Should the IRA apologise for past atrocities?

[riposte]

I'm using the term populist to describe "all things to all people" "popular appeal" politics - not their current electoral popularity (FG), or lack of it (FF).

Sorry Cactus .... I can't keep up with you .......... I've lost my hair-splitting equipment.

[C. Flower]

Sorry Cactus .... I can't keep up with you .......... I've lost my hair-splitting equipment.

Fine Gael is a party that is based on, and sets out to appeal to, big business, big farmers, and the establishment of the EU and UK, US.

Fine Fail aims at a broad-based appeal to everyone else, and will shift ground and issues to mop up broad support, from construction oligarchs to the nurse and Gard. They were very successful in that until they suddenly found they were able to tap in to billions of cheap credit, and blew the economy, and our sovereignty, up.

[fluffybiscuits]

You sound like Thatcher now. According to the British state it was a crime to kill Lord Mountbatten but not 33 people in Monaghan and Dublin. Every act of war is subjective. A Crime is breaking a law. An act of war is surely killing/acting in the name of some political/economic cause. I do not think we can call every signal IRA action a crime.

Oh ok I will take that as constructive criticism Further to your point on that, while every IRA action perhaps may not be a crime, if it is an act of war then does this not mean that those involved from British forces to IRA leaders should be on war crimes? At what point does it become morally justifiable to target forces of the state? Personally speaking if there is a community under attack I see no problem with defending themselves as was the case when the B specials and other such units terrorised Catholics for years. This thread for me is a bit of an education as its only in the last few years I am beginning to understand both sides of the coin....

[riposte]

Oh ok I will take that as constructive criticism Further to your point on that, while every IRA action perhaps may not be a crime, if it is an act of war then does this not mean that those involved from British forces to IRA leaders should be on war crimes? .

Fluffy ... the day after Tony Blair and George Bush are indicted for war crimes and the mass murder of 100,000 people in Iraq .... will be time enough to start discussing whether any IRA leaders ( assuming you can prove who they are) should be charged with war crimes.

[Sidewinder]

I still don't quite fully understanding this burning need in the southern media for SF to "apologise" for being Bad Dogs. Especially when coupled with their equal burning desire to completely and utterly ignore British, Unionist and Loyalist violence. And especially when the same people would tend to espouse loudly Partitionist views that Nordies are an alien species. While at the same time being piously proud of the "Old" IRA from the Tan War, or the Free State forces in the Civil War. That's different, apparently. No atrocities there, no sirree.

It's a bit mad, Ted.

[Andrew49]

Fianna Fail, Fine Gael & Labour should apologise for not bringing the Republic into being and for giving the Italian Mission so much control over health and education in the 26 counties.

[fluffybiscuits]

Fluffy ... the day after Tony Blair and George Bush are indicted for war crimes and the mass murder of 100,000 people in Iraq .... will be time enough to start discussing whether any IRA leaders ( assuming you can prove who they are) should be charged with war crimes.

Oh I never mentioned who they were as I didnt know myself but yes you have a point on that. Blair and Bush will never be held accountable for their war crimes.

@Sidewinder

Im sitting on the fence on this one, was there a difference though in the old IRA and the modern one? Up till what point could we say that we were at war? (This is an education for me may I add!)

[5intheface]

Should the IRA apologise for past atrocities?

I presume this refers to the Provisional IRA who no longer exist so any call for one (primarily from the people who wailed for years that they disband) would clearly be futile. If that was a genuine wish then we would be getting the same level of noise aimed at the Brits and their paramilitary units and indeed, the Officials and their descendants.

But we ain't. So it's just another release valve for those with an unreasonable disdain for the shinners which is not based on any sensible or thought out disagreement with their policies.

Any apology issued now by the SF leadership would simply be that, a calculated move by the leadership aimed at boosting their electoral position.

And how would that help anyone?

As for the idea of an apology itself, there were lots of terrible incidents, accidents and downright wrong actions but let's get real, there were many more which there is absolutely nothing for which to apologise.

Maybe that would sound harsh to a passivist but in truth, there are very few genuine passivists and even fewer amongst those who describe themselves thus.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Typical. Just when an Irish Republican Army is actually needed it goes all huggy. The Irish are cursed by history.

This is probably the time when an IRA should be removing the corrupt Irish establishment by force.

They are passing up a mighty chance for a level of support they could only dream of some years back. And no argument with the island next door involved at all.

Looks like the 'Republic' bit has been forgotten even though the country south of the border has been revealed to a be a kleptocratic and corrupt patronage ridden state.

Only in Ireland could an 'army of the people' give up their weapons a few short years before the fraudulence of the notion of a Republic became clear. Cursed.

Come to think of it the IRA would have been doing the country a much better service by offing quite a few Irish pensioned bods I can think of on a list going through my head at this very moment.

[fluffybiscuits]

Should the IRA apologise for past atrocities?

I presume this refers to the Provisional IRA who no longer exist so any call for one (primarily from the people who wailed for years that they disband) would clearly be futile. If that was a genuine wish then we would be getting the same level of noise aimed at the Brits and their paramilitary units and indeed, the Officials and their descendants.

But we ain't. So it's just another release valve for those with an unreasonable disdain for the shinners which is not based on any sensible or thought out disagreement with their policies.

Any apology issued now by the SF leadership would simply be that, a calculated move by the leadership aimed at boosting their electoral position.

And how would that help anyone?

As for the idea of an apology itself, there were lots of terrible incidents, accidents and downright wrong actions but let's get real, there were many more which there is absolutely nothing for which to apologise.

Maybe that would sound harsh to a passivist but in truth, there are very few genuine passivists and even fewer amongst those who describe themselves thus.

Online the only people I have seen asking for an apology from the queen has been the Republican side so you are spot on in that regard. When Maguinness came on to say he was unaware of any apology forthcoming nothing much was mentioned of asking the British establishment for an apology. Cameron had apologised for Bloody Sunday which was a start I suppose but an apology from all concerned would perhaps go a long way towards healing some wounds. The defence of nationalists who were subjected to torture and other such horrible methods by the British establishment is fully justified and does not need an apology. If I were faced with defending my family or partner against RUC harrasement I dont know what I would do till the time came...

[Saoirse go Deo]

"Sunday 21 July marks the 30th anniversary of an IRA operation in Belfast in 1972 which resulted in nine people being killed and many more injured.

While it was not our intention to injure or kill non-combatants, the reality is that on this and on a number of other occasions, that was the consequence of our actions.

It is therefore appropriate on the anniversary of this tragic event, that we address all of the deaths and injuries of non-combatants caused by us.

We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families.

There have been fatalities amongst combatants on all sides. We also acknowledge the grief and pain of their relatives.

The future will not be found in denying collective failures and mistakes or closing minds and hearts to the plight of those who have been hurt. That includes all of the victims of the conflict, combatants and non-combatants.

It will not be achieved by creating a hierarchy of victims in which some are deemed more or less worthy than others.

The process of conflict resolution requires the equal acknowledgement of the grief and loss of others. On this anniversary, we are endeavouring to fulfil this responsibility to those we have hurt.

The IRA is committed unequivocally to the search for freedom, justice and peace in Ireland.

We remain totally committed to the peace process and to dealing with the challenges and difficulties which this presents. This includes the acceptance of past mistakes and of the hurt and pain we have caused to others."



P O'Neill, Irish Republican Publicity Bureau, Dublin.

Why isn't that good enough fluffy?

[Sidewinder]

Im sitting on the fence on this one, was there a difference though in the old IRA and the modern one?

None whatsoever in men, motives or methods. Despite what the cretinous Harrisite meeja would have you believe. The only effective difference is that the "old" IRA managed to force a (partial) British withdrawal from (some of) the country, while the "provo" IRA ended up in a bloody stalemate where neither side could win and neither side was willing to back down (or able to, having no political cover for so doing).

In reality that stalemate probably lasted from about 1979? to 1994. A decisive political intervention from outside could have broken the stalemate and saved many lives but we had to wait till the early 90s and the arrival of Clinton and Reynolds before either Dublin or Washington were willing to get off their well-padded smug tut-tutting holes. Both men had to face down fierce rebellions from their mandarins too. The US State Dept and in Dublin Foreign Affairs, the entire diplomatic corps, and half the Dept of the Taoiseach (not to mention the Sindo!) went into convulsions of rage.

War is a failure of politics. It happens when dangerous fanatics have control of the levers of power and will not listen to reason. They are easy to start, and difficult to bring to an end. It is not the poor shmoe grunt in the trenches that is to blame and who deserves our scorn and condemnation, but rather the grey "respectable" men in well-tailored suits that engineered the situation in the first place. For that is the banality of true evil.

[Slim Buddha]

It is not the poor shmoe grunt in the trenches that is to blame and who deserves our scorn and condemnation, but rather the grey "respectable" men in well-tailored suits that engineered the situation in the first place. For that is the banality of true evil.

Some of these suits are the aiders and abbetters of the economic terrorists in Fianna Fail who have done far more damage to Ireland than the Provisional IRA ever did.

[riposte]

War is a failure of politics. It happens when dangerous fanatics have control of the levers of power and will not listen to reason. They are easy to start, and difficult to bring to an end. It is not the poor shmoe grunt in the trenches that is to blame and who deserves our scorn and condemnation, but rather the grey "respectable" men in well-tailored suits that engineered the situation in the first place. For that is the banality of true evil.

War is the highest form of struggle for resolving contradictions, when they have developed to a certain stage, between classes, nations, states, or political groups, and it has existed ever since the emergence of private property and of classes.

"Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War" (December 1936), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 180.

"War is the continuation of politics." In this sense, war is politics and war itself is a political action; since ancient times there has never been a war that did not have a political character.... However, war has its own particular characteristics and in this sense, it cannot be equated with politics in general. "War is the continuation of politics by other . . . means." When politics develops to a certain stage beyond which it cannot proceed by the usual means, war breaks out to sweep the obstacles from the way.... When the obstacle is removed and our political aim attained the war will stop. Nevertheless, if the obstacle is not completely swept away, the war will have to continue until the aim is fully accomplished.... It can therefore be said that politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.

"On Protracted War" (May 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 152-53 *

Mao Tse Tung

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Mao Tse Tung

[Andrew49]

Typical. Just when an Irish Republican Army is actually needed it goes all huggy. The Irish are cursed by history.

This is probably the time when an IRA should be removing the corrupt Irish establishment by force.

They are passing up a mighty chance for a level of support they could only dream of some years back. And no argument with the island next door involved at all.

Looks like the 'Republic' bit has been forgotten even though the country south of the border has been revealed to a be a kleptocratic and corrupt patronage ridden state.

Only in Ireland could an 'army of the people' give up their weapons a few short years before the fraudulence of the notion of a Republic became clear. Cursed.

Come to think of it the IRA would have been doing the country a much better service by offing quite a few Irish pensioned bods I can think of on a list going through my head at this very moment.

1916 to 1922 .. what was that about? Seems to me that, once the 7 signatories of the 1916 Proclamation were executed, the fight was about who was going to be in charge of the looting and pillaging. Seems they eventually came to a 'gentleman's agreement' that they would take turns at it.