The Troubles / Na Triobloidi / Northern Ireland Conflict

  • Thread starter Thread starter pazuzu-bootsy-baphomet-jr
  • Start date Start date
Here’s some possibly irresponsible, but nonetheless thought-provoking, speculation I’ve heard from randos IRL regarding the Omagh tragedy:

The mea culpa from the RIRA, which indicated that the massive amount of “unintentional” civilian casualties was due to a communication screw-up on the RIRA’s end when calling in the warnings, resulting in people being evacuated -toward* the site of attack, strains credibility.

The British intelligence apparatus has been accused, including in a BBC report, of failing (or declining) to disclose information it had gathered prior to the attack, which could have prevented civilians being in the area

And it is known that the RIRA had already been compromised by state agents at the time

The specific speculation I’m referring to,

is that particular cynical and depraved elements *intentionally enabled* the Omagh tragedy as a way to definitively turn the tide of Irish public opinion against the armed campaign, and toward favoring the peace-process solution that culminated in the Good Friday Agreement


(Now, it may be that the above speculation is itself cynical and depraved, but what we’ve seen over the past 25 years of revelations, is that there was no meaningful boundary on what people were willing to do in this conflict, to attain their goals.)
 
The Troubles are difficult to talk about without stirring up anger snd passions.

The below is purely about *what happened / is happening* during the Troubles and is not concerned with advocacy for any particular viewpoint, nor does it condone the actions of military or paramilitary personnel during The Troubles.

—-
—-

It’s been 25 years since the Troubles, aka the Northern Ireland conflict, nominally ended with the Good Friday Agreement.

In reality, dissident paramilitaries have continued the conflict, but at a much lower level of intensity compared to the pre-Agreement years.

The Troubles through 1998 claimed over 3500 lives and left over 45,000 wounded.

Most of these casualties were civilians.

The Troubles were and are a very interesting conflict from military and social perspectives,
and there are still a lot of unanswered questions about the way the conflict was conducted, and especially how it was (again, nominally) concluded.

This thread is for general discussion of The Troubles.

I have specific interest in questions concerning particular parts of the military and intelligence situation, but any Troubles-related discussion is welcome.
—-

Background: The Troubles was a period of low-intensity internal war between the late 1960s and (arguably) 1998, taking place mostly within Northern Ireland, with occasional incidents elsewhere.

A variety of non-state paramilitary belligerents fought each other and the British state, over the political / territorial status of Northern Ireland (which comprises the counties of Derry / Londonderry, Armagh, Antrim, Down, Tyrone, and Fermanagh).

The reason that Northern Ireland was (is) in contention was that, when the Irish War for Independence and subsequent Irish Civil War ended in 1923, the six counties named above, which had large populations of British-aligned “Unionists,” remained part of the UK in the Partition of Ireland.

However, this partition was not accepted as legitimate by some (“Republicans,” not to be confused with the American political party) who held that all Ireland ought to be united under the Republic of Ireland.

(Note: British occupation of Ireland had begun in the early 1600s and had already resulted in several costly wars since that time)
—-
—-

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
——

The Good Friday Agreement was welcomed by a large majority of Irish citizens on both sides of the partition. The people were war-weary after decades of fighting and civilian casualties.

For those who were committed to the idea of a united Ireland, however, the Agreement was seen as a step back rather than a step forward.

The Good Friday Agreement resulted in the first ever official recognition by the Republic of Ireland, of British control of Northern Ireland, and also its first legal agreement that the status of Northern Ireland would not change except by majority vote of the people on both sides of the partition.

As Northern Ireland’s majority had been heavily Unionist since the beginning of the Troubles, and this majority had only increased as Republicans left the region due to violence, the Good Friday Agreement seemed to preclude a united Ireland for the foreseeable future.

***The Agreement also stipulated the decommissioning of the weapons of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA, also called “Provos”), the main Republican paramilitary belligerent and the military counterpart of Sinn Fein, the Republican political party which participated in the agreement. At the time, Sinn Fein was led by Gerry Adams. Despite his denial that he had ever been a member of the PIRA, it is widely believed that Adams effectively commanded the PIRA at that time.

Likewise, the main Unionist paramilitary, the Ulster Volunteer Force (via its respective political proxy, the Progressive Unionist Party) agreed to decommission its weapons.

The paramilitary decommissioning process was nominally concluded in 2010***

One of the questions asked by angry Republicans and pro-unification people was:

WHY WOULD SINN FEIN / THE PIRA AGREE TO TERMS THAT ESSENTIALLY NULLIFIED THEIR AMBITIONS FOR A UNIFIED IRELAND?

——

Throughout its existence, the PIRA was infiltrated and compromised by agents of the British state.

The extent of British compromise of the PIRA was so severe, that it appears even the head of the PIRA Internal Security Unit (which existed to detect and kill spies within the ranks), Freddie Scappaticci, was himself a British agent.

When, in an effort designed by Gerry Adams to reduce infiltration and compromise, the PIRA switched its organization strategy from a monolithic hierarchical model (like a regular army) to a cellular model of loosely-associated “Active Service Units,”
the Internal Security Unit and the quartermaster apparatus were exempt from this policy change.
WHY?

A specific military defeat, known as the 1987 Loughgall Incident,
in which a PIRA unit was ambushed and routed by British SAS personnel in an attempted operation against a Royal Ulster Constabulary (police) base, raised serious questions at the time.

The PIRA unit which carried out the Loughgall operation was made up largely of veteran Republican fighters who opposed efforts in the Northern Ireland peace process by Sinn Fein, and its leader Gerry Adams.

These PIRA hardliners were not willing to accept an electoral-politics-oriented end to the war; their position was that a united Ireland was the reason they fought, and the only acceptable outcome of the conflict.

The elimination of this unit at Loughgall removed an impediment to Adams’ political ambitions.

At the time, questions and speculation arose about whether Adams was responsible for the information leak, but these questions went essentially nowhere.

But 11 years later, when the Good Friday Agreement ended the PIRA’s armed campaign without any territorial concessions by the British, dissident Republicans again accused Adams of being a British agent.

Several of those dissident Republican groups continued to carry out attacks under names including the “Real IRA (RIRA)” and the “Continuity IRA,” but a 1998 RIRA attack at Omagh which killed 29 civilians and left hundreds injured, destroyed most of the remnant goodwill that the armed campaign still had in the Republican community.

Adams continued his political career as the head of Sinn Fein, until his retirement from the organization in 2018.

In 2002, a large number of British intelligence documents pertaining to the Troubles were stolen by Republicans; according to a BBC report aired in several parts as “The Secret History of the Troubles,” much of these documents’ content was “so inflammatory” that it was never revealed or leaked to the public.
It was widely speculated that those documents revealed British infiltration of the PIRA and Sinn Fein at the highest levels.

WAS GERRY ADAMS A BRITISH ASSET?
And if so, when did he become one?
This article source is from the BBC ?
 
Very thoughtful. If Adams was working with the British state, then I'd say "working". What I mean by that is that the Sinn Fein leadership possibility thought that they could use the British Army against the hardliners in the Republican movement - note what happened to the INLA.
It is interesting to see how Sinn Fein has positioned itself as the progressive party in Irish politics and is now the largest party in the Northern Ireland assembly (if it ever gets to sit.) I think ultimately, Adams knew that a united Ireland could only happen democratically, violence could never deliver it. With the demographic changes in the province (nationalists having more kids than unionists) it was thought that eventually a majority would demand to be part of a united Ireland. However, things have changed. The Republic has changed massively over the last decades. It's a stable, modern democracy. Gone is the cliche of it being a backward, priest infested theocracy. The removal of the border allowed people on all sides to see that they are the same. Brexit is also an issue. People in the North overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU. Now though they have the best of both; Ulster has a special relationship with the EU.
How will all this play out? Maybe Adams' plan, if indeed it was his plan, will work. Maybe the people of the North will just enjoy their best of both status and seek to keep things as they are. However, I do think they will pull away from the DUP style of unionism and maybe even pull away from the British state.
I think you’re right about Adams’ assessment of the prospects of the armed campaign, regardless of what his level of direct co-operation with the British was (of any)

I think his lack of confidence in the armed campaign was the main thing that drove a wedge between him and the hardline elements of both his party and the PIRA

Brexit certainly brought an interesting dimension to the equation— just based on my outsider’s reading, i reckon you’re correct that Brexit and the attendant economic issues took the wind out of the DUP’s sails

It’ll be interesting to see whether their hardline unionism remains a politically viable position, or if they (or a successor) formulate a new approach
 
This article source is from the BBC ?
No, i wrote that last night myself

(I have an academic background in asymmetric warfare studies, but that post isn’t a rigorous or polished treatment by any means, just some background and thoughts)
 
Here’s some possibly irresponsible, but nonetheless thought-provoking, speculation I’ve heard from randos IRL regarding the Omagh tragedy:

The mea culpa from the RIRA, which indicated that the massive amount of “unintentional” civilian casualties was due to a communication screw-up on the RIRA’s end when calling in the warnings, resulting in people being evacuated -toward* the site of attack, strains credibility.

The British intelligence apparatus has been accused, including in a BBC report, of failing (or declining) to disclose information it had gathered prior to the attack, which could have prevented civilians being in the area

And it is known that the RIRA had already been compromised by state agents at the time

The specific speculation I’m referring to,

is that particular cynical and depraved elements *intentionally enabled* the Omagh tragedy as a way to definitively turn the tide of Irish public opinion against the armed campaign, and toward favoring the peace-process solution that culminated in the Good Friday Agreement


(Now, it may be that the above speculation is itself cynical and depraved, but what we’ve seen over the past 25 years of revelations, is that there was no meaningful boundary on what people were willing to do in this conflict, to attain their goals.)
Look at Freddie Scappaticci, aka Stakeknife. Possibly murdered 34 people with at least the knowledge of his army handlers if not at their behest. Twas a murky war.
 
I think you’re right about Adams’ assessment of the prospects of the armed campaign, regardless of what his level of direct co-operation with the British was (of any)

I think his lack of confidence in the armed campaign was the main thing that drove a wedge between him and the hardline elements of both his party and the PIRA

Brexit certainly brought an interesting dimension to the equation— just based on my outsider’s reading, i reckon you’re correct that Brexit and the attendant economic issues took the wind out of the DUP’s sails

It’ll be interesting to see whether their hardline unionism remains a politically viable position, or if they (or a successor) formulate a new approach
A good friend of mine grew up in Lisburn in the Unionist tradition but politically was opposed to it. His view is that currently it offers nothing positive and its "scare tactics" are failing. Interesting developments to come.
 
Half of my family is from Northern Ireland so I find all this stuff fascinating. Thanks for starting the thread!
@Nevets if you have any perspectives or thoughts on the conflict based on what you’ve heard from your family, we’d be very interested to hear them

(no pressure of course, I know that many people with a direct / family connection don’t like to talk about the conflict)
 
@Nevets if you have any perspectives or thoughts on the conflict based on what you’ve heard from your family, we’d be very interested to hear them

My family is pretty much Unionist, and happy to be part of Britain. I remember speaking of the troubles with my grandfather and he was of the opinion that it was all just gangsterism, and all about money.
 
My family is pretty much Unionist, and happy to be part of Britain. I remember speaking of the troubles with my grandfather and he was of the opinion that it was all just gangsterism, and all about money.
Human nature at work......................as usual. No matter what country and at what time in history............always the same behaviour.
 
My family is pretty much Unionist, and happy to be part of Britain. I remember speaking of the troubles with my grandfather and he was of the opinion that it was all just gangsterism, and all about money.
The organized-crime aspect of the Troubles is interesting all right

During the main part of the Troubles and then especially immediately post-Good-Friday-Agreement, it was considered something of an open secret that a substantial portion of funding for the various paramilitaries, came from illegal drug sales and/or racketeering.

Then in the early 2000s, some of the paramilitaries, especially Republicans, attempted a re-brand as “anti drug action” organizations, meting out frontier justice to “drug dealers” who often enough were also turf and/or political rivals

that still exists to some extent, though the fashion seems to be tending back to more overtly political self-styling (as far as paramilitaries are concerned)



Of course, on another level, all conflict and war is fundamentally about control of physical space and resources, so to your grandfather’s point,

i think it’s certainly arguable that, regardless of the degree to which the belligerents exhibit organized-crime behavioral patterns, at the heart of it, it has always been about money
 
An interesting component of the PIRA’s propaganda war,

was the “South Armagh Sniper”

which was in fact two separate armored-vehicle-borne sniper teams, and a street sign that said “Sniper At Work”

Over a period of 7+ years, the “sniper” was responsible for not more than ten casualties,

but the effect on the morale of the (very significant) British Army presence in Armagh, and especially on the RUC there, was considerable,

and the “sniper” became an infamous symbol of insurgency in the media



The South Armagh brigade of the PIRA is an interesting subject in its own right
 
Sinn Fein did incredibly well out of the peace. From being a small party in 1968, to being effectively banned in the 1980s to being the legitimate voice of dissident republicanism in 98 and now with electoral success across the island of Ireland, they can say they "won" the struggle even if the IRA "lost" the armed struggle. From the point of view of Adams and others, it was always party first. Like the Corleone's, they got the legitimacy and place craved and for their aims and political objectives to be seen as part of the normal political discourse.
 
Sinn Fein did incredibly well out of the peace. From being a small party in 1968, to being effectively banned in the 1980s to being the legitimate voice of dissident republicanism in 98 and now with electoral success across the island of Ireland, they can say they "won" the struggle even if the IRA "lost" the armed struggle. From the point of view of Adams and others, it was always party first. Like the Corleone's, they got the legitimacy and place craved and for their aims and political objectives to be seen as part of the normal political discourse.
Yeah, it’s really notable how Sinn Fein succeeded in becoming a mainstream party with a large share of representation

Their strategy of:
- Be electoral wing of radical paramilitary
- Nakedly espouse radical ideology
- Use paramilitary operations to exhaust public
- After some years, to public, Sinn Fein seems reasonable in comparison to paramilitary
- Paramilitary ceasefire
- Now Sinn Fein is a mainstream party

is a remarkable example of what in politics is called “shifting the Overton window” -
that is, making mainstream what was once beyond the pale by having an alternative that seems “worse”

(of course, they were in the process of doing this before Overton articulated the theory)

it’s kind of like what happened with the PLO, but “on steroids”
 
Yeah, it’s really notable how Sinn Fein succeeded in becoming a mainstream party with a large share of representation

Their strategy of:
- Be electoral wing of radical paramilitary
- Nakedly espouse radical ideology
- Use paramilitary operations to exhaust public
- After some years, to public, Sinn Fein seems reasonable in comparison to paramilitary
- Paramilitary ceasefire
- Now Sinn Fein is a mainstream party

is a remarkable example of what in politics is called “shifting the Overton window” -
that is, making mainstream what was once beyond the pale by having an alternative that seems “worse”

(of course, they were in the process of doing this before Overton articulated the theory)

it’s kind of like what happened with the PLO, but “on steroids”
If it wasn't for Sinn Fein's association with the paramilitaries, they could be seen the same way as other "new" nationalists, for example SNP and Plaid Cymru: embracing progressive politics with redistributive economics and a distinctly European outlook. They are now the Irish left.
 
If it wasn't for Sinn Fein's association with the paramilitaries, they could be seen the same way as other "new" nationalists, for example SNP and Plaid Cymru: embracing progressive politics with redistributive economics and a distinctly European outlook. They are now the Irish left.
Yeah indeed

It’s water under the bridge now, but sometimes I wonder how differently things might have unfolded if Sinn Fein had not taken an abstentionist position in the earlier phases, and instead straight away sat elected seats a la Plaid Cymru (who i think are a good analogue)
 
If Germany had developed the ME-262 as a dedicated fighter, and done so in numbers of sufficient quantity it could have turned the tide of the air war, and gained the Nazis air supremacy over Europe.
 
If Germany had developed the ME-262 as a dedicated fighter, and done so in numbers of sufficient quantity it could have turned the tide of the air war, and gained the Nazis air supremacy over Europe.
Very plausibly so

How does that relate to The Troubles / the Northern Ireland conflict?
 
Back
Top