Was the IRA's war morally right?

[kainedamo]

The IRA first appeared in the 1910s to fight off the British for independence. Somewhat similar to America's own war against the British. In 1916 the IRA took over key locations in Dublin in a rebellion that was called 'the Easter Rising'. The rebellion was quashed six days later. This fight however laid the seeds for later attempts at independence. So then there came the Irish War of Independence which went from 1919 to 1921. The IRA of this time is often referred to as the 'old IRA' to distinguish it from later forms.

The British, recieving growing criticism from home and abroad for their retalitary house burnings and raids, and realizing the growing cost of the war, decided on a peace treaty with the other side. This led to the south of Ireland becoming a free state, while the North remained in control of the British.

Later in the century, the next stage of the conflict began - what is referred to as 'the Troubles'. In the 60s, many Irish Catholics marched for Civil Rights, taking great influence from the American Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King. They wanted moderate reforms of the system, at this point they weren't screaming from the rooftops for a united Ireland. Ian Paisley, a figure that has been part of the whole history of the Troubles from the beginning to it's end, vehemently and very audibly opposed the civil rights movement, and labelled the then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland a coward for even thinking about giving any concessions.

I genuinely believe Ian Paisley bears a large amount of responsibility for not only triggering the Troubles, but for having the Troubles drag out for as long as it did. His hate filled bigoted speeches added fuel to the fire, time and time again. He got the Protestant people paranoid at a time when it wasn't necassary. People currently praise Ian Paisley for having finally talked with Sinn Fein and help put an end to the conflict. But without Paisley, a deal could have been met a decade earlier, if not long before that. Paisley has been a huge influence in the Protestant community for decades and his rhetoric has put hate and bigotry into each new generation. People conveniently forget his ugly speeches, and how he didn't want even the slightest of rights to make Catholics more equal in society.

From wikipedia...

Much of the hostile loyalist reaction to the Civil Rights Movement was linked to the ability of leaders to provoke fear within the Unionist populace that the IRA was not only behind the NICRA, but was also planning a renewed armed campaign.[citation needed] In fact, the IRA was moribund, had few weapons, fewer members, negligible support, and was increasingly committed (out of necessity) to non-violent politics.[citation needed] The first bombing campaign of the Troubles (largely directed against power stations and other infrastructure) was staged by the Loyalist Ulster Volunteer Force in 1969 to try to implicate the IRA.

So their paranoia gave them exactly what they didn't want. They fulfilled their own prophecy.

In the 70s through to the 80s is considered the most violent of the Troubles.

Wikipedia...

The years 1970-1972 saw an explosion of political violence in Northern Ireland, peaking in 1972, when nearly 500 people lost their lives. There are several reasons why violence escalated in these years.

Unionists claim the main reason was the formation of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (Provisional IRA), a group formed when the IRA split into the Provisional and Official factions. While the older IRA had embraced non-violent civil agitation,[citation needed] the new Provisional IRA was determined to wage "armed struggle" against British rule in Northern Ireland. The new IRA was willing to take on the role of "defenders of the Catholic community",[31] rather than seeking working-class unity across both communities which had become the aim of the "Officials".

Nationalists argued that the upsurge in violence was caused by the disappointment of the hopes engendered by the civil rights movement and the repression subsequently directed at their community.[citation needed] They point to a number of events in these years to support this opinion. One such incident was the Falls Curfew in July 1970, when 3,000 troops imposed a curfew on the nationalist Lower Falls area of Belfast, firing more than 1,500 rounds of ammunition in gun battles with the IRA and killing four people. Another was the 1971 introduction of internment without trial--out of over 350 initial detainees, not a single one was a Protestant.[32] Moreover, due to poor intelligence,[33] very few of those interned were actually republican activists, but some went on to become republicans as a result of their unfortunate experiences.[citation needed] Between 1971 and 1975, 1,981 people were detained; 1,874 were Catholic/republican, while 107 were Protestant/loyalist.[34] There were widespread allegations from the nationalist community of abuse and even torture of detainees. Most emotionally of all, nationalists also point to the fatal shootings of 14 unarmed nationalist civil rights demonstrators by the British Army in Derry in January 1972 on what became known as Bloody Sunday.

The Provisional IRA (or "Provos", as they became

30 years later, people grew tired of groups on both sides murdering people purely for being Catholic or Protestant, tired of random bombings, riots, etc. The politicians from both sides finally managed to sit down and work out what became the Good Friday Agreement, which laid down the foundation for working out concessions for both sides. One of the conditions of the agreement would be for the IRA to completely give up all weapons and allow Sinn Fein to drive the movement through purely peaceful means.

They decommissioned their weapons, with several witnesses from both sides of the conflict confirming and checking every step of the way. The DUP led by Ian Paisley decided this wasn't good enough, which led to a few more years of pointless frustration. But through both political pressure and pressure from the people, the DUP were effectively backed into a corner and had no choice but to enter the political arena side by side with Sinn Fein. The last few years have been considrered peace time.

So was the IRA war at any time morally correct?

 

[hippie_hunter]

No, terrorism is never morally justified IMO even if they have a rather legit cause.

 

[Arc-Light]

No, terrorism is never morally justified IMO even if they have a rather legit cause.

I disagree the old IRA was justified, but once religion became the vocal point, that's when it all went down-hill.

 

[kainedamo]

No, terrorism is never morally justified IMO even if they have a rather legit cause.

Was George Washington a terrorist?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Was George Washington a terrorist?

George Washington didn't attack civilians.

 

[kainedamo]

Hmm...

From a historical standpoint, depending on who you ask, it is said the IRA were necassary in the 70s in order to protect Catholics against increasing violence from loyalist extremists. The police force at that point was predominantly Protestant and it was obvious they weren't providing adequate protection for Catholics. The re-emergence of the IRA can be seen as a defensive move.

Were there tragedies on both sides? Of course. A lot of needless deaths. What else could Catholics have done? In the 60s they marched for Civil Rights, and not only was that met with deaf ears, but they were shouted down and attacked. They had a police force that would not protect them, and an unsympathetic government.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Hmm...

From a historical standpoint, depending on who you ask, it is said the IRA were necassary in the 70s in order to protect Catholics against increasing violence from loyalist extremists. The police force at that point was predominantly Protestant and it was obvious they weren't providing adequate protection for Catholics. The re-emergence of the IRA can be seen as a defensive move.

Were there tragedies on both sides? Of course. A lot of needless deaths. What else could Catholics have done? In the 60s they marched for Civil Rights, and not only was that met with deaf ears, but they were shouted down and attacked. They had a police force that would not protect them, and an unsympathetic government.

The IRA is like many other terrorist groups. Like I said, the IRA did have a legitimate cause. There were provocations that led to their formation and the British also committed some rather heinous attrocities, terrorism as well being one of them. But take a look at the other terrorist groups al-Qaeda has a legitimate cause in wanting to rid the Middle East of Western influences, but that doesn't give them the right to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Hamas has a legitimate cause to promote Palestinian independence from Israel, but that doesn't give them the right to support suicide bombings and rocket attacks on civilian targets.

Just like the other terrorist groups, the IRA did have a legitimate cause in protecting Irish Catholics and promoting Irish independence and unity. But that doesn't give them the right to conduct terrorism and attack innocent civilians and target high ranking government officials.

Grammy Flash used to always say, the trouble with an eye for an eye is that everybody ends up blind.

 

[Matt]

The IRA had a just cause until they began using terrorist tactics and tried to force "independence" on entire reigons who had no desire to be free from Britian, at which point they essentially became an invading force.

 

[moraldeficiency]

They started out alright but the cause has lost any righteous a long time ago. The breed them out strategy is going to be the one the works in the end, and that's kinda funny to me.

 

[Joker]

No, terrorism is never morally justified IMO even if they have a rather legit cause.

That's ridiculous. The founding fathers of our contry were terrorists. What do you think the Boston Tea Party was? Do you think the British Government was who owned all that tea? That was an attack on civilians in protest of the governments policy. And anyway, terrorism does not reffer to "attacking citizens" it is a military tactic, coined in the French Revolution as a name for how the freedom fighters fought.

 

[Schlosser85]

I think the IRA started with some righteuousness, but they threw away any pretensions of that a long time ago. What's left of the IRA is and has been for decades a bunch of thugs using Irish independence and their supposed religion as an excuse to go out and murder people.

 

[Flying Jokeshop]

The Irish war of independence was every bit as justified as the American war of independence.

Later actions from the 70's on were not justified in my opinion. Setting off bombs in London and punishing civilians was not the right way to wage what should have been a civil rights campaign.

 

[hippie_hunter]

That's ridiculous. The founding fathers of our contry were terrorists. What do you think the Boston Tea Party was? Do you think the British Government was who owned all that tea? That was an attack on civilians in protest of the governments policy. And anyway, terrorism does not reffer to "attacking citizens" it is a military tactic, coined in the French Revolution as a name for how the freedom fighters fought.

1. They didn't kill anyone like the IRA has.

2. The tea was owned by the East India Trading Company which had heavy ties to British colonial affairs. Attacking the British East India Company was pretty much on par with attacking something of the British government.

3. The colonists were protesting against the polcies of both the British government and the East India Trading Company

 

[Joker]

1. They didn't kill anyone like the IRA has.

2. The tea was owned by the East India Trading Company which had heavy ties to British colonial affairs. Attacking the British East India Company was pretty much on par with attacking something of the British government.

3. The colonists were protesting against the polcies of both the British government and the East India Trading Company

It's still terrorism. You're against the stigma that surrounds the word terrorism now, not the actual concept. You can thank polticians for that.

 

[The Avatar]

The only moral war is a defensive one, and only then under certain conditions.

 

[Matt]

The only moral war is a defensive one, and only then under certain conditions.

That couldn't be further off.

 

[The Avatar]

That couldn't be further off.

lol, let's hear it then.

 

[Joker]

lol, let's hear it then.

The American Revolution. The Civil War. The French Revolution. America also should have gotten involved in WWII long before Pearl Harbor, it may have saved millions of lives.

 

[The Senator]

Any group which resorts to terrorist acts cannot take the moral high ground. I support Ireland's independence, but I do not believe the British government should submit to the demands of terrorist groups like the IRA.

 

[Joker]

Didnt the IRA disarm years ago anyway?

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

I think the IRA's war was morally right. The Irish fought back when Britain was still an Empire,but they were too small to fend them off. The Americans had the help of France,Spain,Poland and other forces in the Revolutionary War.

The Irish was just by them selfs for the most part. What the Americans did was Terrorism..one is they revolted against the ruling faction (Britain)...two was destroying property (Boston Tea Party)..three getting others to help...(France,Spain)..four,riots which ended in deaths(Boston Massacre).

Ireland was once independent,I think it will be again..but who knows when. Britain has lost all it's power..and only has a faint control in Canada and Australia. It's not going to give up Ireland or Scotland.

 

[hippie_hunter]

It's still terrorism. You're against the stigma that surrounds the word terrorism now, not the actual concept. You can thank polticians for that.

No I'm using my own views on terrorism because the law and politicians kinda botch what it really means.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think the IRA's war was morally right. The Irish fought back when Britain was still an Empire,but they were too small to fend them off. The Americans had the help of France,Spain,Poland and other forces in the Revolutionary War.

The Irish was just by them selfs for the most part. What the Americans did was Terrorism..one is they revolted against the ruling faction (Britain)...two was destroying property (Boston Tea Party)..three getting others to help...(France,Spain)..four,riots which ended in deaths(Boston Massacre).

Ireland was once independent,I think it will be again..but who knows when. Britain has lost all it's power..and only has a faint control in Canada and Australia. It's not going to give up Ireland or Scotland.

Dude...Ireland is independent

I'm not even gonna touch on the other stuff.

 

[psychocheeseman]

No, terrorism is never morally justified IMO even if they have a rather legit cause.

is any violence ever justified in your opinion?
If so where do you draw the line. Terrorism is the result of percieved injustice where other forms of dispute resolution are unavailable or percieved as unjust. given you just said even "legit cause" do not justify terrorism that means that even parties who have been inflicted with extreme injustices have no right to retaliate - even if such a retaliation would directly inhibit the further suffering of innocent civilians. Although admittedly arguing for a moral justification for terrorists who target civilains as opposed to the military or police would be much harder.

 

[The Senator]

is any violence ever justified in your opinion?
If so where do you draw the line. Terrorism is the result of percieved injustice where other forms of dispute resolution are unavailable or percieved as unjust. given you just said even "legit cause" do not justify terrorism that means that even parties who have been inflicted with extreme injustices have no right to retaliate - even if such a retaliation would directly inhibit the further suffering of innocent civilians. Although admittedly arguing for a moral justification for terrorists who target civilains as opposed to the military or police would be much harder.

I know I personally draw the line at blowing up innocent civilians... if the IRA was a peaceful organization, or if it eventually led an armed uprising with an identifiable side, then maybe I would consider their war justifiable... but blowing up innocent civilians with car bombs, like what happened on Bloody Friday, is indefensible as far as I'm concerned...