Ask Me Help Desk - Sinn Fein and the IRA

I've been doing a bit of homework lately, and find myself in a bit of a quandry.

I'm trying to see the difference(s) between what Sinn Fein and the IRA are attempting to accomplish in the UK and what America accomplished some 250 years ago.

Granted, I'm no fan of terrorism, and that's pretty much what the IRA's actions amounted to up until the Good Friday agreement, when they finally settled down a bit. However, as they say, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, and the victor's get to pick the names.

So is what Ireland seems to be working toward any different than the American Revolutionary war, or are there differences?

DK

Quote:

Originally Posted by kindj

I've been doing a bit of homework lately, and find myself in a bit of a quandry.

I'm trying to see the difference(s) between what Sinn Fein and the IRA are attempting to accomplish in the UK and what America accomplished some 250 years ago.

Granted, I'm no fan of terrorism, and that's pretty much what the IRA's actions amounted to up until the Good Friday agreement, when they finally settled down a bit. However, as they say, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, and the victor's get to pick the names.

So is what Ireland seems to be working toward any different than the American Revolutionary war, or are there differences?

DK

I think it may disambiguate the situation in Ireland if you think in terms of Protestants, Catholics, and Economics. At some point after Ireland became an English Crown colony the British adopted Protestantism as a State Religion. The majority of people in Ireland were Catholic and this presented a problem. So the British started to persecute the Catholics through the enactment of laws giving Protestants privileges.

Also they imported many Protestants from Scotland to Ireland by way of land grants, and it was not many years before Catholics became a small minority, who, for the most part, were economically bankrupt. Few owned land and all were pitifully starving. The Catholics rebelled and paid a dear price for doing so. When Protestants formed Labor Unions, the Catholic were not allowed to become a member, they couldn’t find work and they rebelled by fighting the British the only way left for them… guerrilla warfare.

Edit: The Protestants by the way supported the Crown and the Catholics wanted a free and independent Ireland, as did America and France.

Well I draw the line when civilians are intentionally targeted . The IRA attacks against the British troops could be considered insurgency rather than terrorism ;but the "Bloody Friday" (7/21/1972 ) bomb attacks in Belfast where 9 people were killed when the Provisional IRA/Sinn Fein detonated twenty bombs in an hour, was an act of terrorism .

If you wanted to make a comparison with a similar example you would need to cite the horrible "civil war" that occurred amongst the" loyalist" colonists and the "patriots". It got nasty even post-war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Well I draw the line when civilians are intentionally targeted . The IRA attacks against the British troops could be considered insurgency rather than terrorism ;but the "Bloody Friday" (7/21/1972 ) bomb attacks in Belfast where 9 people were killed when the Provisional IRA/Sinn Fein detonated twenty bombs in an hour, was an act of terrorism .

If you wanted to make a comparison with a simular example you would need to cite the horrible "civil war" that occurred amongst the" loyalist" colonists and the "patriots". It got nasty even post-war.

I just put it all in a historical context; I’ll leave it to others to draw moral conclusions.:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Well I draw the line when civilians are intentionally targeted . The IRA attacks against the British troops could be considered insurgency rather than terrorism ;but the "Bloody Friday" (7/21/1972 ) bomb attacks in Belfast where 9 people were killed when the Provisional IRA/Sinn Fein detonated twenty bombs in an hour, was an act of terrorism .

If you wanted to make a comparison with a simular example you would need to cite the horrible "civil war" that occurred amongst the" loyalist" colonists and the "patriots". It got nasty even post-war.

The Plantation of Ulster was a planned process of colonisation which took place in the northern Irish province of Ulster during the early 17th century in the reign of James I of England. English and Scottish Protestants were settled on land that had been confiscated from Catholic Irish landowners in the counties of Donegal, Coleraine1, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Armagh and Cavan, following the Flight of the Earls in 1607. It was the biggest and most successful of the Plantations of Ireland. Ulster was planted in this way to prevent further rebellion, having proved itself over the preceding century to be the most resistant of Ireland's provinces to English invasion.

Some people might consider this a form of State and Religious Terrorism… compare the numbers… thousands died. A much higher number than 9

DC

I know from my Irish side that they love crying a river over injustices that occurred in the 1600s . But what good does it do ? Where does it end ? My Italian ancestors were scaked by the Vikings ( I think I may even have some Viking blood in me) . Should I have a hatred for the Scandinavians ?

Thanks for the clarification, Tom: Just to add:

There is no record of any involvement of the 'Sons of Liberty' or any individual in torturing hostages or committing any acts of terrorism in the Colonies fight for independence.

Edit: I'm not allowed to rate so will just add here.

I agree about whining; however we all need to remember the history of man', so that we can recall how vile they are capable of being, given the right circumstance.

Quote:

There is no record of any involvement of the ‘Sons of Liberty’ or any individual in torturing hostages or committing any acts of terrorism in the Colonies fight for independence.

Yeah we were taught that they just dumped tea in Boston and NY . But in the rest of the colonies the patriot's behavior was less than exemplary . Tar and Feathering and riding the rail were common mob acts against loyalists .In December 1776 the Provincial Congress of New York went so far as to order the Committee of Public Safety to purchase all the pitch and tar necessary for the public's use and safety.In 1776 General Israel Putnam,of "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" fame met a mob of Sons of Liberty parading Tories on rails up and down the streets of New York and he attempted to halt this proceeding. Washington over-ruled him.

Other acts included hoisting enemies of liberty up a liberty pole with a dead animal on the pole; forcing a Tory to ride an unsaddled horse with his face to the tail of the horse and his coat turned inside out.Some Tories in the South were hung.The expression ‘Lynch Mob’ comes from the American Patriot Judge Lynch who hung anyone suspected of being a Loyalist with impunity.

The Declaration of Independence was followed by the Test Laws which required all colonists to swear allegiance to the state in which they lived. A record was kept of those who took the oath and they were issued a certificate for safety .The Tory who refused to take the oath of allegiance became an outlaw. If his neighbours owned him money, he had no legal redress. No relative or friend could leave an orphan child to his guardianship. He could not be the administrator or executor of a person's estate. If he was a lawyer, doctor or someone with some other profession, he was often denied the right to practice his profession.

Quote:

Many Americans had remained loyal because they feared that independence would bring chaos, and that there was no guarantee that the government they were going to get would be any better—if indeed as good—as the one they were giving up. (One famous Loyalist motto went, "I would rather have one tyrant 3000 miles away than 3000 tyrants one mile away.")The loyalists thought that independence would threaten the liberties for which other Americans were fighting. They were poorly treated on both sides. The English did not trust them, and the Americans confiscated their property and even imprisoned, punished or executed them. By the time the war was over, more than 100,000 loyalists had left the United States, many for Canada and some back to England, bitter at their treatment. Most of them were never reimbursed for their losses despite agreements made in the Treaty, and most of them never returned.

American Revolution 1778-1781

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yeah we were taught that they just dumped tea in Boston and NY . But in the rest of the colonies the patriot's behavior was less than exemplary . Tar and Feathering and riding the rail were common mob acts against loyalists .In December 1776 the Provincial Congress of New York went so far as to order the Committee of Public Safety to purchase all the pitch and tar necessary for the public's use and safety.In 1776 General Israel Putnam,of "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" fame met a mob of Sons of Liberty parading Tories on rails up and down the streets of New York and he attempted to halt this proceeding. Washington over-ruled him.

Other acts included hoisting enemies of liberty up a liberty pole with a dead animal on the pole; forcing a Tory to ride an unsaddled horse with his face to the tail of the horse and his coat turned inside out.Some Tories in the South were hung.The expression ‘Lynch Mob’ comes from the American Patriot Judge Lynch who hung anyone suspected of being a Loyalist with impunity.

The Declaration of Independence was followed by the Test Laws which required all colonists to swear allegiance to the state in which they lived. A record was kept of those who took the oath and they were issued a certificate for safety .The Tory who refused to take the oath of allegiance became an outlaw. If his neighbours owned him money, he had no legal redress. No relative or friend could leave an orphan child to his guardianship. He could not be the administrator or executor of a person's estate. If he was a lawyer, doctor or someone with some other profession, he was often denied the right to practice his profession.

American Revolution 1778-1781

Indeed; I love it when a plan comes together.:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kindj

I've been doing a bit of homework lately, and find myself in a bit of a quandry.

I'm trying to see the difference(s) between what Sinn Fein and the IRA are attempting to accomplish in the UK and what America accomplished some 250 years ago.

Granted, I'm no fan of terrorism, and that's pretty much what the IRA's actions amounted to up until the Good Friday agreement, when they finally settled down a bit. However, as they say, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, and the victor's get to pick the names.

So is what Ireland seems to be working toward any different than the American Revolutionary war, or are there differences?

DK

Dennis,

As others before have mentioned, the IRA targets civilians, whereas the Revolutionaries didn't. That is one basic difference.

Another difference is that we were fighting for equal representation in the government... "No taxation without representation", remember? The Boston Tea Party, etc. was all about being taxed but not being represented in the British government and out interests being ignored by the British government. The Northern Irish already have ample representation in the British government, and nobody seems to deny that fact.

Furthermore, given the meetings of the Continental Congress before independence was declared, it seems pretty clear that the majority of Americal Colonials had their desires represented before the declaration was made. There was a vote taken on whether to declare independence or not, and the majority ruled. By contrast, most polls have shown that most Northern Irish did not want independence from the UK. The Sinn Fein and IRA were a small minority of Northern Irish who did not represent the wishes of the majority, but rather their own wishes and religious biases. There was nothing comparable to the Continental Congress in which the people as a whole were able to make their true wishes known and vote on the issue of independence.

So in fact, the situations are quite different.

The only real similarity is with regard to the fact that the word "revolution" was used in both cases. But the fact that someone calls themselves a "revolutionary" doesn't make it so. Ahmadinejad was a "revolutionary". So was Castro. And Stalin. But they weren't revolutionaries, they were dictators, and the IRA is in fact no better, because they are attempting to impose their will on the rest of Northern Ireland by force of arms.

Elliot