Tell me about the IRA and the UDA, Veeky Forums

Tell me about the IRA and the UDA, Veeky Forums.

I'm curious about the paramilitary history of Northern Ireland, and whether the reasons for it to remain in the UK are still legitimate.

I am lead to believe that originally a lot of Ulster-scots people were in Ulster at the time of the formation of the ROI, and they didn't want to be ruled by a state with the Catholic Church having so much sway.
I feel like now, that doesn't really apply anymore.

I'm curious about the legitimacy and logic behind rebellions and uprisings in the North, including the rather recent "Troubles."

Reasons to remain in the UK - legitimate as the majority of people want to remain in the UK
The claim of the South on the North - illegitimate until a referendum is carried out with the result being that the North wants to join the South
Reasons for any violence be it perpetrated by the republicans or the unionists - Illegitimate

Tbh the main problem is that local politics only has one issue, unionist or Republican, and we need to get over that and solve proper issues such as abortion being illegal, forced coalitions in Stormont, until recently there was no official opposition, lack of investment in education (improving but not there yet) etc.

We are essentially one big welfare case, taking english taxpayers money and giving parts of it to useless shit like "promoting the irish and Ulster-Scots languages" which ought to be left to individuals and not the state.

The troubles essentially put a stop to business investment in the north making us all poorer whether we are a prod or a catholic.

I'm a unionist myself but if the majority of people are willing to join the south then I'm willing to let that happen, but I am probably going to leave NI anyway.

>unionist or republican

I remember reading there is a lot of fear-voting going on, essentially putting some really shitty hyperconservative unionist party (don't recall the name) in charge just so that there won't be republicans in charge.

Northern Ireland Unionists-to me-seem weird. I can't understand their riots a few years ago over a flag not being flown on a building, or the whole thing about the 12th july "controversy."

To start, the RoI was never inevitable. Even after Cromwell's genocidepalooza, the failed 1798 Uprising, and the Great Famine; the majority of Native Irish strongly opposed the Easter Rising of 1916 as both rash and backstabbing (especially during wartime). The British government even lamented at the time that the Easter Rising was the only uprising where the majority of Irish people were on the side of the British government; only to lose that mass support by the UK's extended mass executions of Irish prisoners over the following months. The UK's decision to drag out the shootings of Irish POWs, instead of getting the bloody job finished in one day, caused a mass panic that eventually lost them Ireland.

Fast forward to 1921; despite the Irish rebels only having ~4,000 insurgents total at any one time during the war, the British government wants to throw in the towel. Whereas the Irish negotiators are at first elated, the sobering reality of what the peace negotiations will cost them eventually sets in. Both sides know that the only reason why the Irish were "wining" thus far is because the British were having to fight the insurgency with "one arm tied behind their backs". Both sides also know that three certain counties in Ulster (Derry, Antrim, and Down) have a Scottish-Protestant majority population which'll never join the Irish Free State under any circumstance. So as with all history involving Ireland and Britain, "the element of duress was always present".

If Ireland wanted peace and "Canada-status", they'd have to first accept the following conditions.
>Ireland would become a "client-state" of Britain for about 15 years before being granted independence
>The Northern Scottish counties would be allowed to "opt-out" of joining the Free State (which they'd obviously do immediately)
>Ireland would have to accept a huge debt to Britain to pay off the damages caused by the war
>Ireland would have to "keep the King's peace in the Free State"

(cont.)

Well unless we vote to leave the UK it is still legitimate for us to be in it. Although Tyrone and Armagh probably should have been given to the Free State desu. The Troubles started because nationalist civil rights protestors were being treated very badly by the government so after pretty bad rioting the British Army were deployed to protect the nationalist population. Then conflict between the army, the police, the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries made shit real messy. I wonder why a UN peacekeeping force wasn't brought in like Jack Lynch wanted

Failure to sign and uphold the Anglo-Irish treaty would result in a resumption of hostilities, this time with the Irish rebels being treated less like a homeland insurgency, and more like a belligerent rogue-state (like Germany). The Irish rebels would no longer be fighting only British paramilitary, infantry, and cavalry units; but also the UK's full navy and airforce as well.

Once the treaty was barely adopted by the Irish Dail, civil war broke out because the hardcore Irish Republicans felt that the new Free-State government was "selling out". Though Michael Collins wanted to wait the irregulars out, he was forced to take a brutal offensive because the Brits threatened to "enforce the peace" if the new Free State government didn't do so immediately. The civil war bankrupted the Free State once again, at this point allowing the British government to propose a new deal...

If the Irish ceded three more counties with large (but not overwhelming majority) Scottish-Protestant populations (ie. Tyrone, Armagh, and Fermanagh), the UK would wipe away a large portion of the debt the Irish Free State owed. The Irish agreed, and that's how a large Irish-Catholic population ended up inside the newly carved "Northern Ireland" province.

The Provisional IRA formed in order to protect the rights and lives of the Irish minority living in NI, since the British government didn't give a shit about their safety and honestly would prefer them fleeing south to the RoI. The UDA formed as opposition to the Provisional IRA, and not-so-subtly often worked hand-in-hand with NI police.

I should also add that after the Good Friday agreement, there's no reason why either the provisional IRA or UDA should exist. Though there's small splinters of both sides still around, they mostly limit themselves to selling meth to minors.

Also should add the provisional IRA werent Angels, they were terrorists through and through. My posts sound more pro-IRA than I was aiming for.

Since Dev and his supporters were anti-treaty and wanted to keep fighting the Brits, how the hell did they plan to not be utterly destroyed in such a situation?

>terrorists

Sorry, I struggle to remember which IRA is the actual IRA. The IRA I'm really curious about is the main republican force during the Troubles, leading up to the agreement. The one that members of today's "Sinn Fein" were allegedly or confirmed to be a part of.

While it's true that that IRA, the provisional IRA were sort of fighting for a good cause, it's also true that they kind of hijacked the civil rights movement for their own cause, ie reunification. They did engage in terrorism but hell so did the American revolutionaries and the old IRA during the War of Independence. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all that.

I don't think the past should reflect badly on Sinn Fein members unless they refuse to admit what they were part of, like Gerry Adams. The hypocrisy of the DUP lambasting them for the past is hilarious when you know that some of the old guard of that party like Peter Robinson imported weapons from Lebanon, and Ian Paisley supported the 1974 strike where 39(!) civilians were murdered by loyalist paramilitaries over only two weeks.

Why did the British army/RUC murder so many civilians then?

English civilians are not responsible for the actions of the military/government. Target them, not average people with no effect on Northern Ireland.

if they pay taxes they are, at least indirectly even if they don't support the actions of the British military

governments put their people on the line when they go to war, you can't act like you've been wronged when you get hit

Agree
I'm just saying the government didn't have much trouble justifying attacking non strategic targets

Says the Brit

And average people aren't responsible for the movements and actions of paramilitary groups, and yet Loyalist paramilitaries almost exclusively targeted innocent civilians.

The IRA did some awful, awful things, but they had a cause behind them-reunification, rolling off the end of what was actual the systematic abuse and oppression irish people in NI.

They didn't get their reunification, but they did secure equal rights for Irish people.
Today, some unionist still spit the world "republican" as if it automatically makes you terrorist, but people seem to forget that in all honesty the enemy of the innocents in Ulster has always been the British, and after that the Unionists.

'they' did both though, if you're talking about Republican Paramilitaries

the IRA was incredibly fragmented and had been since the War of Independence, Dev was completely unable to control them and each splinter pretty much operated on its own initiative in the absence of any firm hierarchy

what one splinter of the IRA did could be condemned by another and vice versa

For reference of those confused

>IRA killing republicans???
IRA often killed "snitches" and "rats" who informed to British forces. These people were everywhere, as eventually the British had the IRA infiltrated at just about every level. This accounts for a lot of their murders on republicans.

>Loyalists killed more loyalists than republicans?
Loyalist paramilitaries were not fighting for a cause, they were just out to kill irish people. The IRA could easily avoid them and thusly the two largely never came into direct conflict, aside from scattered bombings or murders. Punishment attacks, similar to those done by the IRA, were more common.

>Why British only kill Republican and civilians?
While its true that both sides saw the British arriving as a good thing-hoping they'd just help bring peace and stability-the British instead immediately sided with the RUC and the loyalists.
At this stage, you have loyalists out hunting irish civilians, who are also working alongside the RUC who are backed by the British army.

I wonder how many of those loyalist/loyalist killings are loyalists killing themselves with dodgy bombs

>the IRA did a better job killing the IRA than proddie dogs could

>playing into anglo-jew le religious war mind games

It's cuz they know they're country stealing usurpers who don't deserve to live here so they try to rule with an iron fist. Not to mention after so many generations of treating the Catholics as second class citizens they're scared of a backlash.

Go on, try to prove me wrong.

I'm from the Republic but my family was heavily involved with the republican cause in the north from the 70s up until the 90s.
>I am lead to believe that originally a lot of Ulster-scots people were in Ulster at the time of the formation of the ROI, and they didn't want to be ruled by a state with the Catholic Church having so much sway.
This is correct. "Home Rule is Rome Rule" et cetera.
>I feel like now, that doesn't really apply anymore
The church has lost most of its power in the Republic, but the mutual distrust between Catholics and Protestants is still very much present in NI. Keep in mind however, it is and has always been an ethnic and political conflict more than a religious one on any kind of theological grounds.

The fall of the RC church in the ROI and the peace process in NI pretty much happened at the exact same time, so it's a bit of a moot point really.

Ulster Unionism today no longer has any real basis in not wanting to be ruled over by hidebound Catholicism, however attitudes to the Republic in general among Unionists aside from this point haven't changed much. If that makes any sense.

Basically hardcore Unionists either pretend the Church is still powerful in the south and/or give other reasons for wanting to stay in the UK (many of them admittedly valid of course).

Well now user, let's not be too hasty. America is more irish than Ireland.

NI belonging to the UK is up to the people of NI and nobody else.

Although, Unionism being the utter rotting joke that it is, I don't see reunification as all that unlikely.

what did he mean by this

Irish rebel songs are brilliant.

Though my understanding is that a unified Ireland is rivalled only by a unified Korea in terms of the economic disaster it'd create.

all the pro IRA "irish-americans" you see online are just embarassing

s'long as they gib tourist bennies all's well

>irish americans

Cancer.
Especially the ones who
>Have never been to Ireland
>Support IRA because "fuck the brits"
>Think Guinness is the be all and end all of beers
>Pretend to like Rugby

Go up to any of those cunts and ask them who Enda Kelly is and they'll be dumbfounded.

Fuck them.

>Arbitrarily defined
>Counties that had a unionist majority

I don't think so Paddy.

How am I responsible for the actions of the UVF?
Sinn Fein and the IRA want us to join the south irregardless of the wants of the people, that's bloody undemocratic.

>Country stealing
>Been there for 500 years

Let's just kick all of the whites and blacks out of south Africa and give it all to the Khoi-san people.
Sorry mustafa, you and the rest of the Turks must go back to central Asia.
Oi all Americans who aren't natives go back to Europe or Africa.

Also Palestinians Out, give the land to the Jews.

>how am I responsible for the actions of the UVF

Bit rich hearing that coming from a Unionist when most Unionists group all republicans with IRA/Provos/all the others. They also group all Sinn Fein members as "IRA", even the fresh faced youngsters.
They also riot over a flag.
They also think the police force works for the RA.

Is there any group of people more fucking gormless than Northern Ireland Unionists?

Remind me again how I am responsible for all of the views of unionists?

Not implying that, just saying that it's not really fair for anyone in NI to complain about being grouped in with other people since here it's basically "us or them"

Also this.

>enda kelly

Wrong. Fermanagh and Tyrone didn't have a Unionist majority. Also, today Derry and Armagh also no longer have Unionist majorites.

well, not anymore

What's the "no surrender" thing about?
Surely it'd be the irish saying that and not the loyalists?

Catholics in Ballymurphy were treated as second class citizens akin to the treatment of black people in pre-civil rights America.

>the majority of Native Irish strongly opposed the Easter Rising of 1916 as both rash and backstabbing
A common assertion that's never been backed up with any kind of evidence. People make this assumption as most Irish were IPP supporters before the rising and turning to SF supporters after, but it is a huge conclusion to come to from such a tenuous link. Truth is we don't know what most irish people thought. We know there were some Dubliners who were angry at the rebels, but we don't know a whole lot more.

>If the Irish ceded three more counties with large (but not overwhelming majority) Scottish-Protestant populations (ie. Tyrone, Armagh, and Fermanagh), the UK would wipe away a large portion of the debt the Irish Free State owed. The Irish agreed, and that's how a large Irish-Catholic population ended up inside the newly carved "Northern Ireland" province.
This is complete bollocks. Northern Ireland was conceived in it's 6 county form years before and was established by the government of Ireland act in 1920, before the signing of the Anglo-Irish treaty. There was never a 3 county NI, not even as a proposal. It's been suggested that Collins was promised an NI that would be too small to survive, and as per the A-I treaty a boundary commission would be established to deal with the border later, but that never came to much.

>The Provisional IRA formed in order to protect the rights and lives of the Irish minority living in NI
The Provos formed because of a split with the Dublin leadership, though this was a result of their percieved failure to protect catholic civilians at the beginning of the troubles.

>"Protect the Irish minority" by bombing civilians in England. Yeah.
The bombings in England have pretty much nothing to do with the split with the Dublin leadership of the IRA, which occured because the Northern IRA members felt enough wasn't being done to protect Catholic civilians as their neighbourhoods were being attacked and torched by protestant mobs. So yeah, the Provos were set up to protect the Irish minority in NI

siege of derry

UDA and IRA both equal scumbags both two sides of the same coin.

Today that's a pretty valid statement, but in the past it's very clear that the IRA primarily targeted officials that could be classed as "combatants" or "enemies to their cause" while the UDA killed almost exclusively innocents.

This. As the loyalist sayings went 'Yabba dabba doo any fenian will do' and 'all taigs are targets'