The debt the British people owe to Gerry Adams...

[8den]

You mean that actually might have succesfully offed the whole tory cabinet? god pray for the day when they thought to have a few gunmen outside the emergency exit points..

1991 Downing Street Mortar Attack

 

[DotCommunist]

eyera used enough military tech to make a standard army unit shit bricks. IIRC the armargh sniper cells had bog standard troops refusing to get out of the APC because they were shitting it about getting done in.

Everyone bitches about how 'oh, arms and violence never solve anything'

Given the track record, would the british state have ever even considered fucking off out of it if they hadn't been so assaulted?

 

[LiamO]

and if NI wasn't a backdoor shame to us we would have crushed irish resistance under the cover of ww2

Like they did in WW1?

 

[DotCommunist]

that didn't work though- brave parnell era? formation of the UVF and those gunrunning operations that never came off? Forgive me but I am only going by an A Q Stewart book about resistance to home rule.

 

[LiamO]

My beef with Gerry Adams is due to mainland attacks against civilian targets. What reason should I, as a mainland civilian, have to thank Gerry Adams, except for stopping attacks on mainland targets? For the reasons outlined in previous posts, I don't feel the need to thank anyone who is oppressing me for stopping said oppression.

When he became involved with bombings against mainland citizens, he became directly involved in terrorism (not "terrorism", as mentioned before). It's a dispicable tactic from anyone, regardless of the circumstances. Civilians, the innocent loved ones of you and your comrades in arms, have been killed on your home turf, so now you want to do the same to the homeland of the forces occupying your country? Ever heard the phrase "be the bigger man"? I could never respect in any way the IRA for this. They used human life (innocent human life) as a bargaining tool. Sick.

Surely that seems fair enough?

This will probably open up another round of self-righteous foot-stomping from some but...

on what evidence do you claim the IRA deliberately targetted civilian fatalities in it's bombing campaign in England? (or at home for that matter)? I say england because they never planted any in scotland or wales.

You might say that individual armed actions were careless; you might legitimately argue some were completely reckless; but deliberately targetting civilian fatalities? Where is the evidence?

For an organisation that could come within inches of taking out an entire War Cabinet, they were remarkably bad at taking out civilians, were they not? Why not a Gig or a football stadium if they were interested in civilians?

To be clear. I am not suggesting that this discussion would be of much comfort to those who died in the pub bombings or at Warrington.

Nor do I seek to justify those actions.

But the fact that we could probably sit and name 90% of the bombings which resulted in civilian fatalities over a 25 year campaign surely proves the point - that civilian fatalities were the result of fuck-ups rather than policy.

As for civilian casualties in general or 'collateral damage' as the West calls them - I think you might find that the US, Britain & NATO would be the experts on this.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Emotionally and morally I agree, but tactically, what the PIRA did was text-book guerrilla warfare, right down to hitting "soft targets", a move which generates disgust in the general public. Thing is, that disgust can work two ways: It can mean an intensification of repression by the dominant side, but it can also mean a public mood that wants any ongoing struggle settled.

100% agree with this. Tactically, the right thing for Adams & PIRA to do, but according to the OP Brit civilians should be thanking Adams et al for no longer doing it. Which is kind of fucked up.

 

[AKA pseudonym]

1991 Downing Street Mortar Attack

and Brighton too... if feckin Thatcher had of been on that shitter a few moments longer!!!

 

[Jon-of-arc]

This will probably open up another round of self-righteous foot-stomping from some but...

on what evidence do you claim the IRA deliberately targetted civilian fatalities in it's bombing campaign in England? (or at home for that matter)? I say england because they never planted any in scotland or wales.

But the fact that we could probably sit and name 90% of the bombings which resulted in civilian fatalities over a 25 year campaign surely proves the point - that civilian fatalities were the result of fuck-ups rather than policy.

As for civilian casualties in general or 'collateral damage' as the West calls them - I think you might find that the US, Britain & NATO would be the experts on this.

I'm just gonna assume that that's what they did. They certainly took credit for bombings which killed civilians. They never said they were a "fuck up" (or if they did, rarely - I never heard it, and I followed this stuff as a young'un, my ma being Irish Catholic and all...).

And, fuck up or not, they would have been used at the negotiating table, which is what disgusts me about Adams.

 

[8den]

This will probably open up another round of self-righteous foot-stomping from some but...

on what evidence do you claim the IRA deliberately targetted civilian fatalities in it's bombing campaign in England? (or at home for that matter)? I say england because they never planted any in scotland or wales.

Birmigham Pub Bombings

That took 1.5 seconds.

 

[LiamO]

100% agree with this. Tactically, the right thing for Adams & PIRA to do, but according to the OP Brit civilians should be thanking Adams et al for no longer doing it. Which is kind of fucked up.

No. That is not what the OP says. If you doubt me read it again. maybe that is what your gut reaction tells you it says.

What the Op says is that for the first time in the last/present campaign, those who had come to the conclusion that armed struggle would not deliver the stated goal (a United Ireland) and a new direction/strategy was needed actually brought the rest of the movement with them. None of the other protaganists seemed capable of such a paradigm shift. THAT is why the british public should be grateful to Gerry Adams - because without him and his allies the IRA would no doubt still be conducting an armed campaign.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Or, alternatively, whoever had been in charge at the time would have reached that conclusion - the conclusion was the result of circumstances, not the individual. Or even, perhaps, someone else in charge would have reached that conclusion earlier than Adams.

You're on very weak ground telling people to be grateful to Adams.

 

[LiamO]

My beef with Gerry Adams is due to mainland attacks against civilian targets.

Just for reference, why do you deem the lives of british civilians to be more important than the lives of Irish ones (unionist or nationalist). That is how your post reads to me. If this is not your intention feel free to clarify.

 

[LiamO]

Or, alternatively, whoever had been in charge at the time would have reached that conclusion - the conclusion was the result of circumstances, not the individual. Or even, perhaps, someone else in charge would have reached that conclusion earlier than Adams.

You're on very weak ground telling people to be grateful to Adams.

Who? Name them.

Adams (and his colleagues) alone had the gravitas, the power and the tactical nous to pull it off. No doubt Matin McGuinness would have stepped up to the plate or Gerry Kelly had Adams been whacked, but you would hardly find their CV's any more attractive than Adams', would you?

 

[DotCommunist]

I'm just gonna assume that that's what they did.

don't bother engaging further with this clown.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Who? Name them.

Adams (and his colleagues) alone had the gravitas, the power and the tactical nous to pull it off. No doubt Matin McGuinness would have stepped up to the plate or Gerry Kelly had Adams been whacked, but you would hardly find their CV's any more attractive than Adams', would you?

You have missed my point. The judgement was that the armed struggle had failed. Whoever was at the top would have had access to the same information to make that judgement.

From what I can tell, Adams wasn't particularly prescient or visionary in his judgement. One could say that the writing had been on the wall for a while, particularly with what was happening elsewhere in the world with the PLO, etc, and with opinion in the US turning against the IRA. From what I can tell, Adams was quite reactive in his actions.

 

[LiamO]

Birmigham Pub Bombings

That took 1.5 seconds.

What took 1.5 seconds? For your emotions to short-circuit your brain again? The operatibe word would be deliberate. Not careless, not reckless, not cavalier, not murderous, but deliberate.The evidence that I have seen and read points to Birmingham being a colossal fuck-up rather than a deliberate massacre. I have yet to see a credible source suggest otherwise. If yous have evidence to the contrary, post it up. If not, fuck off.

Why is it that I have discussed this stuff, civilly, face to face with republican, loyalist and british military ex-combatants and with survivors of violence - yet when I come on here, with the express intent of discussing it with british people, the frothy-mouthed foot-stomping comes from a half-witted bunch of cunts from Donegal?

Are you afraid the poor British people will be duped by my cuddly-leprechaun facade 8dens? Surely if they were looking for an advocate they could pick better off their ringpieces than engage a know-nothing gobshite like yous. Why not fuck off like a nice bunch of lads and let the british posters on here speak for themselves, eh?

 

[rekil]

You mean that actually might have succesfully offed the whole tory cabinet? god pray for the day when they thought to have a few gunmen outside the emergency exit points..

What then. Ar aghaidh linn go dtí, erm, an choppa? No chance of a successful exfiltration. Volunteers don't grow on trees y'know. Plus the more people involved in an operation, the greater the chance of the whole shebang being compromised.

My beef with Gerry Adams is due to mainland attacks against civilian targets. What reason should I, as a mainland civilian, have to thank Gerry Adams, except for stopping attacks on mainland targets?

I remember Adams saying in an interview a few years ago that that there would've been more violence without the IRA. I don't recall if he said why, I'm pretty sure he didn't, or else just wasn't asked by the shit interviewer, but I suspect it's for the reasons VP and Liamo have touched on, namely that we could've had a range of competing groups who as well as fighting amongst themselves, might've had few qualms about responding in kind to attacks by the state and especially loyalists who as Eamonn McCann pointed out had a psychotic edge to their violence that for the most part the IRA lacked, so essentially we managed to avoid a spiral of sectarian carnage here and large scale civilian casualties across the water.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

 

[8den]

What took 1.5 seconds? For your emotions to short-circuit your brain again? The operatibe word would be deliberate. Not careless, not reckless, not cavalier, not murderous, but deliberate.The evidence that I have seen and read points to Birmingham being a colossal fuck-up rather than a deliberate massacre. I have yet to see a credible source suggest otherwise. If yous have evidence to the contrary, post it up. If not, fuck off.

How do you accidental blow up not one but two pubs?

Why is it that I have discussed this stuff, civilly, face to face with republican, loyalist and british military ex-combatants and with survivors of violence - yet when I come on here, with the express intent of discussing it with british[/] people, the frothy-mouthed foot-stomping comes from a half-witted bunch of cunts from Donegal?

Yeah, again it's just the lack of self awareness that marks you out as just a special breed of asshole.

Are you afraid the poor British people will be duped by my cuddly-leprechaun facade 8dens? Surely if they were looking for an advocate they could pick better off their ringpieces than engage a know-nothing gobshite like yous. Why not fuck off like a nice bunch of lads and let the british posters on here speak for themselves, eh?

I'm loving the way you're getting all defensive.

Oh what the Kingsmill Massacre? Theres another example of the IRA intentionally killing civilians

 

[LiamO]

You have missed my point. The judgement was that the armed struggle had failed. Whoever was at the top would have had access to the same information to make that judgement.

From what I can tell, Adams wasn't particularly prescient or visionary in his judgement. One could say that the writing had been on the wall for a while, particularly with what was happening elsewhere in the world with the PLO, etc, and with opinion in the US turning against the IRA. From what I can tell, Adams was quite reactive in his actions.

They were putting this in place from the mid to late 80's. There was no 'dry-up' of american money then.


Armed struggle did not fail either, did it? It just could not deliver the end result. The British had settled for a strategy of 'an acceptable level of violence'. That is why it was important that the IRA's campaign was brought to Britain. To make that level 'unacceptable'. It brought the British to the table and brought them back again sharpish after Canary wharf, when they tried to renege.

What Adams et al concluded was that armed struggle was a tactic, a strategy, not a sacred cow. They embarked on a new strategy which they believed, and still believe, will deliver their stated objective - a unified island of Ireland. Whether their analysis is correct or not, history will decide.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well that brings me back to one of my original questions. What has been achieved? A united Ireland is as far off as ever, but increased civil rights for Catholics in Northern Ireland have been achieved. Was this the best way to achieve what has been achieved? As a civil rights movement, how successful was the IRA?

 

[8den]

Well that brings me back to one of my original questions. What has been achieved? A united Ireland is as far off as ever, but increased civil rights for Catholics in Northern Ireland have been achieved. Was this the best way to achieve what has been achieved? As a civil rights movement, how successful was the IRA?

The peaceful civil rights movement was making good ground before it was over run by events like bloody sunday, and the escalating violence. The implementation of direct rule or the Sunningdale Agreement could have brought forth all the rights repressed by the Unionist assembly, without the campaign of violence.

And there's not reason the campaign for violence could be seen as a civil rights movement past the early 70s, and the decades that followed on from there.

 

[LiamO]

How do you accidental blow up not one but two pubs?


Oh what the Kingsmill Massacre? Theres another example of the IRA intentionally killing civilians

You are boring. All 8 of you.

whaddabout, whaddabout, whaddif.

Another exception that proves the general rule. To put Kingsmill in perspective... it came after a sustained campaign of one-way traffic aimed at catholic civilians in south Armagh. These stopped after Kingsmill. They were stopped by their own side.

Kingsmill was an awful affair - and I would not seek to justify it - but there is a credible and widespread belief (amongst protestants as well as catholics) that Kingsmill was the one thing that stopped this area slipping into the sectarian 'tit for tat' that bedevilled Belfast, Antrim and north Armagh.

I remember reading 'Mad Dog' how Johnny Adair broached the subject (15 years on) of 'bringing the war to the IRA in their heartland' of south armagh - and was firmly told to fuck off by Armagh and Newry loyalists.

 

[LiamO]

The peaceful civil rights movement was making good ground before it was over run by events like bloody sunday, and the escalating violence. The implementation of direct rule or the Sunningdale Agreement could have brought forth all the rights repressed by the Unionist assembly, without the campaign of violence.

And there's not reason the campaign for violence could be seen as a civil rights movement past the early 70s, and the decades that followed on from there.

This is why nobody can seriously engage with any of you 8dens. You are simply ignorant of chronology & history and devoid of analysis.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What are you saying? That they killed in order to stop the killing? Sounds suspiciously like the old Soviet line about 'fighting for peace'.

 

[8den]

You are boring. All 8 of you.

I'm sorry this all started with your claim

on what evidence do you claim the IRA deliberately targetted civilian fatalities in it's bombing campaign in England?

I retorted with the Birmingham 6

You responded

The evidence that I have seen and read points to Birmingham being a colossal fuck-up rather than a deliberate massacre. I have yet to see a credible source suggest otherwise. If yous have evidence to the contrary, post it up. If not, fuck off.

I asked you to provide evidence that explain how you "fuck up" blowing up two pubs.

And you ignored it; Now onto the good stuff...

Another exception that proves the general rule. To put Kingsmill in perspective... it came after a sustained campaign of one-way traffic aimed at catholic civilians in south Armagh. These stopped after Kingsmill. They were stopped by their own side.

Kingsmill was an awful affair - and I would not seek to justify it -

Good man....

but

I KNEW there was a but coming.

there is a credible and widespread belief (amongst protestants as well as catholics) that Kingsmill was the one thing that stopped this area slipping into the sectarian 'tit for tat' that bedevilled Belfast, Antrim and north Armagh.

So to be clear the IRA don't target civilians except when they have a bloody good reason.

I remember reading 'Mad Dog' how Johnny Adair broached the subject (15 years on) of 'bringing the war to the IRA in their heartland' of south armagh - and was firmly told to fuck off by Armagh and Newry loyalists.

Oh so The IRA picked ten protestant men off a bus and shot them to prevent further violence.

What a fine bunch of lads.

 

[LiamO]

What are you saying? That they killed in order to stop the killing? Sounds suspiciously like the old Soviet line about 'fighting for peace'.

No.

I am saying that a particularly brutal, and uncharacteristic, act of sectarian savagery was sufficient for Unionists to bring pressure to bear on those in their own community (and serving members of the 'security forces', including Robert Nairac) based at Glenane to stop their campaign of sectarian assassinations against catholics. The ease, speed and finality of that cessation also led to much speculation...

 

[rekil]

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

That did occur to me. I can't wait for someone from SF to come around here canvassing so I can have a go at them about the rascals who painted IRA in big pink letters on the side of my house. But my neighbour says that politicans aren't bothering to knock on doors, just chucking leaflets in the door and fucking off quick as you like.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That did occur to me. I can't wait for someone from SF to come around here canvassing so I can have a go at them about the rascals who painted IRA in big pink letters on the side of my house. But my neighbour says that politicans aren't bothering to knock on doors, just chucking leaflets in the door and fucking off quick as you like.

There is a serious point to that, though, and it goes to the heart of the way the IRA saw themselves, which was to a great extent as the legitimate authority within 'their' community. Fuck them and fuck the tooled up horse they rode in on.

 

[8den]

This is why nobody can seriously engage with any of you 8dens.

Suggestions I'm insane, next you'll suggest I'm drunk, nothing if not predictable.

You are simply ignorant of chronology & history

Explain where I am wrong.

and devoid of analysis.

Yeah re read your post. Theres no rebuttal of my chronology, and just pure ad hominem