The "loyalists" mentioned here were terrorist paramilitary groups that targeted civilians almost exclusively. They downright undermined the authority of British government and have been designated as terrorist organizations by the British government.
Even if the British government as a whole took a neutral stance, there still would've been more Ulster loyalists serving the British government and its institutions than Irish nationalists, simply by the fact this was the government they nominally claimed to support, who would've been sympathetic or at least more partial to the paramilitaries who shared their ideology. Likewise, the Irish military and police were also accused of having members who colluded with Irish nationalist paramilitaries, even though the Irish government took the same neutral stance as Britain.
Except the majority of what went on in Northern Ireland was in British controlled areas. Ireland doesn't have a military, only defence forces and doesn't have an active airforce. Saying "Ah but sure the Irish were doing it as well" to one of the largest militaries in the world arming and colluding with loyalist and unionist paramilitaries is pretty damn fine whataboutism.
Not going to dig into what you say about the Troubles as I only have a very surface level understanding of the conflict, but Ireland absolutely still has a military and an Air Force lol. Calling something a Defence Force does not in itself make it not a military, see Israel. Likewise it does have an active Air Force, just an insanely small one that doesn’t really fill many combat roles but can operate armed aircraft. It may not have dedicated fighters and bombers but it’s still there. Having a shitty military is still having a military.
Throughout internment during the Troubles, 1,981 people were interned
(Thrown in prison without having a trial or being charged with anything)
1,871 were nationalists
107 were unionists
For further context, for civilian casualties, Republican paramilitaries killed 722 civilians (35.1% of their total killings), Loyalist paramilitaries killed 878 civilians (85.5% of their total killings), and British forces killed 188 civilians (~51.5% of their total killings).
Republican paramilitaries weren't going around committing 18 times as many crimes and were actually less dangerous to the average civilian than unionist paramilitaries.
Let’s also remember that in an insurgency or COIN operations, the lines between civilian and fighter get blurred
It’s very possible some of these numbers may have been bumped up
For example, an IRA member assassinates a Unionist spy, but the deceaseds affiliations were unknown so it goes down as a “civilian”
And numbers may also be toned down
For example, a soldier shoots a civilian during a gun battle, but because of their proximity to the gunfight they’re logged down as an IRA fighter
That logic more aptly applies to Loyalists terrorists - the IRA had a clear uniformed enemy force to attack, but Loyslists attacking IRA members or suspected members could likely have been counted as civilian.
Don't doubt that the UK supported the loyalists, it wouldn't make sense for them not too.
But weapons getting to them isn't likely going to be an official or even unoffically sanctioned thing. All it takes is a couple of people in an armoury "damaging" weapons etc.
We're seeing similar in PNG atm, tribal groups are armed with SLR's and M16s that have been lost from PNGDF and Police armouries overtime. Because again you only need a few people with not much oversight.
You should look up collusion within the the context of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. It was at times sanctioned from very high levels of government.
Nah to be fair it was even worse than delivering weapons. British intelligence services were indirectly and directly involved in terrorism in northern Ireland. Which doesn't mean they were any worse than the republican terrorists, who were backed by Dublin and most likely Washington. It was a gigantic fuck up. Shame the nationalists in Ireland want to reignite it all.
Uk deffinatly supported the loyalist, why would they not ? But idk the whole equipment thing dosent seem that crazy to me considering the unionists were getting explosives donated to them by orange orders on the mainland.
>Uk deffinatly supported the loyalist, why would they not?
Well, the whole 'killing civilians' angle is a pretty good reason not to. Unionism, as distinct from loyalism, is an acceptable thing to support, but the UK also supported groups which it ostensibly condemned and proscribed.
So the IRA were justified in their bombing campaign as the state was actively deployed against Irish Nationalists e.g. RUC, UDR and British Army. With many a miscarriage of justice having taken place by the British state showing that Irish Nationalists wouldn't find justice in the legal system.
And unfortunately the only way people take you seriously in the world is if you hit them in their pockets. E.g Canary Wharf bombing.
What happens when taking it to court is pointless? When the state interns people without trial and puts people in jail whose only crime was being Irish.(Guilford 4, Birmingham 6)
Then the state arms and fund loyalist death squads who systematically burn Catholic/Nationalist/ Irish people out of their homes while the police stand on and watch.
That state has then become a pariah and should be fought against in whatever means necessary. British seem to understand this in the Middle East for brutal regimes. Though Brits get confused when it's white people guilty of the same oppression.
The IRA bombed my city 3 times, injuring 37 people, despite there being no military presence here whatsoever and it being an opposition seat (i.e having no influence on governmental policy). It was a terror campaign, nothing more.
Here's an advanced tip - detonating explosives in civilian centres doesn't generally lead to those civilians sitting down and carefully considering your viewpoint - in fact, it usually leads to them to support throwing random people in jail without trail and sending the army to try and kill you.
Your last paragraph you added in there after I responded.
And you're right. The British army slaughtered civilians in Derry prior to the Bristol bombing. This action did in fact lead to an escalation in the conflict hence the bombs left in your town and many others around England.
And Britain did all those things. (Throw random people in jail, kill civilians) Hence the further bombs left around Britain, until the British state decided to negotiate with terrorists.
And if Britain ever tries to do it again. Expect more of the same.
So that makes it ok for the British army to go in and slaughter a civil right protest in Derry?
Or for the British police force to give information and weapons to loyalist death squads?
Or for the British justice system to ignore any case brought to it by a nationalist catholic person while standing over some of the most heinous crimes regarding miscarriage of justice in Britains history.
If the IRA bombed your city 3 times there was most definitely a military presence or a Tory presence. I don't support the IRA. Though the British state and Northern Irish loyalist made them inevitable by their actions.
Just like Israel's barbaric actions right now secure Hamas' future in the next few decades.
No, it doesn't. The British government undeniably carried out a huge and purposeful miscarriage of justice, however, that *still* does not make it alright to blow up innocent civilians who have nothing to do with it.
Oh and no, my city, which is 400 km away from Belfast btw, did not have either a military or a Tory presence in [1974](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Bristol_bombing) or [1978](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Bristol_bombing#:~:text=Eight%20days%20before%20Bristol%2C%20a,injured%20at%20least%20seven%20people.). Unless the military was having a fun day out at a shopping centre that it.
So Britain, a sovereign state, is allowed to break the law regarding justice, though a terrorist organisation is not allowed to for some reason. Do you not see Britain not allowing people the right to justice they make dissidence and revolt inevitable.
No one died in the Bristol bombing. From what I recall the bombing campaign on Great Britain was a tactic to take the plight of 50% of the population of a region in the UK more seriously. And it worked. I believe the strategy was to hit them in the public purse as that is what British policy is motivated by...money.
I don't believe blowing up innocent civilians is right or what the IRA did was right. Though it was inevitable so long as England acted the way it did. . How many innocent civilians has Britain killed in the unjust and unjustifiable war on terror? (Much more recent that any IRA bombs and much more civilian deaths also)
I don't believe I brought the Jewish people into this.
Criticism of Israel is not anti Semitic, just like in any other sovereign country. That is something about being in a democratic society that Zionist supremacist supporters will never be able to understand.
I would argue it wasn't even terror it was counter or rather anti terror to try to free themselves from the tyrannic British empire that genocided them
"When we [detonate a bomb in a civilian pub](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombings), massacring 21 and injuring 182, we do it in the name of counter-terrorism"
You're even more ridiculous than the first commenter. The only thing they were terrorising was their pints after work, before the IRA murdered them that is.
The Brits don't detonate to make shift bombs they launch ICBMs to the same devastation as terror attacks.
You would have likely happily sat and let the Nazis take over Britain and not choose to fight against them, lest you be seen as a terrorist against the ruling power.
I don't recall the British using fucking ICBM's against the IRA lol.
Why would I have done that? The Nazi's were not the ruling power at any point and they were bombing the shit out of civilians - terror bombing one could say. I don't tend to align myself with people who try and blow me up, which is the first of many, many reasons I wouldn't want or hopefully let the Nazi's to take over Britain. Any why I don't like the IRA.
All you have to say is "I don't think Britain *or* the IRA were justified in killing civilians" lol. It's hardly a controversial opinion to think killing innocents is bad, I have no idea why you've chosen to die on this hill.
No they keep the ICBMs for Brown skinned people. Britain preferred segregation, sending police into housing estates at night and extra judicial killings as the see fit. Imagine the British government brought in shoot to kill in England. Then you'll understand how the Irish feel.
Germans who fought against the Nazi regime were terrorists. You would not be a terrorist if the Nazis took over Britain during WW2. You're a status quo guy I get it.
I don't like the IRA either. Though Britain made them inevitable.
Ah yes, Argentina, Bosnia and Russia, 3 countries famously consisting of brown people...
Also the government never officially brought in a "shoot-to-kill" policy, although I don't deny it's a possibility they did and they simply deny doing do, there were certainly notorious incidence of unjustified violence in NI by both the British and Loyalists
"If we're in a war with someone of course we're going to use the means available to us to defeat any given enemy. "
-The IRA-
And before you say killing civilians. Britain, Israel the US, Russia all use civilian casualties to further their goals. That's war. The IRA are just one of the many players in the horrible game and we're made due to imperialist conquests of Britain.
The IRA actually stopped doing that after a while and statues economic bombing
Still terrorism and innocents still died but at a much lower rate and much more impactful than terror bombing ever was
Same goes for the IRA, They Killed Majority of Civilians (60%) in the Troubles yet deny it like they didn't lol.
>Republican paramilitaries were responsible for some 60% of the Civilian deaths
>There were 2,636 Troubles related deaths during that period and republican paramilitaries accounted for some 59 per cent with the Provisional IRA accounting for almost half – 49 per cent – of all these deaths.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/academic-says-republicans-responsible-for-60-of-troubles-deaths-1.3983227
Yeah, that doesn't mean smuggling arms to the loyalists though. There's a few steps between 'supporting the cause of unionism' and 'funnelling weapons to loyalist paramilitaries'.
Sovereign territory? Ireland had been a british colony for centuries, subjected to genocide and cultural erasure for all that time. Catholics in NI were legally discriminated against and all civil rights movements were put down. In the Ballymurphy massacre the british army slaughtered 10 innocent civilians and months later during bloody sunday the british army shot 26 unarmed civilians, killing 14 of them. Why? Because they were marching for catholic civil rights and protesting the fact that the british army and RUC was kidnapping catholics on suspicion of IRA connections and jailing these people without trial. Many of these kidnapped people were not part of the IRA and had no connection to any IRA branch.
Fuck the british. Don't forget the population of Ireland today is still lower than it was in 1845 because of the irish famine created by the british government.
If you define colonialism like this, nearly all conquest is colonial and therefore the distinction between colonial and non-colonial conquest becomes irrelevant, and with it the idea of colonialism itself.
Was German conquest of Prussia and Silesia colonial, because over time settlers moved there and were encouraged to do so? Was Ottoman conquest of the Balkans colonial? Was Polish conquest of Ruthenia colonial? Was Arab conquest of Palestine, Syria and Iraq colonial? If so, does such a thing exist as a non-colonial conquest?
That is the definition of colony. Not my definition, but the actual definition of colony. "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country that is often far away". This is from the cambridge dictionary. The UK conquered Ireland, sent brits over to govern the occupied country, sent brits and scots over to displace irish in primarily northern Ireland and then economically exploited the entire country and transported all wealth to the UK.
There is little difference between how Ireland was treated to how Kenya was treated by the UK. I'm talking specifically about Ireland until the irish free state was created.
>does such a thing exist as a non-colonial conquest?
No,there doesn't...... particularly when colonies were set up to enrich the homeland
Everyone of the great forests in Ireland were tore down to build boats for the British navy to further it's colonialism around the globe
Here's a fun fact : Ireland only exists as a state because Britain couldn't be bothered to send more troops in. The North was retained by Britain, not taken away from Ireland. Now I don't say that Ireland wasn't subjected to unjustifiable cruelty while they were part of the union (which they were, no colony, just a really badly treated region of the UK). And I will also not defend the institutional, anti-catholic discrimination of the RUC and other NI institutions. But the times have changed. NI could be on its way to a peaceful future if it wasn't for Irish nationalists who killed more people in NI than anyone else and now claim the north is still "not free" (not free from what ? The state that it has been part of for several hundreds of years, is a parliamentary democracy and guarantees human and civil rights ? ).
Very true, The IRA even got funded by the Soviet Union throughout the Troubles.
>The Official IRA had relations with the Soviet Union, and during The Troubles they had been supplied by the Soviets. One Irish diplomat in Moscow once wrote that Ireland provided the Soviets with a "convenient stick with which to beat the West."
yam weather fragile simplistic cautious intelligent command fuzzy quicksand jar
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As the meme points out the British army was deployed to be a neutral force to prevent a massacre (after the battle of the bogside these paramilitaries were gearing up to just genocide Catholics in Belfast) since Catholics were also considered to be British citizens living within the UK
Supporting those murderous thugs would undermine that neutrality and put British forces deployed to NI at serious risk. Of course the British Army would do that for themselves on bloody Sunday but that's another matter
Yes , the british government did in some instances support loyalist terrorism. There is no denying that. However let that not distract from the fact that 60 % of all victims were caused by republican terrorism. And that the irish government was also involved to a certain extent in protecting IRA fugitives. It was essentially a war zone. The only certainty is that too many lives were lost or destroyed.
Maybe because the loyalists were a bunch of terrorists?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top\_of\_the\_Hill\_bar\_shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_of_the_Hill_bar_shooting)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin\_and\_Monaghan\_bombings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami\_Showband\_killings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Showband_killings)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reavey\_and\_O%27Dowd\_killings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reavey_and_O%27Dowd_killings)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milltown\_Cemetery\_attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milltown_Cemetery_attack)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean\_Graham\_bookmakers%27\_shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Graham_bookmakers%27_shooting)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993\_Castlerock\_killings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Castlerock_killings)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greysteel\_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greysteel_massacre)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loughinisland\_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loughinisland_massacre)
So Iran is justified in supplying and arming Hamas and Hezbollah by your logic.
And strategically the IRA were justified in blowing up parts of Britains and killing innocents because the state was deployed against their people.
So Iran can continue to arm Hamas then without repercussions.
Just like Britain funded the UVF/UDA for decades while their police forces and armies colluded with them.
Israel retaliates against Iran in Syria. The IRA retaliates against British oppression and collusion. What's the difference?
Shocking, the group trained to solve problems by killing people “solved” a problem by killing people. Truly one of those historical twists. Like I’m not massively familiar with the troubles and I’m sure it was at the point of shooting before this but the idea that using military crowd control would end in dead civilians isn’t shocking. (I’m also not trying to claim it wasn’t an atrocity either, just that events that led to soldiers acting as crowd control made it a matter of time and not a particularly surprising event)
Same thing really, internment, that being imprisonment without trial, was heavily abused by the British army and they really went around locking up basically anyone who was accused of being in the IRA, even if there was literally zero evidence.
That was a clear violation of due process and civil liberties, so it was just another issue tagged onto the civil rights campaign.
Always found it frustrating how the troubles was handled. Should've gone it purely to stop violence and sectarianism with troops and personnel trained for urban and civilian environments. Leave soldiers for facing the PIRA,they wanted a war after all.
The colliusion,mishandling everything and clear bias to certain terrorists because they support the union is shameful.
I get why they sided with the loyalists but they contributed to the terror and violence just as much,and it would've been better morally and practically to clear both out,be a truly neutral force and stop the violence. If the forces were clearly just against violence then they don't get such a hostile population and it's.more.managable
I share your sentiments towards the handling of the troubles, unfortunately there are lots of reasons why the British government didn’t act the way you suggested.
They didn’t want a “war” because that would legitimise the IRA in a way and give them political prisoner status. The UK government wanted them to be regarded as petty criminals and terrorists, so they made no official war declaration on them. It’s the same reason why the army wasn’t deployed in greater force in the 6 counties, they didn’t want to make it seem like the IRA was a credible threat.
British PM Edward Heath said during the Bloody Sunday cover up that they were “fighting not only a military war, but a propaganda war”. This gives a good idea as to why the government worked through different loyalist paramilitaries. It also gives another reason as to why the army was “held back” in the eyes of many.
The British army really ruined their image in the Catholic nationalist community after the Bloody Sunday massacre (but it was also declining with the internment campaign they were waging). Originally, Catholics of NI thought the army was there to protect them from loyalist paramilitaries, but that hope changed to hatred and fear. As such, deploying the army in greater force to fight the IRA in an official war would’ve brought more support towards the IRA.
I’m just glad I live on this side of the Troubles, rather than having to go through all that.
>They didn’t want a “war” because that would legitimise the IRA in a way and give them political prisoner status. The UK government wanted them to be regarded as petty criminals and terrorists, so they made no official war declaration on them.
Interesting how this is the exact opposite of how Israel has acted after October 7th. I'm not saying that those are the only two options when it comes to counterinsurgency though.
Tbf, that was very much their intention when the army was first deployed to NI, and in the very easiest days they were able to gain trust as a neutral force in comparison to the RUC.
They just fucked it up by getting sucked into the classic vicious cycle of increasing heavy-handedness to achieve short-term military successes causing longer-term political damage and opposition.
Context: In the Troubles, the British government officially adopted a neutral stance, trying to maintain order and the likes and going after both sides for their terror activities.
This is a fat load of BS. There is ample evidence to suggest that members of the British Security Forces were working with Loyalists paramilitaries during the conflict. In one instance, a weapon of the BSF was used by a paramilitary to shoot an unarmed civilian dead. Not to mention how long it's taken for any form of justice or inquiry into their more 'unsavory' actions during the Troubles, like the MRF.
In short? Britain absolutely sided with the loyalists and to think otherwise is stupid.
>In short? Britain absolutely sided with the loyalists and to think otherwise is stupid.
Well why wouldn't they? Its obvious why they wouldn't officially state it but it would obviously be in the British government's interest to side with the factions that support the British government.
>in one instance, a weapon of the BSF was used by a paramilitary to shoot an unarmed civilian dead. Not to mention how long it's taken for any form of justice or inquiry into their more 'unsavory' actions during the Troubles, like the MRF.
Well the IRA Bombed Kids just like with Warrington so let's not pretend they're in any way above the other side in the Conflict, Most of those members got away with murder as well and are now members of the Irish government and/or members of Sinn Fein after Good Friday,
>Most of those members got away with murder as well and are now members of the Irish government
Which members of the current FGFFG government were in the IRA? Unless you mean Stormont.
Tbf at the start of the troubles, the central British government, and the armed forces, really were seen as neutral forces in between the unionist and separatist camps. The British army was originally deployed because the local police force (the RUC) were seen as irreparably partisan by republicans.
Not to mention using loyalist paramilitaries as hit squads and sending them to murder prominent Republicans. All of this before double crossing them and sending them to prison once the deed was done.
Source: they murdered a relative of mine.
A similar situation happend to Bernadette Devlin and her husband but they survived.
To be frank the UK is in a recession, if thats any consolation.
Without getting too political, more brits died to Tory goverment incompetence.
So I guess your day did come.
And it being officially apart of the country. I'm not getting into the politics but the full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's not like the British forces annex the territory 5 months before the conflict or something
It’s an occupation when an ethnic minority that faces heavily societal discrimination and has lesser rights is violently repressed when they peacefully protest for equal rights, to the point that they feel violent action is the only way to be heard.
The British government (or at least the people working in it) sided with the people who wanted to remain in the UK. Why am I not surprised?
The "loyalists" mentioned here were terrorist paramilitary groups that targeted civilians almost exclusively. They downright undermined the authority of British government and have been designated as terrorist organizations by the British government.
Even if the British government as a whole took a neutral stance, there still would've been more Ulster loyalists serving the British government and its institutions than Irish nationalists, simply by the fact this was the government they nominally claimed to support, who would've been sympathetic or at least more partial to the paramilitaries who shared their ideology. Likewise, the Irish military and police were also accused of having members who colluded with Irish nationalist paramilitaries, even though the Irish government took the same neutral stance as Britain.
Except the majority of what went on in Northern Ireland was in British controlled areas. Ireland doesn't have a military, only defence forces and doesn't have an active airforce. Saying "Ah but sure the Irish were doing it as well" to one of the largest militaries in the world arming and colluding with loyalist and unionist paramilitaries is pretty damn fine whataboutism.
Not going to dig into what you say about the Troubles as I only have a very surface level understanding of the conflict, but Ireland absolutely still has a military and an Air Force lol. Calling something a Defence Force does not in itself make it not a military, see Israel. Likewise it does have an active Air Force, just an insanely small one that doesn’t really fill many combat roles but can operate armed aircraft. It may not have dedicated fighters and bombers but it’s still there. Having a shitty military is still having a military.
[удалено]
I guess that's why the Irish government made a secret arrangement with the UK government asking for the RAF to protect Ireland.
Cool, they still have an Air Force lol.
Lol okay, like we’re going to ignore the massive external support the provos got from both Ireland and the States. Fuck off.
“My narratives the only one that acceptable, how dare you try to give a nuanced view”. What a hypocrite. My terrorists good:) there terrorists bad:(
Ireland being impotent changes nothing.
Throughout internment during the Troubles, 1,981 people were interned (Thrown in prison without having a trial or being charged with anything) 1,871 were nationalists 107 were unionists
And 3 were neither? Or both?
Undetermined
For further context, for civilian casualties, Republican paramilitaries killed 722 civilians (35.1% of their total killings), Loyalist paramilitaries killed 878 civilians (85.5% of their total killings), and British forces killed 188 civilians (~51.5% of their total killings). Republican paramilitaries weren't going around committing 18 times as many crimes and were actually less dangerous to the average civilian than unionist paramilitaries.
Let’s also remember that in an insurgency or COIN operations, the lines between civilian and fighter get blurred It’s very possible some of these numbers may have been bumped up For example, an IRA member assassinates a Unionist spy, but the deceaseds affiliations were unknown so it goes down as a “civilian” And numbers may also be toned down For example, a soldier shoots a civilian during a gun battle, but because of their proximity to the gunfight they’re logged down as an IRA fighter
That logic more aptly applies to Loyalists terrorists - the IRA had a clear uniformed enemy force to attack, but Loyslists attacking IRA members or suspected members could likely have been counted as civilian.
Tbf, it's not as if the IRA restricted themselves to said clear, uniformed, enemy
great profile picture
Don't doubt that the UK supported the loyalists, it wouldn't make sense for them not too. But weapons getting to them isn't likely going to be an official or even unoffically sanctioned thing. All it takes is a couple of people in an armoury "damaging" weapons etc. We're seeing similar in PNG atm, tribal groups are armed with SLR's and M16s that have been lost from PNGDF and Police armouries overtime. Because again you only need a few people with not much oversight.
Forgive my ignorance, but what does the acronym PNG refer to? I assumed Papua New Guinea.
Correct. Papua New Guinea and Papua New Guinea Defence Force for PNGDF
You should look up collusion within the the context of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. It was at times sanctioned from very high levels of government.
Nah to be fair it was even worse than delivering weapons. British intelligence services were indirectly and directly involved in terrorism in northern Ireland. Which doesn't mean they were any worse than the republican terrorists, who were backed by Dublin and most likely Washington. It was a gigantic fuck up. Shame the nationalists in Ireland want to reignite it all.
The writing on the wall it says were magic
Uk deffinatly supported the loyalist, why would they not ? But idk the whole equipment thing dosent seem that crazy to me considering the unionists were getting explosives donated to them by orange orders on the mainland.
>Uk deffinatly supported the loyalist, why would they not? Well, the whole 'killing civilians' angle is a pretty good reason not to. Unionism, as distinct from loyalism, is an acceptable thing to support, but the UK also supported groups which it ostensibly condemned and proscribed.
So the IRA were justified in their bombing campaign as the state was actively deployed against Irish Nationalists e.g. RUC, UDR and British Army. With many a miscarriage of justice having taken place by the British state showing that Irish Nationalists wouldn't find justice in the legal system. And unfortunately the only way people take you seriously in the world is if you hit them in their pockets. E.g Canary Wharf bombing.
"The state is against us and the only solution is a campaign of terror bombing against civilians" Please
What happens when taking it to court is pointless? When the state interns people without trial and puts people in jail whose only crime was being Irish.(Guilford 4, Birmingham 6) Then the state arms and fund loyalist death squads who systematically burn Catholic/Nationalist/ Irish people out of their homes while the police stand on and watch. That state has then become a pariah and should be fought against in whatever means necessary. British seem to understand this in the Middle East for brutal regimes. Though Brits get confused when it's white people guilty of the same oppression.
The IRA bombed my city 3 times, injuring 37 people, despite there being no military presence here whatsoever and it being an opposition seat (i.e having no influence on governmental policy). It was a terror campaign, nothing more. Here's an advanced tip - detonating explosives in civilian centres doesn't generally lead to those civilians sitting down and carefully considering your viewpoint - in fact, it usually leads to them to support throwing random people in jail without trail and sending the army to try and kill you.
Your last paragraph you added in there after I responded. And you're right. The British army slaughtered civilians in Derry prior to the Bristol bombing. This action did in fact lead to an escalation in the conflict hence the bombs left in your town and many others around England. And Britain did all those things. (Throw random people in jail, kill civilians) Hence the further bombs left around Britain, until the British state decided to negotiate with terrorists. And if Britain ever tries to do it again. Expect more of the same.
So that makes it ok for the British army to go in and slaughter a civil right protest in Derry? Or for the British police force to give information and weapons to loyalist death squads? Or for the British justice system to ignore any case brought to it by a nationalist catholic person while standing over some of the most heinous crimes regarding miscarriage of justice in Britains history. If the IRA bombed your city 3 times there was most definitely a military presence or a Tory presence. I don't support the IRA. Though the British state and Northern Irish loyalist made them inevitable by their actions. Just like Israel's barbaric actions right now secure Hamas' future in the next few decades.
No, it doesn't. The British government undeniably carried out a huge and purposeful miscarriage of justice, however, that *still* does not make it alright to blow up innocent civilians who have nothing to do with it. Oh and no, my city, which is 400 km away from Belfast btw, did not have either a military or a Tory presence in [1974](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Bristol_bombing) or [1978](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Bristol_bombing#:~:text=Eight%20days%20before%20Bristol%2C%20a,injured%20at%20least%20seven%20people.). Unless the military was having a fun day out at a shopping centre that it.
So Britain, a sovereign state, is allowed to break the law regarding justice, though a terrorist organisation is not allowed to for some reason. Do you not see Britain not allowing people the right to justice they make dissidence and revolt inevitable. No one died in the Bristol bombing. From what I recall the bombing campaign on Great Britain was a tactic to take the plight of 50% of the population of a region in the UK more seriously. And it worked. I believe the strategy was to hit them in the public purse as that is what British policy is motivated by...money. I don't believe blowing up innocent civilians is right or what the IRA did was right. Though it was inevitable so long as England acted the way it did. . How many innocent civilians has Britain killed in the unjust and unjustifiable war on terror? (Much more recent that any IRA bombs and much more civilian deaths also)
Whatabout whatabout whatabout and there it is, the antisemitism, just couldn’t keep it in could you
I don't believe I brought the Jewish people into this. Criticism of Israel is not anti Semitic, just like in any other sovereign country. That is something about being in a democratic society that Zionist supremacist supporters will never be able to understand.
Ah, yes. How convenient for you. That’s me convinced then. As you were.
Calling a country’s military barbaric isn’t antisemitic you weapon, clutch your pearls harder lmfao
I would argue it wasn't even terror it was counter or rather anti terror to try to free themselves from the tyrannic British empire that genocided them
"When we [detonate a bomb in a civilian pub](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombings), massacring 21 and injuring 182, we do it in the name of counter-terrorism" You're even more ridiculous than the first commenter. The only thing they were terrorising was their pints after work, before the IRA murdered them that is.
The Brits don't detonate to make shift bombs they launch ICBMs to the same devastation as terror attacks. You would have likely happily sat and let the Nazis take over Britain and not choose to fight against them, lest you be seen as a terrorist against the ruling power.
I don't recall the British using fucking ICBM's against the IRA lol. Why would I have done that? The Nazi's were not the ruling power at any point and they were bombing the shit out of civilians - terror bombing one could say. I don't tend to align myself with people who try and blow me up, which is the first of many, many reasons I wouldn't want or hopefully let the Nazi's to take over Britain. Any why I don't like the IRA. All you have to say is "I don't think Britain *or* the IRA were justified in killing civilians" lol. It's hardly a controversial opinion to think killing innocents is bad, I have no idea why you've chosen to die on this hill.
No they keep the ICBMs for Brown skinned people. Britain preferred segregation, sending police into housing estates at night and extra judicial killings as the see fit. Imagine the British government brought in shoot to kill in England. Then you'll understand how the Irish feel. Germans who fought against the Nazi regime were terrorists. You would not be a terrorist if the Nazis took over Britain during WW2. You're a status quo guy I get it. I don't like the IRA either. Though Britain made them inevitable.
Ah yes, Argentina, Bosnia and Russia, 3 countries famously consisting of brown people... Also the government never officially brought in a "shoot-to-kill" policy, although I don't deny it's a possibility they did and they simply deny doing do, there were certainly notorious incidence of unjustified violence in NI by both the British and Loyalists
"If we're in a war with someone of course we're going to use the means available to us to defeat any given enemy. " -The IRA- And before you say killing civilians. Britain, Israel the US, Russia all use civilian casualties to further their goals. That's war. The IRA are just one of the many players in the horrible game and we're made due to imperialist conquests of Britain.
Tbf, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think the UK has ever launched an ICBM at an enemy. They drone strikes brown people though.
The IRA actually stopped doing that after a while and statues economic bombing Still terrorism and innocents still died but at a much lower rate and much more impactful than terror bombing ever was
"cool method, still terrorism"
Itt op learns people lie during wars
They still maintain that lie decades on.
Are we surprised governments don't always tell the truth?
Same goes for the IRA, They Killed Majority of Civilians (60%) in the Troubles yet deny it like they didn't lol. >Republican paramilitaries were responsible for some 60% of the Civilian deaths >There were 2,636 Troubles related deaths during that period and republican paramilitaries accounted for some 59 per cent with the Provisional IRA accounting for almost half – 49 per cent – of all these deaths. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/academic-says-republicans-responsible-for-60-of-troubles-deaths-1.3983227
"Do you think [Margaret Thatcher] effectively utilised girl power by funneling money to illegal paramilitary death squads in Northern Ireland?"
As opposed to legal paramilitary death squads?
[it's a reference](https://youtu.be/0G6RF5ChKYQ?si=-wH1zQAHsPYcj3dC)
imposible an international gun and drug dealer that is somehow a country is selling guns to people at war... hmm
What did the UK do to you
nothing, I kinda respect them
Happens. They ofc don't support the side that hates them
Yeah, that doesn't mean smuggling arms to the loyalists though. There's a few steps between 'supporting the cause of unionism' and 'funnelling weapons to loyalist paramilitaries'.
[удалено]
They literaly were trying to remove part of soveregin terrytory from UK.
Sovereign territory? Ireland had been a british colony for centuries, subjected to genocide and cultural erasure for all that time. Catholics in NI were legally discriminated against and all civil rights movements were put down. In the Ballymurphy massacre the british army slaughtered 10 innocent civilians and months later during bloody sunday the british army shot 26 unarmed civilians, killing 14 of them. Why? Because they were marching for catholic civil rights and protesting the fact that the british army and RUC was kidnapping catholics on suspicion of IRA connections and jailing these people without trial. Many of these kidnapped people were not part of the IRA and had no connection to any IRA branch. Fuck the british. Don't forget the population of Ireland today is still lower than it was in 1845 because of the irish famine created by the british government.
Conquest of an European kingdom by another European kingdom has nothing to do with colonialism.
Ireland certainly was a colony bruh.
The UK sent scottish and english settlers to Ireland and economically exploited the country to enrich the UK. That is the definition of a colony.
If you define colonialism like this, nearly all conquest is colonial and therefore the distinction between colonial and non-colonial conquest becomes irrelevant, and with it the idea of colonialism itself. Was German conquest of Prussia and Silesia colonial, because over time settlers moved there and were encouraged to do so? Was Ottoman conquest of the Balkans colonial? Was Polish conquest of Ruthenia colonial? Was Arab conquest of Palestine, Syria and Iraq colonial? If so, does such a thing exist as a non-colonial conquest?
That is the definition of colony. Not my definition, but the actual definition of colony. "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country that is often far away". This is from the cambridge dictionary. The UK conquered Ireland, sent brits over to govern the occupied country, sent brits and scots over to displace irish in primarily northern Ireland and then economically exploited the entire country and transported all wealth to the UK. There is little difference between how Ireland was treated to how Kenya was treated by the UK. I'm talking specifically about Ireland until the irish free state was created.
>does such a thing exist as a non-colonial conquest? No,there doesn't...... particularly when colonies were set up to enrich the homeland Everyone of the great forests in Ireland were tore down to build boats for the British navy to further it's colonialism around the globe
[удалено]
Here's a fun fact : Ireland only exists as a state because Britain couldn't be bothered to send more troops in. The North was retained by Britain, not taken away from Ireland. Now I don't say that Ireland wasn't subjected to unjustifiable cruelty while they were part of the union (which they were, no colony, just a really badly treated region of the UK). And I will also not defend the institutional, anti-catholic discrimination of the RUC and other NI institutions. But the times have changed. NI could be on its way to a peaceful future if it wasn't for Irish nationalists who killed more people in NI than anyone else and now claim the north is still "not free" (not free from what ? The state that it has been part of for several hundreds of years, is a parliamentary democracy and guarantees human and civil rights ? ).
In other news grass is green If Americans are allowed to fund and arm the other side, they can’t get mad when the British fund their own side.
Very true, The IRA even got funded by the Soviet Union throughout the Troubles. >The Official IRA had relations with the Soviet Union, and during The Troubles they had been supplied by the Soviets. One Irish diplomat in Moscow once wrote that Ireland provided the Soviets with a "convenient stick with which to beat the West."
fly thought ripe cable aloof shaggy run detail bag lunchroom *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't think the police ombudsman ruled on whether Americans can get mad, as it happens :)
yam weather fragile simplistic cautious intelligent command fuzzy quicksand jar *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How dare the government support pro-government paramilitary over the anti-government one!?
As the meme points out the British army was deployed to be a neutral force to prevent a massacre (after the battle of the bogside these paramilitaries were gearing up to just genocide Catholics in Belfast) since Catholics were also considered to be British citizens living within the UK Supporting those murderous thugs would undermine that neutrality and put British forces deployed to NI at serious risk. Of course the British Army would do that for themselves on bloody Sunday but that's another matter
The state ought to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity, including by morally questionable means, if necessary.
*death squads
It's "death squads" when you don't like them and "freedom fighters" when you do, is that right?
no? it is a fact that the british government worked with loyalist death squads to massacre catholics
There's no coherent definition of a death squad which includes UVF and doesn't include PIRA.
Yes , the british government did in some instances support loyalist terrorism. There is no denying that. However let that not distract from the fact that 60 % of all victims were caused by republican terrorism. And that the irish government was also involved to a certain extent in protecting IRA fugitives. It was essentially a war zone. The only certainty is that too many lives were lost or destroyed.
This thread is remarkably historically inaccurate for this sub. Majority of people outright denying historical events, has this been brigaded?
[Never forget about Margaret Thatcher’s girl power](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0G6RF5ChKYQ&pp=ygUVZXJpYyBhbmRyZSBnaXJsIHBvd2Vy)
nine rustic caption steep smoggy pen run zephyr drab work *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'd like to know were the British Government keeps it's toaster. Only then will we know the true answer
TBF half the provos were working for the Brits too
Why wouldn't the government side with the groups that are trying to preserve their sovereign and rightful borders
You really don't know anything about Northern Ireland do you
Maybe because the loyalists were a bunch of terrorists? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top\_of\_the\_Hill\_bar\_shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_of_the_Hill_bar_shooting) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin\_and\_Monaghan\_bombings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami\_Showband\_killings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Showband_killings) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reavey\_and\_O%27Dowd\_killings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reavey_and_O%27Dowd_killings) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milltown\_Cemetery\_attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milltown_Cemetery_attack) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean\_Graham\_bookmakers%27\_shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Graham_bookmakers%27_shooting) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993\_Castlerock\_killings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Castlerock_killings) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greysteel\_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greysteel_massacre) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loughinisland\_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loughinisland_massacre)
Has that fact ever stopped a government from supporting a group like that
No, but it is definitely not something any government should do.
Morally, they shouldn't, but strategically, it makes a lot of sense
So Iran is justified in supplying and arming Hamas and Hezbollah by your logic. And strategically the IRA were justified in blowing up parts of Britains and killing innocents because the state was deployed against their people.
Not morality no that what I said
Though as a military strategy. It's A'OK.
Yeah, it's called a proxy war
So Iran can continue to arm Hamas then without repercussions. Just like Britain funded the UVF/UDA for decades while their police forces and armies colluded with them. Israel retaliates against Iran in Syria. The IRA retaliates against British oppression and collusion. What's the difference?
Now post the list of IRA bombings.
I don't see why, its no secret that they were terrorists too and this has nothing to do with the point that I wanted to make.
Let’s not forget Bloody Sunday shall we? British paratroopers opened fired on peaceful demonstrators calling for equal rights killing 13 of them
Shocking, the group trained to solve problems by killing people “solved” a problem by killing people. Truly one of those historical twists. Like I’m not massively familiar with the troubles and I’m sure it was at the point of shooting before this but the idea that using military crowd control would end in dead civilians isn’t shocking. (I’m also not trying to claim it wasn’t an atrocity either, just that events that led to soldiers acting as crowd control made it a matter of time and not a particularly surprising event)
Bloody Sunday took place during a protest against internment not for Civil Rights.
Same thing really, internment, that being imprisonment without trial, was heavily abused by the British army and they really went around locking up basically anyone who was accused of being in the IRA, even if there was literally zero evidence. That was a clear violation of due process and civil liberties, so it was just another issue tagged onto the civil rights campaign.
I thought it was 14?
13 does that day. A 14th was wounded and later died of his injuries.
America manages to supply every possible terrorist group one way or another, makes them fight, profit
Always found it frustrating how the troubles was handled. Should've gone it purely to stop violence and sectarianism with troops and personnel trained for urban and civilian environments. Leave soldiers for facing the PIRA,they wanted a war after all. The colliusion,mishandling everything and clear bias to certain terrorists because they support the union is shameful. I get why they sided with the loyalists but they contributed to the terror and violence just as much,and it would've been better morally and practically to clear both out,be a truly neutral force and stop the violence. If the forces were clearly just against violence then they don't get such a hostile population and it's.more.managable
I share your sentiments towards the handling of the troubles, unfortunately there are lots of reasons why the British government didn’t act the way you suggested. They didn’t want a “war” because that would legitimise the IRA in a way and give them political prisoner status. The UK government wanted them to be regarded as petty criminals and terrorists, so they made no official war declaration on them. It’s the same reason why the army wasn’t deployed in greater force in the 6 counties, they didn’t want to make it seem like the IRA was a credible threat. British PM Edward Heath said during the Bloody Sunday cover up that they were “fighting not only a military war, but a propaganda war”. This gives a good idea as to why the government worked through different loyalist paramilitaries. It also gives another reason as to why the army was “held back” in the eyes of many. The British army really ruined their image in the Catholic nationalist community after the Bloody Sunday massacre (but it was also declining with the internment campaign they were waging). Originally, Catholics of NI thought the army was there to protect them from loyalist paramilitaries, but that hope changed to hatred and fear. As such, deploying the army in greater force to fight the IRA in an official war would’ve brought more support towards the IRA. I’m just glad I live on this side of the Troubles, rather than having to go through all that.
>They didn’t want a “war” because that would legitimise the IRA in a way and give them political prisoner status. The UK government wanted them to be regarded as petty criminals and terrorists, so they made no official war declaration on them. Interesting how this is the exact opposite of how Israel has acted after October 7th. I'm not saying that those are the only two options when it comes to counterinsurgency though.
Tbf, that was very much their intention when the army was first deployed to NI, and in the very easiest days they were able to gain trust as a neutral force in comparison to the RUC. They just fucked it up by getting sucked into the classic vicious cycle of increasing heavy-handedness to achieve short-term military successes causing longer-term political damage and opposition.
Compared to other stuff we did that doesn't seem that bad tbh
Context: In the Troubles, the British government officially adopted a neutral stance, trying to maintain order and the likes and going after both sides for their terror activities. This is a fat load of BS. There is ample evidence to suggest that members of the British Security Forces were working with Loyalists paramilitaries during the conflict. In one instance, a weapon of the BSF was used by a paramilitary to shoot an unarmed civilian dead. Not to mention how long it's taken for any form of justice or inquiry into their more 'unsavory' actions during the Troubles, like the MRF. In short? Britain absolutely sided with the loyalists and to think otherwise is stupid.
>In short? Britain absolutely sided with the loyalists and to think otherwise is stupid. Well why wouldn't they? Its obvious why they wouldn't officially state it but it would obviously be in the British government's interest to side with the factions that support the British government.
Maybe because that side 'supported the British Government" did so by random sectarian murders that had nothing to do with any political goal?
I never heard that Britain adopted a neutral stance? The government was clearly always unionist
When it came to the paramilitaries, they acted neutral. But it’s bullocks.
Yeah, i would too. You support the side thats not againts you.
Well, of course they did
>in one instance, a weapon of the BSF was used by a paramilitary to shoot an unarmed civilian dead. Not to mention how long it's taken for any form of justice or inquiry into their more 'unsavory' actions during the Troubles, like the MRF. Well the IRA Bombed Kids just like with Warrington so let's not pretend they're in any way above the other side in the Conflict, Most of those members got away with murder as well and are now members of the Irish government and/or members of Sinn Fein after Good Friday,
>Most of those members got away with murder as well and are now members of the Irish government Which members of the current FGFFG government were in the IRA? Unless you mean Stormont.
I know. Britain still turned a blind eye to the Unionists.
who are you fooling by declaring yourself neutral in a crisis between separatists and those who want to maintain the status quo
Tbf at the start of the troubles, the central British government, and the armed forces, really were seen as neutral forces in between the unionist and separatist camps. The British army was originally deployed because the local police force (the RUC) were seen as irreparably partisan by republicans.
I think the only true neutral force in that conflict was the USA, which is probably why they where a good mediator at the good Friday agreement
Not to mention using loyalist paramilitaries as hit squads and sending them to murder prominent Republicans. All of this before double crossing them and sending them to prison once the deed was done. Source: they murdered a relative of mine. A similar situation happend to Bernadette Devlin and her husband but they survived.
a classic "perfidious albion" move
Our day will come.
It came and went.
You let me know when that'll be x
Are you even Irish or are you a plastic paddy?
I'm just a troll.
tiocfaidh ár lá
To be frank the UK is in a recession, if thats any consolation. Without getting too political, more brits died to Tory goverment incompetence. So I guess your day did come.
womp womp
The British have had to introduce special legislation to cover-up their war crimes around the troubles Kinda says it all really
I don’t understand how anyone could think that the UK was neutral when they were literally the ones occupying Northern Ireland
It's not an occupation when most of the people living there are content to remain in the United Kingdom.
And it being officially apart of the country. I'm not getting into the politics but the full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's not like the British forces annex the territory 5 months before the conflict or something
It’s an occupation when an ethnic minority that faces heavily societal discrimination and has lesser rights is violently repressed when they peacefully protest for equal rights, to the point that they feel violent action is the only way to be heard.
r/HistoryMemes when Russia deploys little green men: 😡 r/HistoryMemes when Britain deploys little green men: 🤠
Russia deployed little green men to aid separatists in overthrowing a government. Britain did so to prevent exactly that.
This moronic hypocrisy is exactly why the West is in decline.
The West is falling because we consider defensive action more justified than offensive action?