Was the IRA justified?

[Revolutionairy]

I am in the middle of some History Coursework and it got me wondering about 2 questions.

1.Was the IRA justified in fighting the british army?

2. How would the Prodestants been treated in a united Ireland

 

[Stefan Haertel]

As with most of these groups, the answer of justification is always a very tough one:

Short answer: Yes, undoubtedly
Long answer: No, because...

 

[MrPresident]

1. No. Violence of any kind is not acceptable in democracy, unless of course you don't have the vote but even then it should be used very sparingly (and often doesn't work anyway). Catholics in Northern Ireland weren't in the majority and that is why Northern Ireland is British not Irish.

2. Unknown.

 

[Kentonio]

1. No

2. Badly

 

[Revolutionairy]

Come on this place always has long answers!

 

[Kafka2]

1- I can understand why they did it, but I'd find it very difficult to call "right" terrorist attacks upon innocent civilians under any circumstances.

2- Given the history, I think it wouldn't be pretty but it probably wouldn't be worse than it actually turned out.

 

[joespaniel]

Originally posted by Kafka2
1- I can understand why they did it, but I'd find it very difficult to call "right" terrorist attacks upon innocent civilians under any circumstances.

Ditto for me.

As for the second question, who knows?

Alot of folks in my family are from Ireland or still live there (County Claire) btw.

The ones in America were more militant about the issue, while the ones in Ireland were strongly against the IRA and the British, for their use of violence.

 

[ellie]

no, my cousin served a tour of ireland, he was spat on several times and he didnt want to be there, none of the british soldiers there WANTED to be there.

At the end of the day they hit soft targets, civilians. Nothing justifies that.

Im sure if everyone in the country wanted british soldiers out they would happily leave

Ellie

 

[onejayhawk]

No. That has not stopped a lot of things, including the British in some cases.

J

 

[TheStinger]

The IRA in the early 20th centurty was justified, just.
The PIRA in the 70's onwards were not.

The Protestants would have been treated badly but not as badly as catholics were treated, although it is better now.

 

[redtom]

No., but they do have a fair point to make. I do belief Britain should give Northern Ireland to southern Ireland, because its simply not worth holding on to due to the cost.

If they are treated as badly as other minorities in Ireland, then they are better of staying with Britain. I'm sure if we ever give Northern Ireland back to southern Ireland there would mass emigration of the type Europe hasn't seen since the end of the Second World War.

 

[Rodgers]

You're way off Redtom - the major cost in NI is the security apparatus - a lasting peace in the province is not entirely impossible to achieve and i find it hard to believe this isnt possibe given the huge progress made recently. Once the peace is cemented there is HUGE tourist market waiting to be developed in the province - giving the UK a net gain in additional tax revenues etc.

As for the question posed -

1. Not justified. Regardless of whether you think violence etc is justified under such circumstances, the peaceful marching and demonstrating had the Protestant majority under a lot of pressure in the late 60's and early 70's and may have finally brought about the changes the Nationalist/Catholic minority were seeking.

The use of violence polarised the society even further and made a compromise impossible. That said, the IRA/INLA violence has successfully wrung concessions from the British over the years but it was the major military set-backs suffered by those groups in the 1980's (use of the "shoot-to-kill policy" by the SAS being a big part in those defeats) that let McGuinness and Adams to start trying move the IRA towards becoming a peaceful political movement.

As for the American Irish's support for the IRA - a more blind and pathetic collection of views is harder to imagine. Talk about living in a cartoon reality! Teenage boys from the Mid-West (who've never even been to Ireland and would have a hard time pointing to it on a map) with IRA tattoos on their arms - honestly!


2. The Protestants - yes, their treatment under the rule of the Republic would have been substantially worse. The (I suppose, nominally) Catholic citizens of that country had to fight long and hard to obtain the right to a divorse,abortion, contraception etc etc and to shake off the pervasive influence of the Church in the running of the country. Bad enough for Catholics, can you imagine how Protestants would have felt?

Perhaps more significantly, on a day to day basis, would have been the possibility of increased intimidation and violvence against them by Cathloic seeking "revenge" etc and the markedly worse economic conditions prevailing in the south which could only have worsened the north's unemployment/economy

 

[Kentonio]

I agree very much with you Rodgers apart from one little comment..

and i find it hard to believe this isnt possibe given the huge progress made recently.

This 'progress' has been wrought mainly by a raft of moves by the Labour government that are akin to total surrender. the release of hundreds of convicted terrorists without the IRA decommisioning its weapons was in my mind one of the most irresponsible and dangerous acts this government has ever commited.

Kentonio

 

[gael]

The IRA were only considered as terrorists by England. They were a peoples army fighting to regain thier own country. Without them there would be no free state in Ireland.
The partition of the north was given to the Unionist majority who had threatened England with terrorism, with thier already well established parimitary groups, if they turned they're backs on them. (Kidnaping etc)
England new that they could'nt leave them there, as the Irish would have kicked them out, so they gave them their own state.

The Unionist majority were in complete control of the North with backing from England, they formed their own police force and went through a process of driving the Irish out of the north. (burning homes, shooting, and giving them no or little polical or social rights.) The north effectivly became an anti-Irish police state.
The IRA conducted a campaign along the border which failed miserably. They then decided to disband and form the Workers Party, dedicated to solving the problem through diplomatic means.

This did not stop the escalating problems the nationalist people were facing in the north from the unionist militants and politicions. They felt as though the south of Ireland had given up on them, (which they had) and now that the IRA had disbanded they were sitting ducks.

There was an uproar within the nationalist community, which was famously expressed in the graffiti that appeared all over the walls within these communitys: IRA- I Ran Away.
This led to the formation of the modern Provisional IRA (PIRA) that swore to defend the nationalist people of the north and bring about the unification of Ireland. At the start they were nothing more that a few men with dusty old guns.

Although there has been atrocitys over the years committed on both sides, without the PIRA the nationalist population, (which statistics now say is 40%) would be living in slums, have no votes, less job oppertunitys, and not even nearly a chance of sharing political power.

The situation has reached a stail mate, with both sides realising that they have to work together 50/50. There are still hardliners on both sides that want all or nothing. Today these have become known as the terrorists by majority of people in the north on both sides, as there ideals are out dated an unrealistic.

But you have to remember that nationalists in the north had nothing, and its only though the PIRA that they were able to rise to the same level in socity as the unionists. If they did'nt have the threat, England would not have cared.

So to your original questions:

1.Was the IRA justified in fighting the british army?

A: Does Dolly Partin sleep on her back?

2. How would the Prodestants been treated in a united Ireland.

A. Badly.

 

[TheStinger]

If the civil rights movement had carried on and no terrorists had got involved, nationalist would have won the majority of reforms they were seeking in the 1970.s and 3000+ people would not be dead

 

[ellie]

Quote
___________
So to your original questions:

1.Was the IRA justified in fighting the british army?

A: Does Dolly Partin sleep on here back?
_______________________________________

perhaps the real question should have been

1) Can the ira justify the murdering of innocent civilians numbering in the hundreds


Elllie

 

[gael]

Quote:
"If the civil rights movement had carried on and no terrorists had got involved, nationalist would have won the majority of reforms they were seeking in the 1970.s and 3000+ people would not be dead"

You forget Bloody Sunday.
These demontrations on there own would have achieved very little, very slowly, If anything. Do you expect the people to just sit there and take it.

Quote:
"perhaps the real question should have been
1) Can the ira justify the murdering of innocent civilians numbering in the hundreds"

You forget that there is more unionist parimitary groups than nationalist. They only target civilians and nothing else. They drive past people on the street and shoot them dead. They call out taxis and shot the driver. They throw pipe bombs through the windows of catholic homes. These are concidered ligitamite targets. When they are not shooting cilivians, they are shooting each other over crime terroritory. If you were a nationalist living in Northern Ireland, how would you want to be protected. From a Unionist goverment in the North or an English goverment?
I lived in London, and believe me, you don't hear the half of it. Your news coverage on the north is heavily selective.

If you looked at the regional news over here you would see that the unionist parimitarys have been shooting, bombing, and terrorising nationalists since this the Good Friday Agreement was signed in a bid to get the IRA to start fighting back and distroy the peace terms. (Remember that every thing that the nationalists gain, they stand to lose.)
The IRA have not fought back, bar a few isolated instances. (Frustrated breakaway groups)

Yet the main headlines are calling for a complete disarmament, with no word on all the unionst activity that goes on an almost daily basis. From this you can see the IRAs delemia.
I understand that you are baise in your views concidering from were you live, but there is no way you can have any real view based on English news reports.
England do not care about the threat posed to the nationalist people, they want the IRA to disband because they pose a risk to English cities.

 

[ellie]

Gael its just as bad when unionists murder innocent people just because of who they are.

I dont pretend to understand it all, dont both religions consider killing the ultimate sin?

Ellie

 

[gael]

Originally posted by ellie
Gael its just as bad when unionists murder innocent people just because of who they are.

I dont pretend to understand it all, they claim to be christians.

Ellie

Religion has nothing to do with. Chatholic/Protestant is just an identifying label that groups you under a certain political side. Protestant people have thier roots and hertitage in British unionism, Catholics in Irish nationalism.

 

[Richard III]

Yes, Gael, I must echo ellie's point: neither form of terrorism is acceptable.

The fact that british troops were in Ulster/the Six Counties to protect catholics from ulster extremists when Bloody Sunday happened only reinforces the pointlessness of viewing this as a one-sided problem.

I would have more sympathy for the Republican position if it weren't for the excesses of the "armed struggle," which grew over time into a self-rationalizing process.

R.III