Were the IRA totally bad?

GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
Forum Member
✭✭
I am talking about the IRA as a whole and not just splinter cells like the PIRA and OIRA.

I never did history at school and while I was born in Ireland I've no clear idea who's opinions to trust. So if anyone would care to explain it to me can you do it simply as I'm not stupid but not really up to speed with the details.

As I recall they wanted a united Ireland but the people in northern Ireland mainly wanted to be a part of the uk.
The British troops attacked civilians as much as the IRA and so while not being justified, it certainly wasn't clear cut.
what makes the IRA terrorists but the british government not.

Can you also explain how religion came in to it.
«13456

Comments

  • johnnybgoode83johnnybgoode83 Posts: 8,908
    Forum Member
    I would suggest reading this as it should give you some good background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army :)
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I've already read that, I was asking here for opinions as well as facts.
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    It depends on whether you classify blowing up children and innocent people as "totally bad". They had a political cause which they chose to persue through violence. The troops were not needed until the violence started in Northern Ireland and from memory they were first sent to protect the catholics from protestant extremism.
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It depends on whether you classify blowing up children and innocent people as "totally bad". They had a political cause which they chose to persue through violence. The troops were not needed until the violence started in Northern Ireland and from memory they were first sent to protect the catholics from protestant extremism.

    Yes I would see that as totally bad obviously. I see what you mean about the cause pursued through violence.
    Did they start off as freedom fighters though, that's a good thing right? Or does the fact they went for it using violence negate the good intentions.

    What I mean is the original army, were they bad or not.

    The British gov did kill innocents too.
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    Glowbot wrote: »
    Yes I would see that as totally bad obviously. I see what you mean about the cause pursued through violence.
    Did they start off as freedom fighters though, that's a good thing right? Or does the fact they went for it using violence negate the good intentions.

    What I mean is the original army, we're they bad or not.

    The only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is whose side you're on.
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is whose side you're on.

    Are you sure? I don't think freedom fighters kill children.
  • redhatmattredhatmatt Posts: 5,197
    Forum Member
    Are Al Quada totally bad?
  • johnnybgoode83johnnybgoode83 Posts: 8,908
    Forum Member
    Glowbot wrote: »
    I've already read that, I was asking here for opinions as well as facts.

    The problem with opinions is that you will get differing information from people on both sides of the community.
  • John146John146 Posts: 12,926
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Might I suggest that killing people whose religion does not concur with yours, perhaps revenge killings, killing public figures who had no bearing or influence over what the IRA's objectives appeared to be is bad.
  • irishguyirishguy Posts: 22,172
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glowbot wrote: »

    What I mean is the original army, were they bad or not.

    Are you talking about the original army led by Michael Collins? In that case I would say they were freedom fighters in the same way that the Americans in the war of Independence were
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,997
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Glowbot wrote: »
    Are you sure? I don't think freedom fighters kill children.

    They do it quite often, once you start shooting and bombing there is very little chance of that not happening on whatever side you are on.
  • irishguyirishguy Posts: 22,172
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jmclaugh wrote: »
    They do it quite often, once you start shooting and bombing there is very little chance of that not happening on whatever side you are on.

    Although it greatly simplifies a complex, gray area of morality, I guess at a basic level, terrorism involves deliberately targeting civilians as part of a campaign.... something the later version of the IRA often did
  • Ethel_FredEthel_Fred Posts: 34,127
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    irishguy wrote: »
    Are you talking about the original army led by Michael Collins? In that case I would say they were freedom fighters in the same way that the Americans in the war of Independence were
    And he was also murdered by the IRA
  • irishguyirishguy Posts: 22,172
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ethel_Fred wrote: »
    And he was also murdered by the IRA

    Depends on your point of view... Is the death of a combatant in a civil war considered murder?
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    redhatmatt wrote: »
    Are Al Quada totally bad?

    I know, that's what I hear too when my friend said the IRA weren't totally bad.
    I don't have a problem with concluding that al Qaeda are totally bad unless they have a charity bake sale division tucked away somewhere.
    He said that without the IRA the British would have taken Ireland.

    Were the ira always terrorists then or not. I can't get my head around it.
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    irishguy wrote: »
    Depends on your point of view... Is the death of a combatant in a civil war considered murder?

    A lot depends on how you define a civil war. Is Syria in the middle of a civil war and did Libya have a civil war last year? Was the IRA in a civil war or at war with another country and was it a genuine war or an insurgency? Nothing is clear cut and definable.
  • irishguyirishguy Posts: 22,172
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glowbot wrote: »
    He said that without the IRA the British would have taken Ireland.

    Errr... not sure what he means... the British already had Ireland at that point.

    Arguably the IRAs actions led to Home Rule and the Republics independence at that time... although I think it would have happened after WW2 in a less violent manner anyway
  • irishguyirishguy Posts: 22,172
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    A lot depends on how you define a civil war. Is Syria in the middle of a civil war and did Libya have a civil war last year? Was the IRA in a civil war or at war with another country and was it a genuine war or an insurgency? Nothing is clear cut and definable.

    It's termed academically as the Irish Civil War... but I take your point.
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    Glowbot wrote: »
    I know, that's what I hear too when my friend said the IRA weren't totally bad.
    I don't have a problem with concluding that al Qaeda are totally bad unless they have a charity bake sale division tucked away somewhere.
    He said that without the IRA the British would have taken Ireland.

    Were the ira always terrorists then or not. I can't get my head around it.

    Your friend needs to do research. Ireland was part of the UK until the 1920s and then it split into Eire and NI as 6 counties wanted to remain in the UK. Why would the British have then retaken Ireland?
  • hustedhusted Posts: 5,287
    Forum Member
    jmclaugh wrote: »
    They do it quite often, once you start shooting and bombing there is very little chance of that not happening on whatever side you are on.

    Indeed, many of the unarmed civilians shot by the British Army on Bloody Sunday were children.
  • tysonstormtysonstorm Posts: 24,609
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    By "totally bad" do you mean like devastating as in losing a loved one in a bomb attack or "totally bad" as in running out of milk when you want a bowl of cereal?
  • redhatmattredhatmatt Posts: 5,197
    Forum Member
    I personally believe that Northern Ireland should be part of the republic of Ireland, However, At least with the second wave of the IRA that emerged in the 1950's and 1960's there was a peaceful political process that could have been used to achieve those aims, if the majority of Northern Ireland wanted them. The IRA were religious/far right extremists end of, there is no different between the IRA and the BNP, except the IRA are paramilitary and used a scale of violence more than the BNP

    They are terrorists.
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    irishguy wrote: »
    Errr... not sure what he means... the British already had Ireland at that point.

    Arguably the IRAs actions led to Home Rule and the Republics independence at that time... although I think it would have happened after WW2 in a less violent manner anyway

    Well specifically what he said was that the Ira fought for ireland, without them there would be no republic. Which is as you say there.
    It was the PIRA and OIRA that committed "acts of terrorism" and that it was a war against a force that invaded them and the IRA had legitimate concerns.

    That's interesting about the war, I've seen things about how the south didn't fight in the war or helped the Germans even.
Sign In or Register to comment.