The demands of NICRA were 1. A points system for housing. This was introduced in 1968. 2. One man one vote. This was introduced in 1968. 3. Legislation against discrimination and a complaints system. This was introduced in 1974. 4. Redrawing of electoral boundaries. This was introduced in 1970 after the macrory report. 5. Disbanding the B specials, this was done in 1969. I can't make it any clearer than that. The brits introduced and legislated for everyone of NICRA's demands by 1975.
I have already told you that the IRA's strategy was to force the brits out quickly, then when they realised they couldn't do this they adopted the policy of "the long war". This was a war of attrition to sap the will of the brits to remain in Ireland. That was IRA strategy. It did not work, the brits remained so the IRA gave up and accepted the power-sharing which had been on the table for 30 years.
@larryboyhere More justified situation!! The british governments position in 1916 was that the irish could have limited self-government. In the late 60's onwards it was that they would withdraw if that's what the majority of people in NI wanted. The insurgents of 1916 had much more justification for their actions than the PIRA
contin.. the proof of this came in 68 and 69 when catholic areas in belfast came under attack the ira at that time were not prepared. locals wrote ira i ran away on their walls.. after that it was a case of one side out gunning the other.. but it was loyalist paranoia that was at the heart of the trouble at the start many of them even admit this now
"Violence begets violence" does not answer the question I asked which is what was the IRA campaign about if not about removing the british from Ireland? What was it's objective?
Republicans have had a political voice in Sinn fein for 30 years. Sinn fein has been a legal political party which has been free to stand for elections for 30 years. Republicans have been being elected to parliament for 30 years. I repeat all the civil rights movements demands were acheived by 1975. They are now working for a united ireland peacefully. They are doing that now because they failed to acheive british withdrawal through violence which was their objective. They lost the war.
sorry gay but it was clearly you who raised the issue about how much Martin gets paid, I couldnt believe you actually tried to say it was martin who raised the issue.
The brits admitted that they could not defeat the IRA in terms of getting them all to declare a surrender. They have forced them to end their campaign. The fact that they have not forced the brits out through violence shows they have failed in their objective and therefore lost the war.
The republican campaign of violence is not ongoing. I think who won a war is very important. In WW2 there was a winner. The allies and it's important that they did win. Who won a war is an important issue. Republicans lost. Ok they did not officially surrender but the brits wore them down. That is why they ended their campaign. They ended it without a united ireland. The brits made no compromises (maybe with the exception of prisoner releases). Using violence certainly is a failure.
Go into google and put in irish democrat NICRA. Irish democrat is an irish republican newspaper. If you go down you'll find it lists NICRA's demands and states that all of them were introduced by 1975. That doesn't mean there were no inequalities. Whatever the problems of NI they were not helped by violence. In fact the violence just made the unionists more adamant that they would not compromise!
@donnyab The free state was founded with an act of "terrorism" When armed rebels took over a number of locations in Dublin in 1916, during a time of peace. And every year we celebrate that event as "proud" Irish people. But when someone in Derry, takes up the same position, in a more justified situation, he's a terrorist. You should be proud a man like mcguinness is still alive today, and not executed like the others in 1916.
this view that there were major (excuse the pun) changes when Major became prime minister. The biggest reforms took place between 1968 to 1975. Majors policy was that they would support the wishes of NI's majority. This has remained the same throughout. We have peace today because republicans abandoned their demands for immediate british withdrawal and agreed to compromise. Loyalists have compromised as well but the biggest concession has been made by republicans (remaining the uk indefinately).
I don't live in the south of Ireland i'm from Britain. If they responded that they had a right to violently overthrow the state because nobody asked their permission for the state to be set up I think that's a very weak justification for violence. Anyone who begins a campaign of violence has to have very strong reasons for doing so. If you have peaceful means of eradicating a state you are under a moral obligation to use peacefully means over violence.You are ignoring the reasons why the state
There was more justification in 1916 because Ireland was a british colony. The inhabitants of Ireland could not have had a referendum and left the empire. There were no peaceful means available to acheive independence in the short term. The people in NI could have had a referendum and voted for independence whenever they wanted. There was no need for violence.
Armed rebels took over the locations in dublin to find against an empire that they couldn't vote themselves out of. Martin mcguiness was living in a society with universal sufferage in which he could vote himself out of the UK. The 1916 fighters had much more justification for their violent actions!
The IRA ended it's campaign because they realised they couldn't win. Even Breandan hughes the IRA commander in belfast stated that "people within the republican movement realised the british could not be defeated". I accept your position even though I don't agree with it.
but u see thats exactly where i see the flaws in your argument if u take time to listen to the sin fein leadership many of them knew they were never going to force the brits out at the point of a gun they would have known that in 1969 the guns came out as a direct result of loyalist violence and then developed into a low scale guerilla war the ira always stated their strategy was a twin track. no ira member is going to force any unionist at a point of a gun to embrace a united ireland no more
lol forget it i gave him fact after fact for about 2 weeks trying to point out that the ira campaign was far more complex and had far more reasons for its existance than what he thought but all i was getting back was the same old rehashed response lets face it some people can only see things through their own narrow lens..
I'm not saying WW2 and the troubles are similar wars. You said there were no winners in wars. That is not true. WW2 is an example of a war in which one side the allies won. Republicans lost the war. They did not acheive a united ireland. For them to have won they would at least have had to make the british change their policy in relation to NI. They did not. They are now administering the state that they tried to overthrow! That is not a victory in any sense!
all the injustices were delt with by 1975 were they . i think u must be reading from texts that give a very pro british point of view. lets just say i know people catholics who could not get jobs in the north in the 80s simpley because they were catholic. any catholic will tell u that even people that have no time for pira.. and of coarse the ruc were not reformed until the 90s to be honest i dont think it was because the british wholeheartedly supported the unionst as they really did not care
lol tell me then when loyalist bombed mcgurks bar (killing 15 civilians) what ira bombing they were responding to, when loyalists ambushed civilian marchers looking for civil rights to what ira ambush were they responding to . when the uvf firbombed a catholic owned building killing the first civilian of the troubles in 1966 to what ira attack were they responding to. when the uda killed the first ruc man to die in the troubles , all you have to do is google northern irish troubles..u got owned
contin... not whatever u might think of adams and mcguinness they are not idiots .. unlike others in pira who did think only force would work and they are the people u are referring to but they are a tiny minority
i think u need to do further research on this topic lol for a start for the life of me i cant see how u can compare northern ireland to ww2 but even if i accept the comparison then it would mean after the war hitler would be in government it must be the first time in history a side that has lost as u put it are now in government aside from the ruc being turned inside out to accommodate nationalists and the irish government now having cross border bodies, udr gotten rid of and
i think the republicans campaign is ongoing as they would see it ..i have to say u seem for some reason to b caught up in this win or lost mentality :) as i said before history shows in these things there are never winners or losers the british army themselves admitted military defeat of the ira was impossible so the only outcome as defeat of a standing army was also impossible. so compromise was the only outcome. i agree 100% taking life is never a great way to do things but thats a failure
listen to what your own government or as i have already pointed out your own military if u think im talking shite ,,, or better yet read a book on the subject.. but do yourself a favour and take the blinkers off..
I can see the republican point of view but I think their point of view is wrong. To pretend that unionists don't exist and imagine that this is about british imperialism is simply wrong. The brit had no imperialistic interest in Ireland. The people of NI could vote for independence. Given that is the case their is no justification for violence.
Republicans have had peaceful means of pursuing their objectives for 30 years. They have been marching and demonstrating for 30 years. They thought violent means would be more effective in acheiving their goal of a united ireland. In the end they gave up because they couldn't win. Now thank goodness we have peace. That is something positive we can attribute to republicans!
"We don't believe winning any elections in Ireland will result in freedom", it will be the cutting edge of IRA that will bring freedom". Martin Mcguiness said that in 1985. The idea that the IRA campaign was anything other than an attempt to force the brits out at the point of a gun is absurd. The republican movement are no closer to acheiving a united ireland than they were in 1969. The so-called armed struggle has acheived nothing.
Dunphy used to speak to Gregory Campbell on a regular basis on radio back in the 90s he used to fall over him i wondered at one stage was he chasing him or what- never did he tax gregory on a single issue he was aggressive and hostile towards McGuinness and Adams, think it speaks volumes for him a space cadet.
lol nonsense.. there are british military generals here on youtube who admit on camera not even including blair who also stated it lol and trying to put your own slant on it is not going to change anything :) one other point when i said there were no winners or losers in northern conflict which was a low scale guerilla campaign just like iraq the yanks like to think they won there too lol... unlike ww2 which is a series of set piece battles between 2 countries,
rofl so YOU DO NOT consider wasington a terrorist because he wanted independence for his country and could not acheive it through the ballot box lol could mcguinness not use exactly the same argument lol.. as they were not aloud vote in a 32 county context and im sure many south africans might take a different view to you not to mention lady thatcher who called him a terrorist. i think you seem to view history through a very narrow perspective and this reply proves it
you keep re-hashing the same old arguments and im not sure either you dont see the point im trying to make or u ignore it. i know legislaton may have been brought in and agencies set up but that all amounts to a hill of beans if things on the ground are not improveing as i said look at the documentry no surrender and u can see what happend from the mouths of loyalists themselves. the ira in the mid 60s was nothing more than an old mans club most republicans were happy to go the peaceful route
contin.... not just because of a united ireland but also because catholics were not treated as equals in effect it was a unionist run state and any catholic that protested was beaten of the street or burned out of their homes, u say pira campaign achieved nothing thats debatable .. ruc replaced b-specials disbanded. gerrymandering gone. equality in housing and jobs. sinn fein equal partners in a northern government
i would agree about using peaceful means over violence but i still cant see how there was more justification in 1916 as ireland was not a colony it was part of the uk the same as northern ireland is today it was just that many people did not want that. many people came on to the streets to pelt the rebels with eggs after it was over. nobody in ireland was a 2nd class citizen unlike catholics in the north years later. what u dont seem to understand is that many who joined pira in the 60s
contin,,,,they can pursue those aims and not be beaten of the streets for it and thats how it should be,, if unionists had only offered the same understanding in 1968 im sure the terrible violence that followed would for the most part never have happened. i have given you the facts you can check them out or u can continue on in denial
u see the mistake u make is that you think the ONLY reason for ira attacks was brits out and thats here u are wrong if u were correct then where was the ira after the border campaign in the 50s it was an old mans club they had got rid of their weapons back then and most where happy to seek a united ireland through peaceful means until 1968 came round
you see the big problem with you is for years now u have been telling yourself that it was all the iras fault and u have convinced yourself of this. were the ira angels in all of this,,, no they were not but as in most conflicts of this nature it take two to tango and the unionist and british government pre-major shouldered their own part of the blame
big differences between psni and the ruc the psni now has a much higher % catholic and is also trusted something the ruc were not and rir does not patrol nationalist area like the udr did many catholics were afraid to leave their homes a night in case of running into a udr patrol i could go on and on but it would take too long
i have already given u the reasons why adams and the ira had to end their campaign in a previous reply based on fact not a fanciful notion. on last thing i not a big supporter of pira nothing of the sort one of my inlaws in the raf flew helicopters in and out of bessbrook in the 70s i have nothing against the uk.
introduced but in no way acted on that was the problem.. that has changed now and thats the reason dissident have no real support among ordinary catholics unlike pira who enjoyed alot of support in the areas they came from, what was needed was some backbone from british government to stand up to the unionist which did not happen until major and blair
contin.. its a very uncomfortable truth that most people down here like to ignore... then to add insult to injury some of us then in the south ie politicians and rte presenters like to get on their high moral horses and lecture mcguinness about wrongs their own forefathers took part in decades before
in fairness to martin mccguiness he has done more for this island of ireland to bring peace to northern ireland then gay mitchell has ever done gay mitchell what have u done for ireland u done nothing for ireland
Martin had all the right conditions on the ground in ulster Ireland 🇮🇪 to fight against British involvement in Ireland 🇮🇪 , if them conditions were in place today the British state would be out of ireland 🇮🇪 in 24 hours !
republicans have had peaceful means of pursuing their objective means for 30 years lol refer to my first reply.. and the objective of sinn fein for a united ireland is on- going.. for the reasons i have already stated below violence was not used just as a tool to unite ireland there were many reasons for the violence as i have said numerous times,, in fact much of what nationalists wanted in 60s has been achieved .. they are now working for a united ireland.. if they get that so b it but to be
lol point out where i said forceing the brits out was NEVER a strategy i have been consistent all along , what i also said and as usual you seem unable to grasp that part is that it was only one objective and not the overriding reason for the violence if it was then where were the ira guns in the early 60s where were the guns in 69 when loyalists were burning them out of their homes. but now i see u for what u are lol your last reference has given u away (the brits have got their way) lol like
British policy has been that they will support the wishes of the majority in NI and that they will deal with the greivances of catholics and set up a power-sharing arrangement. For the IRA campaign to have been successful they would have had to change that policy. They haven't. The UDR has been replaced by the RIR, the RUC has been replaced by the PSNI. You could equally say that nothing has changed from the GFA.
or to look at it another way adams and mcguinness are both from northern ireland as are their families its in nobodies interest for a conflict to continue on indefinitely , once they saw a pri minister (major and blair) that were going to deal head on with the unionist veto then they knew they could do business .
The reforms were introduced and by definition acted upon. Dissidents don't have support because people recognise that republican paramilitarism is dead. Things didn't suddenly dramatically change in the 1990's. The IRA came to the realisation that it wasn't going to win and ended it's campaign. That's why we have peace today.
contin,,, little to implement the changes as a result very little changed in the mean time as in any conflict one violent act was met with another not to mention completely innocent catholics being picked up in interment camps (forgot to even mention this) thats why violence begets violence is the answer... sinn fein still want the brits out but are now doing at a political level .. weather they manage this or not is another debate
would that be something like john majors speech that it would turn his stomach than talk to the ira when he was talking to them all along.lol speeches are always made to appeal to the masses thats how politics works what goes on in the background is very different . sinn fein have always had a twin track approach ie armilite in 1 hand ballot box in the other must have heard that a 1000 times, the notion that the leadership felt they could force a standing army with the resources at its
The RTE presenters forefathers could not vote for independence from Britain. They were under colonial rule and had a justifiication for violence. An important point is that the IRA campaign in the 1920 changed British policy in relation to ireland. They gave more independence to Ireland as a result of it. Mcguiness's PIRA did not change british policy and they acheived nothing.
contin... to see that ,,as i said IF the border campaign of the 50s had not ended then your view might have held merit but the ira had already even back then started to go the way of peace but unionist overreaction to the civil rigts marches brought the whole thing down and out of control, then the new ira the provos just got better at the killing and this vicious circle of violence of which brits out was a PART though in no way all of what it was about , until john major stepped in and felt
If you were a catholic back in the 1980's for example and you joined the police the PIRA was a powerful force with considerable support. Your life would be in considerable danger. Dissidents have very little support. Only one PSNI policeman has been killed since the force was set up (as far as I know). Given the weakness of the dissidents it is much less dangerous for catholics to join the police today.
"first the gun, then politics". This is nonsense. The IRA's strategy from 1969-mid 70's was that through a short war they could force the brits out. They then realised that it would take time to force the brits out. They develped the strategy of the long war which would involve a war of attrition that they believed would lead to british withdrawal. They began to realised that this had not worked so they decided to accept an internal settlement.
soooo wrong and i will tell you why its all very well for someone living in the south to say that to a northern nationalist that he could vote himself out of the uk . they might respond with some justification why should they have to. nobody in 1920 aked for their permission to have 6 counties ramain in uk. then to be treated as a 2nd class citizen wiithin that state. in effect we in the south bought our independence and the price was the independence of northern nationalists like mcguinness
What they mean is that they could not get the IRA to officially surrender. It that sense they didn't militarily defeat the IRA. They did force the IRA to end it's campaign without a united ireland and accept remaining part of the UK for an indefinate period. It that sense they lost.
no problem i already done it in previous reply... because once a conflict like this starts its very hard to get it to stop put simply violence begets violence the second problem was that no british was prepared to deal with sinnfein until the major government for the first time stood up and faced down the unionist some of whom would have gladly put up with another 30 years of violence than go in to government with nationalists.
Adams said the armed struggle had been taken as far as it could because it had reached a stalemate and the IRA could not win. It is not debatable whether equality between prod and cath could have been acheived without the IRA. The brits wanted equalit. They began introducing reforms before the PIRA were formed as an organisation. The IRA acheived nothing. Bombs are not going off today because Adams et al realised violence could not acheive a united ireland.
as i already said the british government themselves (not me) admitted military defeat of the ira was impossible . the real reason the ira saw no future in violence was the attitude of people in the south to the war,, nobody here wanted the problems of the conflict down here. the ira knew for years they had to change tact to get a united ireland.. the ironic thing now is that the banks have down more to hamper their plans than the british army ever could
All parties did realise there was no military solution. The brits had known this since the 1970's. The IRA eventually realised this, gave up and accepted an internal settlement. Something they had opposed for 30 years. Under the GFA NI can remain within the UK indefinately. This is the last thing republicans wanted. In fact a book has been written by an ex-IRA blanket man called Anthony Mcintyre. In it he says that Adams and mcguiness have betrayed republicanism by accepting the agreement.
In relation to the treatment of catholics, when the civil rights movement began demanding an end to the injustices the british government listened to them and introduced reforms. All the civil rights movements demands were dealt with by 1975. The British began introducing reforms before the PIRA were formed. The brits were not opposed to reform. There reforms were not made reluctantly. It was in Britains interest that these reforms were introduced. The IRA campaign was only have acheived
You have no understanding of this issue at all. The fact that you have to smear me as a BNP supporter and resort to insults shows you can't debate like an adult. The GFA says that there will be no change in the status of NI until a majority in Ni want that change. What republicans used to call "the unionist veto" has been accepted by them. An agreement that includes that is obviously against republican goals!
its like when i was 12 year old on a football pitch and we would argue at the end of a match who won ,, or someting else you remind me of is the final american convoys leaving iraq when the soldiers kept fist pumping saying we won but by the very fact that they felt they had to keep saying it u knew deep down they were thinking different in effect if u say it enough times it will make you feel good ,.. facts are sinn fein share government their stated objective is a united ireland but now
The brits told republicans for 30 years to pursue their objective of a united ireland through peaceful means. Republicans have now done this. The brits have got their way.
cont. something if it had made the brits change their policies in relation to NI. They did not change their policy in relation to IRA violence, therefore it was a failure!
agreed the usual responce u seem to get in this country to this question is that it was different then u get silence before they change to another topic as a result i have yet to hear what the difference was
Imedi. Loyalists bombed mcgurks bar in 1971 and would have considered this an attack on the Catholic community for the violence of the IRA. Loyalists who ambushed Catholic "civil rights marchers" were not responding to an ambush but they considered the actions of the Civil Rights Movement to be hostile to the state (I'm not justifying their actions I'm explaining them). In 1966 the UVF was formed in response to a revival in Irish nationalism around the time of the 50th anniversary of the 1916 rising. I don't know if the UVF killed the first RUC man during the troubles or how you would measure that but the real we had thirty years of soldiers on the streets and bloodshed was not because of the UVF. The responsibility lies with the IRA Imedi!
Eventually by the "90's the IRA realised it couldn't win and decided to accept an internal settlement and end the campaign. The position of the Major government was that they would respect the wishes of the majority in NI. That has been the position of the british for 30 years. The IRA campaign has totally failed to change the policy of the british government.
The British oversaw an unfair, discriminatory Orange State in which Catholics were second class citizens. The notion of consent was bombed into the British. The British would happily walk away from the 6 counties tomorrow.
@@magaolinewood9268 Whether they were second class citizens or not is a matter for debate. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the notion of consent". The principle of consent is that there won't be a change in NI's status without the consent of the majority in NI. I agree I'd be happy if Britain left tommorow.
@@jonoessex "Whether they were second class citizens or not is a matter for debate". YOU MUST BE JOKING!🤣 Even the staunchest of Unionists would accept that Catholics were second class citizens. I'll give you 2 examples. They gerrymandered constituencies to always maintain an inbuilt unionist majority even in catholic areas such as Derry. Secondly, Sinn Fein MP Michelle Gildernew's entire family squatted in a house in protest as it was allocated to a single Protestant woman whilst her entire catholic family were denied the said house. You clearly dont know enough about Irish history. You're right I should have said "principle of consent".. which in my opinion only came about through the armed struggle. The brits as I said earlier allowed the discrimination I have mentioned to happen until the Conflict began.
@@magaolinewood9268 Most people uncritically accept (including unionists) that Catholics were second class citizens because it is repeated so often. Whether a constituency is unfairly drawn is completely a matter for debate. When it comes to the housing register is depends on so many factors. It was obviously in the interests of republicans to exaggerate any discrimination. The Catholics themselves never made their greivances aware to the British.
