Was the IRA's war morally right?

[Flying Jokeshop]

^ So what do you think about the original IRA? They where acting in the name of a supressed, democratically elected government, and where basically using guerilla tactics against soldiers rather than modern terrorist tactics against civilians.

I loathe terrorism, including the modern IRA, but I personally find it hard to fault the old IRA, since they fought and died for the independence of my country, and achieved the freedom that I enjoy.

I view them in the same way as the revolutionaries who achieved American independence, though the old IRA where possibly more justified.

 

[chamber-music]

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.

Australia and Canada are independent. They share the monarch which has little power in UK let alone Canada or Australia. Britain has no more control of those countries then Iran

I think most British people couldn't care less if Northern Ireland is part of the UK or republic of Ireland. It doesn't really effect most peoples everyday life. It should of been up to the people of Northern Ireland what nationality they want to be a part of.

 

[kainedamo]

I'm positive that within 20 years the people of Northern Ireland will get to vote on it and will become joint with the Republic of Ireland. The state of UK politics right now is more reason why we should break away from the UK.

 

[StorminNorman]

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.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=288005

 

[hippie_hunter]

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...

That pretty much sums up how I feel.

 

[kainedamo]

Here's a good documentary from when things were worse...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MCA2VDBjs0

[YT]8MCA2VDBjs0[/YT]

That kid near the start, thats still true for kids today. Kids with very little exposure to the other side, with a very poor understanding of the troubles or the history, they go out and fight and cause mischief.

See the bitterness of the family immediately following the bit with the kid. Both sides had that very heavy bitterness (and some still do).

That simply couldn't be allowed to continue.

The peace agreement that allowed the IRA to decommission all their weapons and have Sinn Fein enter power sharing with the DUP was a very necassary step for this country's future.

We've been living in peace time. A lot of good has happened. The country is a lot more prosperous and a lot safer.

 

[Kelly]

Was George Washington a terrorist?

"One man's terrorist, is another man's hero"

 

[kainedamo]

Exactly my point.

 

[The Senator]

I still don't think that terrorists should be allowed to serve in government. I think it is morally wrong to let people who bomb innocent civilians serve in a high-ranking position in order to dictate policy. Their goals may have been just, but the means by which they attempted to achieve those goals were cowardly and downright evil.

 

[kainedamo]

What about democracy and the people that voted them in?

 

[The Senator]

What about democracy and the people that voted them in?

Then those people are absolute morons for voting people who supported insidious activities into office.

 

[Kelly]

This is a tough call.....


One thing I look at is, does history see the fconflict between the IRA and the British Government a war? If history calls this a war, then those killed during that war are victims of war.....as in German soldiers who killed British soldiers in WWII. Should those soldiers in Germany, or Britian be allowed to run for office.....is the conflict in Northern Ireland equal to that?

Man, perception is a b**** in this debate...........


As I said, its a tough call....


Jman, let me ask you this.....and its not to try and prove you wrong........I've written a paper, and the quote I put above was title....I wrote the paper back in college.....so I know a little bit about this conflict...


Should British soldiers who were part of the 1st Batallion of the British Army who killed 13+ protesters were killed, should those men be allowed to run for the British Parliament?

 

[rdh007]

Then those people are absolute morons for voting people who supported insidious activities into office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

 

[The Senator]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

Yes, and those people were morons, too.

 

[The Senator]

Jman, let me ask you this.....and its not to try and prove you wrong........I've written a paper, and the quote I put above was title....I wrote the paper back in college.....so I know a little bit about this conflict...


Should British soldiers who were part of the 1st Batallion of the British Army who killed 13+ protesters were killed, should those men be allowed to run for the British Parliament?

No, they should not. They killed innocent bystanders, and as I said in the other thread Kaine started on the topic, I do not believe that people who violate the law, inflicting damage on society or harming the innocent, deserve to have a place in government. Murderers, terrorists, rapists, etc. are at the core of many of our sociological problems and therefore should not be in a position to dictate policy.

 

[rdh007]

Yes, and those people were morons, too.

 

[Kelly]

No, they should not. They killed innocent bystanders, and as I said in the other thread Kaine started on the topic, I do not believe that people who violate the law, inflicting damage on society or harming the innocent, deserve to have a place in government. Murderers, terrorists, rapists, etc. are at the core of many of our sociological problems and therefore should not be in a position to dictate policy.

But, Jman.......you are looking at in from a different perspective than the British government. Those men were found to be innocent of a killing innocent people.......now should they be able to run for office?

 

[The Senator]

But, Jman.......you are looking at in from a different perspective than the British government. Those men were found to be innocent of a killing innocent people.......now should they be able to run for office?

Isn't it obvious that the British government would side with their soldiers in this conflict?

I'm not looking at it from the perspective of the British because my opinion doesn't need to be generated from that perspective. My opinion is generalized, it applies to all people regardless of where they're from or the reasons behind their actions. People who violate the law, people who orchestrate chaos whether government sponsored or not, do not deserve to be dictating policy. They should not be able to. Neither side of this issue is right.

I don't believe Saddam Hussein should have been president of Iraq, I don't believe Mao Zedong should have been Chairman of the communist party in China... I believe that anyone who violates the natural right to life has no right being in a position of power...

 

[Kelly]

Isn't it obvious that the British government would side with their soldiers in this conflict?

I'm not looking at it from the perspective of the British because my opinion doesn't need to be generated from that perspective. My opinion is generalized, it applies to all people regardless of where they're from or the reasons behind their actions. People who violate the law, people who orchestrate chaos whether government sponsored or not, do not deserve to be dictating policy. They should not be able to. Neither side of this issue is right.

I don't believe Saddam Hussein should have been president of Iraq, I don't believe Mao Zedong should have been Chairman of the communist party in China... I believe that anyone who violates the natural right to life has no right being in a position of power...

Who's law?



Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you........I just like putting "what if's" out there for discussion....

 

[The Senator]

Who's law?



Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you........I just like putting "what if's" out there for discussion....

Well I guess I meant the "natural law," as defined by Locke and universally accepted by most of the Western world.

 

[BlackLantern]

I'd hope that one day...the UK would pull their pride out of their ass and allow Ireland to be a whole country....but as for the IRA....I think the UK is foolhardy in thinking people of that ilk can change

 

[psychocheeseman]

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...

Personally i can't see killing another human being as justifiable in any other circumstance other than self-defense (in the legal definition which extends to the defense of others) in situations where no other options are reasonably available.

However, to play devil's advocate: Are civilians innocent? Logically, as governments are controlled by the people, we are all responsible for the actions of our governments. What ever atrocities our governments have committed are done at the consent (albeit passively in most cases) of the people. (I'm not just talking direct physical actions like military interventions or funding one party or another in a dispute, but also economically exploitative agreements locking smaller countries in debt and so forth) Thus civilians in democratic countries are not always viewed as "innocent".

 

[The Senator]

Personally i can't see killing another human being as justifiable in any other circumstance other than self-defense (in the legal definition which extends to the defense of others) in situations where no other options are reasonably available.

However, to play devil's advocate: Are civilians innocent? Logically, as governments are controlled by the people, we are all responsible for the actions of our governments. What ever atrocities our governments have committed are done at the consent (albeit passively in most cases) of the people. (I'm not just talking direct physical actions like military interventions or funding one party or another in a dispute, but also economically exploitative agreements locking smaller countries in debt and so forth) Thus civilians in democratic countries are not always viewed as "innocent".

But not all civilians vote for the candidates who support such actions, not all civilians vote at all, and some of them simply cannot vote. So I don't really understand how civilians should take a part of the blame for what their elected officials do. That's like saying I deserve part of the blame for George W. Bush, when 1) I couldn't vote in the 2004 election, and 2) I wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

 

[chamber-music]

I'd hope that one day...the UK would pull their pride out of their ass and allow Ireland to be a whole country....but as for the IRA....I think the UK is foolhardy in thinking people of that ilk can change

To be honest I don't think the people of Britain don't give a flying toffee if Northern Ireland is a part of a United Ireland or United Kingdom. Its more to do with the population of Nothern Ireland opinion.

Unionists in Nothern Ireland want to be a part of the UK. If they didn't want to part of the UK I doubt any modern British goverment would force them to be. Scotland, Wales and NI have gained devolution from parliment in London and if they choose to they have the power to become independent nations and break away from the union of the united Kingdom if they choose to.

 

[kainedamo]

Then those people are absolute morons for voting people who supported insidious activities into office.

So you don't believe in democracy?