Troubles 'amnesty'

[ulstersocialist]

I don't know if this has been publicised in the rest of Ireland but the british government and prominent members of churches and community groups have been trying to reach a consensus over wether or not the troubles should be classed as a war or not.

Sinn fein are indifferent but confused because the british government had been telling the IRA for years to ''call off their war'' while the paisleyites and unionists are pissed off like never before...

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article3321760.ece

[RedFlag32]

Is this all we have to bicker over? What a sham,what about tryig to settle the sectarianism that is inbuilt into the 6 counties,is this really conflict resolution?

[ulstersocialist]

if the conflict gets labelled a war it will create an important precedence because it will in effect mean the broad republican movement will be acknowledged by the british state as a legitimate political entity and not simply a terrorist one.

If they try to back down they will be backpeddling because as Sinn Fein rightly said in the British government's own words it was a ''war''.

[Papa C.]

...and if it was a war with the British state or if the British state were at war with the IRA, then calling them and treating them as criminals would be in violation of the geneva convention wouldn't it?

[thefiguresix]

...and if it was declared a war wouldnt there be a violation for targeting civilian populations by all antagonists involved. This kind of stuff pops its head up now and again because it provides an excuse to not have to engage in any sort of real political discussion and to wind up the old political masquerade that they are all used to, and which quite frankly is a dam sight easier than actually having to do something pertinent.

[ulstersocialist]

admin said:

...and if it was a war with the British state or if the British state were at war with the IRA, then calling them and treating them as criminals would be in violation of the geneva convention wouldn't it?

haha! I didnt know that! Maybe Maggie will get that war crimes trial she deserves so much after all!
;D

[ulstersocialist]

thefiguresix said:

...and if it was declared a war wouldnt there be a violation for targeting civilian populations by all antagonists involved. This kind of stuff pops its head up now and again because it provides an excuse to not have to engage in any sort of real political discussion and to wind up the old political masquerade that they are all used to, and which quite frankly is a dam sight easier than actually having to do something pertinent.

i doubt that would implicate the IRA? Didnt the PIRA have a policy of only attacking military and police personell and infrastructure? Or suspected Loyalist paramilitaries? If anyone should be shitting themselves it should be the UDA, the UVF and their associated groups.

[thefiguresix]

the last i checked the europa hotel, the grand opera house and belfast city center werent military installations. they are all in the same boat really. anyway there are more reasons than "the troubles" to try maggie for warcrimes, and i would actually laugh my face of to see the UDA and UVF locked up for warcrimes.

[Papa C.]

thefiguresix said:

the last i checked the europa hotel, the grand opera house and belfast city center werent military installations. they are all in the same boat really. anyway there are more reasons than "the troubles" to try maggie for warcrimes, and i would actually laugh my face of to see the UDA and UVF locked up for warcrimes.

Maggie aside (although I'd like to see her locked up for the rest of her short life and leave her burried in prison for the extra 90 odd years she should be) it's the British Government and all involved with it who should be tried. Not just one person, it's a club of scumbags. Loyalist paramilitaries are only victims of British rule. If there was no Government, they could be functioning members of the socialist republic and I pray for the day.

There are many, I suppose you could call criminal, actions the PIRA carried out (Kingsmill springs to mind for a start) but there are many more which were completely legitamate and with the limited tools available (compared to any government army) there's bound to be problems and mistakes. Economic targets were legitamate targets. Ask yourself this, how many people were killed by british and US bombs in the last 4 years? The official death toll as well surpassed 1,000,000 people. The PIRA's war was a war of liberation from imperialism not for profit and greed. That's the difference.

[thefiguresix]

it depends if you count the pursuit of power as a pursuit of profit. a considerable amount of power and influence has been gained out of the IRA campaign. and is for example a shop or something really just an economic target if you know its full of innocent people. are cultural targets legitimate?
if we could put the massive difference in scale aside for a moment (i know thats asking a lot) and we look at principles then i cant really condem the british and US forces for their attitude to "collateral" damage (which i do) whilst excusing the IRA for the same thing.
unfortunately the british government will never face any trial.
the IRA didnt do enough to prevent innocent death to really take the moral high ground. the northern ireland moral highground is somewhere below sea level! the power of hate and sectarianism was harnessed, stoked up and utilised to political gain, which as we see now is something that would have long reaching consequences for future generations and i think criminally irresponsible.
I dont want anyone to think that if i raise an issue i have with, for example, the IRA campaign that I in anyway support or excuse the actions of the british government. of course all ive said applies across the whole political spectrum in northern ireland, none more so than the british government. it just gets tedious to have to keep balancing every argument across the political divide. and of course i agree that recent actions of the british government are as ever disgustingly criminal. every citizen of the UK is a victim of the fraud democracy.
i want to challenge my own ideas as well as others! so thanks for the response!

[Papa C.]

thefiguresix said:

it depends if you count the pursuit of power as a pursuit of profit. a considerable amount of power and influence has been gained out of the IRA campaign.

This is the same pursuit that turned the provies into what they are today. I don't think Gerry Adams ever had the interests of the whole community at heart. He often made the point that SF is/ was not a Marxist organisation and had no Marxists in it, despite the fact that Sinn Fein kicked out many well known Marxists including Seamus Costello who went on to form the IRSM and kept other Marxists in their ranks. I know of a few.

thefiguresix said:

and is for example a shop or something really just an economic target if you know its full of innocent people. are cultural targets legitimate?

I'm not trying to justify all the actions of the IRA comrade but we have to understand that the only things the imperialist Government care about is the economy, security (or peace as the call it) and normalisation as such this is where you have to hit any occupational ruling peoples. The IRA had planned to have the war against Imperialism wrapped up around the late 70s. This didn't happen and they became increasingly desperate after that. This may have lead to some bad decisions being made. It's hard to step back and look at what you're doing when all your doing is fighting for survival.

thefiguresix said:

if we could put the massive difference in scale aside for a moment (i know thats asking a lot) and we look at principles then i cant really condem the british and US forces for their attitude to "collateral" damage (which i do) whilst excusing the IRA for the same thing.

The difference is that the Imperialist Governments are the ones ruling and oppressing while the IRA claimed to be fighting against this but I agree that collateral damage is inexcusable but ask how many of those killed by the IRA were informers, British security, British soldiers, police and British agents and how many were civilians. I think about 80% - 90% were the latter but you might need someone else to source a definite percentage.


I don't mean to keep on this issue comrade and I know you are a good socialist but you have to understand that their is a difference between fighting against injustice and imperialism and the Imperialist insistence on taking control of our economy and fighting (or should I say invading countries) for money, oil and power at the expense of the working class. This kind of activity justifies anti-imperialist movements and armies no matter how reactionary. The revolution can come after the imperialist is removed or defeated. It's hard to keep a clean war (if there is such a thing) when imperialists keep on changing the rules.

Just to clarify my position on this: It is my belief that a people's army is justifiable by the Imperialist Occupation and said army has the right to fight back against Imperialist/ Capitalist rule and oppression. It is the British Government presence which justifies this, nothing else.

British troops were on the streets before the IRA went into full swing. The troops were sent in to smash the Civil Rights Movement which was a non-sectarian justice campaign. If the Government allowed this movement to continue they would have a hard time trying to justify their presence there after a while. The way the Government dealt with the Civil Rights Movement (battle of the bogside, bloody Sunday) rightly or wrongly built support for the IRA.

[dangeresque]

admin said:

...and if it was a war with the British state or if the British state were at war with the IRA, then calling them and treating them as criminals would be in violation of the geneva convention wouldn't it?

according to this manual on guerilla war I read, combatants are entitled to POW status if they wore insignia and uniforms. Not making taht argumnet myself, but that's apparently what the Geneva convention states.