack evidence).
What I'm saying is, in the past, Irish republicans and nationalists have used violence as a means to advance their cause. Many times, there were unintended causalities. So, why does it matter what decade it occurs in?
Again, I'm not a terrorist. I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to know where the line is drawn with violence and politics, and why it is drawn where it is.
It's a question which actually hasn't got a clear answer. The border between a Partisan and a Terrorist, in case of an occupied land is really tiny.

Personally I tend to think that a "proper" Partisan tries and avoid civilian casualties and that Partisans attack only military and administrative targets connected with the enemy occupying power. This is why, for example, I consider at least a part of Palestinian Hamas a terrorist organization.

And, thinking well, we can make reference to the common definition of "terror attack": it's an attack targeting civilians not involved or connected in any way with the management of a conflict, out of a military context and not run by a regular army [bombing a city, killing also a lot of civilians] is a military action, not a terror attack.
AlpinLuke is online now  
Old February 26th, 2018, 11:36 PM   #8

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,455

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mise Eire View Post
Before I elaborate, let me clarify: I do not condone terrorism, nor do I wish for this to be a contentious political debate. I am merely trying to understand a certain historical perspective....
Why do we exalt the Leaders of 1916 and Michael Collins, but we condemn the likes of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness? Hear me out! Tom Clarke tried to blow up London Bridge with dynamite in 1883. Others have argued Pádraic Pearse was a tad fanatical in his beliefs -- and the Easter Rising claimed many civilians lives and caused great destruction to Dublin. Michael Collins had many more individuals on his list for Bloody Sunday (to which I believe it was Cathal Brugha who made him shortened it due to a lack evidence).
What I'm saying is, in the past, Irish republicans and nationalists have used violence as a means to advance their cause. Many times, there were unintended causalities. So, why does it matter what decade it occurs in?
Again, I'm not a terrorist. I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to know where the line is drawn with violence and politics, and why it is drawn where it is.
A Fenian is a Fenian, they're all evil and have no redeeming features whatsoever, Ireland's version of the Nazis.
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Old February 26th, 2018, 11:42 PM   #9

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,455

Quote:
Originally Posted by M9Powell View Post
One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Me personally if I were an IRA member, I'm not, I'm an American, I'd consider any UK soldier, police, politician or bureaucrat on Irish soil a legitimate target & try too avoid collateral damage. I'd avoid any attacks not in Ireland. The whole point being for them too go home.

PS, not Catholic or Protestant, I'm an Infidel.
Nonsense! A terrorist is anyone who uses violence for political means in a free and democratic society, a freedom fighter uses violence against a tyranny in order to create a free and democratic society.

'The whole point being for them to go home'? We ARE home you bloody fascist! British and Irish are the same thing, that's what being an Irish Unionist is. I guess the Native Americans have the right to kill any US soldier, police officer, politician and bureaucrat?
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Old February 26th, 2018, 11:47 PM   #10

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,455

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
In many situations distance in time helps soften attitudes to otherwise quite barbaric actions.

However I’d say, despite the occasional attacks and terrorist action of the original IRA, they did fight a “real” war against an army and won. Had they lost I think it’s fair to say they’d be remembered as something less heroic.

The modern IRA lost their war, were preoccupied with killing civilians, rarely engaged the army in anything approaching a fight and displayed next to no heroism. If I half remember it the IRA gradually decended into petty drug dealing, bank robberies and even caused problems in the republic. Who’d glorify them? No Mount Street Bridge or Ballinalee there....but lots of shooting soldiers off duty, blowing up shops and pubs and marching bands....
These is NO difference between the IRA of 1916-21. They were cowardly terrorists, they lost too, Britain won, there was no war on independence. It's a cliché to say that history is written by the winners, Ireland is the exception, it was written by the losers to try to portray themselves as the winners and take credit for Home Rule. Now with the Shamrock Awakening people are finally waking up to the fact.
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
ira, pira



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.