2006-09-22 09:32:24 · 10 answers · asked by corvuequis 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I did a little background study on the IRA, other than what I know from slanted news channels growing up.
The IRA was actually a resistance Army formed in public to resist the UK occupation. They were strong enough as an army to actually get th UK to offer them spots on the parliament prior to WW1. That is where things went awry. The United Kingdom offered a treaty that half of the original IRA accepted and the other half stewed over it for a while. Then the House of Lords lost their veto ability and the House of Commons became more powerful making the holding of assets less important to the whole government of the UK. House of Commons didn't have to have ancestral rights through their land to matter, and they now had full power much like our house and senate.
The IRA as we know it now did not win the Republic of Ireland their freedom, it just got it a little faster. The 6 countie of Northern Ireland still attend Parliament.
2006-09-22 19:10:47 · answer #1 · answered by shotouthype 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Britain letting Ireland be independent after the IRA terrorism in the early 20th century is clearly an indication that terrorism can work.
The thing is that terrorist organizations by themselves rarely achieve their objective. But they work great for good cop/bad cop. The terrorists show the bad side. Then some other group (which can just be the political wing of the terrorists) offers a more reasonable, peaceful solution. The government negotiates with the "reasonable" group and concedes what the terrorists want. The government pretends that the terrorism did not win, but the fact is that without the terrorists the compromise would not have happened.
This is not just true of terrorists. Good cop/bad cop works in many situations. Basically it is just creating multiple options and people choose the more middle road.
2006-09-22 09:47:56 · answer #2 · answered by dugfromthearth 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, the IRA terrorist attacks didn't help Ireland acheive it's freedom. I think that England would still be there if all they did was blow things up.
However, the IRA had more then one side, they had the combat wing that did terrorist bombing but there was another side to them. They had a polital wing that was the real reason England pulled out.
That is the way to solve problems, with compromise
2006-09-22 09:36:10 · answer #3 · answered by Karce 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The IRA tried to get Northern Ireland away from the UK and unite with Ireland. It looks like they failed at that.
2006-09-22 09:36:04 · answer #4 · answered by Brand X 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Um, no, because the IRA fought for the freedom of Northern Ireland, which is still part of the UK. So your example is idiotic. The Republic of Ireland was formed peacefully, years ago.
2006-09-22 09:43:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Good question. The real point would come down to the ends justifying the means or vise versa. Also if you note most of the attacks by the IRA where on police or military units and not neutral civilians. Sure there where casualties of war but unintentionally.
2006-09-22 09:39:00 · answer #6 · answered by USAToTheDeath 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
touchy touchy question...my props to you.
is ireland really free in the sense the IRA had hoped, though?
2006-09-22 09:35:09 · answer #7 · answered by DEP 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A terrorist to one.....is a patriot to another!
2006-09-22 09:40:31 · answer #8 · answered by Villain 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Is Iraq free?
2006-09-22 09:36:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL Good point
2006-09-22 09:35:03 · answer #10 · answered by notme 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋