Posted on 06/02/2008 4:00:27 PM PDT by rudy45
My daughter is preparing for a debate. Her thesis is that the actions of the Provisional wing of the Irish Republican Army are unjustified. Any help is appreciated. Also, how do you counter the argument that the provisional IRA is the same as the 1776 American colonists? Thanks.
The IRA is a Marxist organization who’s goal also includes the overthrough of the government in the south. This was told to me in writing by an IRA terrorist (and murderer) named Joe Doherty in 1987 and was also printed on IRA materials.
“Also, how do you counter the argument that the provisional IRA is the same as the 1776 American colonists? “
I must have forgotten the chapter on the American Revolution where the rebels left package bombs in tightly populated public places where they could explode and do the most damage.
Or where kneecapping was a accepted means of dealing with colonists who dealt with the Tories.
As a Catholic who is part Irish I say without any hesitation that the provisional IRA are murdering, terrorist bastards who shame the name of civilization.
A good place to start would be to look up incidents of IRA sponsored terrorism. I am sure a lot of the information is available for public perusal.
The Provos killed kids - did Washington?
I’m no expert, but she might want to research and see what kind of government the IRA wanted to set up if they were successful in breaking free of British rule. If they wanted a self-governing republic that protected the individual rights of its citizens, that would be similar to the goal of the American colonists. If, however, they wanted to be a state whose loyalty was to the USSR, then they were simply trying to force a switch in allegiance from one foreign ruler to another. She’ll need to find out their stated goals.
yup...wasn’t there some incident where the IRA bombed an event where a military band was playing?
Hyde Park and Regents Park in July 1982. I was there (Hyde Park) but was far away from the blast.
1. Washington’s army was under the direction of the Continental Congress. A body properly elected by the colonists.
2. The Declaration of Independence was passed unanimously.
3. Independence was a LAST resort; the only MEANS to achieve the JUST ends specified in the Declaration.
4. Washington and his Generals scrupulously followed the rules of war. His soldiers wore uniforms.
Kinda sorta.
A majority of each of the state delegations was in favor, but by no means were all of the individual delegates in favor.
Not always, especially in the South, where both sides violated the laws of war pretty regularly. Down there it was a true civil war.
It may have had some legitimacy in the days of Michael Collins, but after he was killed (by a fellow IRA member angry over his willingness to deal with the Brits) it became a full-blown terrorist outfit. They got in bed with whoever England’s enemies happened to be at a given time, accepting aid from the Nazis in WWII and the Soviets during the cold war.
“Also, how do you counter the argument that the provisional IRA is the same as the 1776 American colonists?”
Who elected the IRA to anything? Are they duly constituted by anyone to represent the people of Northern Ireland? No, they’re a volunteer terrorist gang. Your daughter should focus on the history of the Provos (Provisional IRA). They’re basically an unrepresentative group that believes in violence to achieve their objectives.
Actually, you are comparing them to the wrong period of US History. The right comparison would be the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s if the democrats got their way.
“The Troubles” began when the local Catholics wanted equal treatment under the law. And they followed in the non-violent tradition of MLK and Ghandi and the Protestants responded by slaughtering Catholic Women and Children. Now apparetnly, most freepers seem willing to let the government kill their wives and children, Irish Catholics on the other hand thought that these deeds shouldn’t go unpunished. And like men, fought back.
The Catholics never wanted this fight, the Protestants kept the bloodshed going on for 30 years. And the evidence is the voting for the Good Friday accords, 95% of the Catholics in the Republic voted for it, 90% of the Catholics in the north voted for it. Yet in Northern Ireland, less than 50% of the Protestants voted for peace.
Thank you for mentioning that.
I remember, many years ago, a colleague asking me why Britain insisted on keeping Northern Ireland a part of the United Kingdom when it was so obvious they wanted independence. I told him that the majority of the population in Northern Ireland was Protestant and wished to remain under British rule. The IRA was a distinct minority trying to get its way through terrorism.
He was shocked. No one in the media (from which he'd formed his opinions, of course) had ever come out and stated that one simple fact.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
As I said, the majority of each delegation were in favor, so it was a unanimous decision of the “states.”
Not all the delegates were in favor. I believe this is a useful distinction.
Nope. The most appropriate comparison would indeed be '60s, but it would be the 1860's.
The Union denied the validity of southern secession since they asserted that the relevant "people" who had the right to determine their government by majority vote was the "people of the United States," not the people of each State individually. Since the people of the United States had not agreed to secession, it was invalid, and the desires of the people of each State were just irrelevant.
Similarly, the IRA since its beginning has considered the relevant "people" to be the people of all Ireland, not those who happen to reside in the North. Since presumably the people of united Ireland are against a separate Northern Ireland, what a majority of those who live in the North want is just as irrelevant as what those in South Carolina wanted in 1860.
Except of course that in 1860 SC a majority of the population were chattel, which adds an additional layer of illegitimacy to the vote for secession.
From a purely logical standpoint, it would be just as reasonable to assert that the relevant "people" are the residents of the British Isles, of whom the Irish are a distinct minority.
Nobody seriously believed that the IRA was going to re-unify Ireland, the republic gave up on that years ago. It was a nice marketing gimmick for the US on St. Patrick’s day, but nothing more.
The protestants got away with slaughtering Catholics for 4 years before the IRA became a force.
The response I always heard to that was that the majority in Northern Ireland were British and Scottish transplants who'd been given land taken from Irish Catholics, so of course they would vote to remain with the UK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.