Why did they surrender so suddenly after 30 years of fighting?

>>17764288 (OP)
they realized giving up a quarter of the island was better than every man woman and child dying for it, if only ukies were half as smart

ran out of money from irish in the US

>>17764401
Tony Blair was working with George W Bush to stop the funding of the "Real IRA". Bush couldn't believe that Americans were funding a terror group in Northern Ireland. He was very saddened to hear that his fellow Americans would do such a thing.

Better question.
Where the fuck are they now when Ireland needs them most?

>>17764700
Here they are

>>17764791
>irish tavern music stops
Oh fuck me.

>>17764796
Yeah there's a lot of irish cucks, male and female.
But there's also a lot of irish chads and staceys who enjoy burning migrant shelters

>>17764806
The duality of Irishman

>>17764655
Typical trained dog

>>17764288 (OP)
Also, why was the IRA's biggest single 'action' carried out against its own people for no apparent reason (the 1998 Omagh bombing)? What was the IRA's goal with that one?

>>17764832
It was a break away group that rejected the IRA's move toward peace, and wanted to continue the armed struggle.

Of course it was such a devastating attack on innocent civilians that it rather conveniently confirmed in the entire world's eyes that the peace process was the only legitimate and viable option for Republicans.

I'm not trying to conspiratard but I can't help but notice these things. The mortar attack on Downing Street resulting in zero casualties. The failed attacks on Gerry Adams etc. I doubt we will ever know the truth about the troubles. I often wonder to what extent all these people were actually working on the same side toward the end of things.

>>17764846
There was an interview with a guy who was born in America to Irish parents, returned to Ireland and joined the PIRA, who basically cast aspersions on the entire PIRA saying like a good 60% of the group were on the British payroll and actively sabotaging the republican irregular war effort.

Idk if thats true, just what he said.

>>17764886
Yes John Crawley organised an arms shipment from Boston to Ireland (working with US crime figure Whitey Bulger) which ended up being intercepted due to an informant.

>Crawley challenges the view the IRA fought the British to “a stalemate” or that peace was a compromise. "It was a defeat for the republican movement, a complete military and ideological defeat across the board that opened up career paths for certain members of the leadership but left us ideologically destroyed,” he says.

>>17764401
They didn't need money from outside Ireland where the vast majority of their funds were raised through various means.

>>17764886
Well if a fucking Yank says it it must be true!

>>17764791
She wasn't in the IRA.

>>17764832
That wasn't the Provisional IRA it was a different group.

>>17764886
>>17765503
>>17765506


If they could've done this level of infiltration, imagine what they do now.

No wonder there's no more wish for a unified Irish republic – secret services across the Five Eyes said "Stop." and it stopped.

Quaint as well, isn't it?

>>17764791
Murder her. Get her out of the way and anyone who is anti white/Irish.

>>17764700
They are aligned with the "global south" against the west. Hence if the global south invades Ireland they will support them to spite the west.

>>17765521
they could lean back for the last couple of years. the tories in Westminster abandoned NI in their Brexit fuckups. Shipping goods from the Republic is easier than from the UK, forcing businesses to realign. Unionists are on the back food and the minor riots over the last few years are desperation. The more the UK tanks, the less they care for NI. within a decade we could see a referendum for reunification.

>>17765532
>within a decade
Will the new country be called "the Islamic Republic of Ireland"?

>>17765521
Look up Kincora Boys home. The belief is that British intelligence services knew it was being frequented by nonces, and rather than putting a stop to it they would monitor it to blackmail powerful people in Northern Ireland. There is some evidence to suggest that Lord Mountbatten was frequenting the establishment, to the point where the FBI were aware of it, and then all of a sudden the IRA were fed Mountbatten's location to assassinate him...

Then if you look into Freddie Scappaticci we have a man who is working as a British agent within the IRA's internal security unit, literally murdering British citizens while in the employ of the state. How many non informants were interrogated and not saved? How many low level informants were sacrificed to keep Scap's identity a secret?

It's called "the dirty war" for a reason.

>>17765534
Ireland has what, 3% muslims? of which how many are "serious" about their religion?

>>17765542
>Ireland has what, 3% muslims?
Check the young demographics

>surrender
Misunderstanding of what happened. The IRA presented their terms multiple times during many secretive meetings with the British Government.

Every time, things would eventually fall apart or one side or the other would put their foot down. Toward the end of the conflict, peace talk infastructure existed but Sinn Féin (and the IRA) were excluded from them.

The British side demanded that the IRA disarm as a pre-requisite for talks. The IRA obviously said no. Eventually, Britain relented-and eventually got the Unionists to relent as well.
>why suddenly after 30 years of fighting
In the 70s many believed Britain would fold quickly. In the 80s, it was anyone's game. In the early 90s, another wave of "oh god, Britain are leaving" swept Northern Ireland. But by the mid-late 90s, people were just sick of the killing. Britain couldn't decisively destroy the IRA, and the IRA couldn't force Britain to leave-so the IRA stepped back and let Sinn Féin choose their direction.

Not the epic cool movie-tier ending to a war that some autists like, but the reality is that after 30 years of that shit people were tired of it.

If anyone has specific questions about the IRA, the path to the GFA, previous peace talks, or generally Troubles stuff (Unionist/Loyalist also) I will answer all I can
>>17764832
Most would point to Warrenpoint as the IRA's "most major action", not Omagh. As the other anon said, Omagh was at the time seen as an insane and retarded move by most senior Republicans.

However, even in its barbarity there are very widespread rumours that a warning in advance was given and ignored. We're at a point now where the debate isn't even really whether this was true, but whether it was incompetence (poor handloing of intelligence/failure in communication) or collusion that allowed Omagh to happen. A public inquiry into it started this year.

As some have alluded to ITT, often the loudest voices about the Troubles know very little about it. People often don't actually know very much about how it started, how it escalated, or how it ended.

Some things many don't know for example:
>The IRA and UDA/UVF worked together at times to root out uncooperative members of each others organisations
>Monetary support from the USA was negligible when compared with what the IRA got for elsewhere
>Many early Loyalist leaders accredited with "starting the Troubles" did a political 180 while in prison. Gusty Spence (leader of the UVF) had become completely disillusiuoned with it by the early 1970s, and left the UVF in 1978
>The Provos forcibly broke up the Irish People's Liberation Organisation (IPLO) due to it getting involved in the Drug Trade-killing their leaders and warning their members to dissolve the group. The PIRA had a general aversion to anything that undermined their ""legitimacy"" as a political movement.
>In 1998, an Irish Nationalist party (SDLP) won more votes than any other party in Northern Ireland. They were vehemently anti-IRA.

Generally if you meet someone who is of the opinion that:
>The IRA (see: Provos) were noble and unilaterally correct revolutionaries who did nothing wrong>
>Loyalists were simply defending their communities against the IRA
>Britain should have [retarded mega-escalation]
then they are probably just here to farm slop to take over to /int/ or /pol/.

>>17765546
>In the 70s many believed Britain would fold quickly. In the 80s, it was anyone's game. In the early 90s, another wave of "oh god, Britain are leaving" swept Northern Ireland. But by the mid-late 90s, people were just sick of the killing.

This is a hilarious version of events btw.

Anywho,

IRA supporters will argue that they won because the Government relented when they were willing to kill themselves in order not to wear prison uniforms, or because they started a bombing campaign so they didn't have to decomission before peace talks.

On the other hand, we argue the British state won because they literally removed violent republicanism as a serious force in Ireland permanently, eventually managed to get the IRA to decomission in front of international inspectors and kept Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom with the consent of the majority population. It came at the serious cost of making some former IRA commanders ministers of the crown and renaming the RUC.

Bit of a difference.

The end of the troubles was all about helping Gerry and Martin's surrender look palatable to the masses. Now Sinn Feinn are the first in line to spit on any young person who is willing to try and resist the British state with violence. A remarkable job done by all involved to bring about this vic- I mean settlement.

>>17765578
>This is a hilarious version of events btw.
Not at all. I'm talking about what people *thought*, not what was actually happening.

Many within the Republican movement had plentiful reason to believe that a "win" was possible in the early 70s. They then transitioned to a longer strategy. In the early 90s, you'd have been hard pressed to find a leader within the UDA who didn't think Britain were about to pull out.

As for
>who won
The correct answer has already been agreed upon. It was a military stalemate followed by a political settlement which favoured specifically the reformists and constitutional nationalists.
>Gerry and Martin's surrender look palatable to the masses
I'd expect this from some madlads in the Bogside, but not from people who follow the conflict.

I would call Gerry Adams a slimy opportunistic cunt in a heartbeat, but I don't at all doubt the sincerity in their push for peace. As you say; the Good Friday Agremeement included the remarkably significant concession of Northern Ireland getting actual legitimacy for the first time in its history. I don't necessarily agree with the whole
>le undefeated army :^)
shite that some shinners spout, but the notion that they "surrendered" is a push. Maybe if they'd dropped arms for Sunningdale, but not after a 30 year prolonged campaign. Still wish Éire Nua hadn't been dumped by those fags, though.

reminder that neither ireland nor england want poorthern direland, enjoy independence lol. maybe if england gave you independence at the start of your chimpout the troubles could have only killed your own, lmao.

>>17765642
>Many within the Republican movement had plentiful reason to believe that a "win" was possible in the early 70s

They were routinely imprisoned and the numbers of people killed was dramatically reduced. They never came close to any kind of victory.

>It was a military stalemate followed by a political settlement which favoured specifically the reformists and constitutional nationalists.

They failed in their aims to destabilise Northern Ireland, to the point where it was never even officially considered a war (a low intensity conflict).

Also important to note that it was the British Government that had essentially been "reformist" throughout the entire conflict. It was the IRA (and Ulster Loyalists) that were made to accept their vision.

>>17765719
>They never came close to any kind of victory.
Yeah, I agree. I'm saying, though, that many believed that they were looking at a similar situation to 1919; a full military victory impossible, but enough chaos and resolute resistance = force them to the table.

Laughably deluded considering what Britain instead had planned, but it'd be dishonest to imply otherwise. Many of them really did think they were getting Éire Nua by 1980 kek
>They failed in their aims
The "military stalemate" isn't my view, it's the one taken by the British Army.

I wouldn't say they failed in their aims to destabilise Northern Ireland whatsoever. The Parliament Collapsed outright, and you can see by what the LARPers in An Phoblacht celebrating it.

From the early 70s onwards, things pivoted permanently away from "go back to how things were/restore order" and toward "okay this is clearly broken, time for something new."

You're right when you say that the paramilitaries were eventually sidelined in favour of managing to get everyone to sit down and talk, but I still don't know that we can really call that a "surrender." In the view of the literal IRA itself, they stated very simply that they follow what Sinn Féin says.

Not all of them agreed, of course, but sometimes i feel like people look at the Provos in 1998 and say "haha, surrender, this isn't what you wanted when you started" as if all 3 major belligerents didn't have their goals, expectations, and red lines/conditions shift radically multiple times throughout the conflict.

>>17765682
what do you think this post adds to the thread, anon?

spend 30 years killing brits just to speedrun becoming a minority

>>17765813
back you go >>>/pol/

>>17764401
lol that NORAID bullshit again?

>>17764846
the conspiracy is probably the media coverage. Things that arent so different are made to appear so.

>>17764401
REMINDER that all of the money raised by NORAID barely covered what it cost to fund the Provisional IRA for a single year.

>>17765813
It do be like that
Irish "nationalism" is a joke

>>17764288 (OP)
Didn't they switch to economic terroism and win?

>>17765822
how is this /pol/? do you close your eyes and put your fingers in yours ears and pretend the catholics and prods arent standing together against being replaced?

>>17765900
>switch
"economic terrorism" aka attacking infastructure and commercial targets was their aim from the get-go. The main transition they made was in the second half of the 1980s, when they realised that a high-intensity guerrilla war followed by a British withdraw wasn't happening.

The transition was then to a very-long term approach, hoping to rebuild Sinn Féin as a political powerhouse while allowing the IRA to keep up the armed campaign indefinitely. They did refer to "making financial assets unviable" but most early documentation points to this anyway, and it all dates back to the S-Plan Doctrine of Russell and O'Donovan in the 1930s.
>>17765957
Because this is /his/, where generally we talk about history as opposed to current affairs.

25 year rule and all that shite, but mostly so that we can talk about Irish history without 500 faggots ruining the thread spamming the same eye-wateringly boring /pol/ stuff.