Why no big Republican split in 86?

DarkyHughes · 10-02-2015 7:38pm #1

Why was there no split in the Republican movement in 86 (okay there was a very small on) but nothing like 69 which was the biggest split since 21. I know there was a lot of reasons why they split in 69 but historically the straw that broke the camels back was to take seats in the Dail, which is what exactly happened in 86 & later Stormont.

Was the split in 69 then due to something else then? The moving towards Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that traditionalists taught even tho they were socialist was to extreme form of Socialism? Or was that the "communists" just weren't militaristic enough to wage a successful campaign?

The_Banker · 11-02-2015 3:25pm

Didnt Republican Sinn Fein come into being as a result of the Provos decision to enter Dail Eireann?

There military wing (Continuity IRA) didnt really get going until after the Provisional cease fire. As the Provos were still attacking the Brits north of the border there was no need for a military off shoot.

That is my memory of it.

riffmongous · 11-02-2015 10:43pm

Regarding the Officials/Provos split you should get a copy of 'The Lost Revolution', maybe they still have it in Easons. It details the history of the old IRA and Officials.

The '86 split might not have been so important at the time but it's legacy is pretty important today with the CIRA still active in some capacity

Arsemageddon · 11-02-2015 11:19pm

This change in SF/IRA policy was influenced by the electoral success of hunger strike candidates in 1981. Danny Morrison fist announced the armalite and ballot box strategy in 1981.

After Adams and co. took over the leadership in 1983 they started laying the groundwork for the end of abstention and made sure that O'Bradaigh and the other old style republicans were slowly isolated.

In 1986 the IRA held their first full army convention since December 1969 and voted to support the ending the SF policy of abstention from the Dail. It was kind of moot at the time because the shinners didn't get a TD elected until 1997.

In short, Adams had learnt the lesson from the previous split and made sure that he had the support of the vast majority of the IRA before making his move, same as he did during the IRA ceasefires in the 90s.

Jesus. · 12-02-2015 8:40pm

A lot of people don't like it but there was incredible skill by Adams to keep Republicanism together and eventually bring them - including most of the extremists - to the table.

Manach · 13-02-2015 9:41pm

As previous poster stated.

Added to that, from my memories of the period on from the book "Terrorism" by Hoff,am, the organisation was under attack by one the global powers of the era. That level of external pressure seemed to have wrought a professional change in the organisation that made it less prone to fracture.

SPM1959 · 13-02-2015 10:11pm

Arm shipments to the PIRA and the prospect of the conflict escalating due to this probably kept most Provos in line.

Also, ROB and co., didn't have the influence of Adams, McGuinness etc. on the army/party at that time.

As you stated yourself there were many reasons for the split in 69 and the circumstances were very different in 86.

DarkyHughes · 14-02-2015 10:28am

riffmongous wrote: »

Regarding the Officials/Provos split you should get a copy of 'The Lost Revolution', maybe they still have it in Easons. It details the history of the old IRA and Officials.

The '86 split might not have been so important at the time but it's legacy is pretty important today with the CIRA still active in some capacity

The CIRA's campaign since they arrived on the scene in 1996 has been largely unsuccessful, pointless & no real strategy. If they think killing a handful of Catholic police every years is going to make the British out their very deluded. They have fairly sophisticated weaponry but seem incapable of using it correctly or to mount an ambush on security patrols something that was bread & butter to the PIRA. I'm guessing the CIRA's recruiting sergeant wasn't very good & recruited idiots who are just bunch of undisciplined fools who don't have qa clue what their doing which is great because they don't have the capability of dragging Ireland back to the old days.

SPM1959 · 14-02-2015 10:49am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

The CIRA's campaign since they arrived on the scene in 1996 has been largely unsuccessful, pointless & no real strategy. If they think killing a handful of Catholic police every years is going to make the British out their very deluded. They have fairly sophisticated weaponry but seem incapable of using it correctly or to mount an ambush on security patrols something that was bread & butter to the PIRA. I'm guessing the CIRA's recruiting sergeant wasn't very good & recruited idiots who are just bunch of undisciplined fools who don't have qa clue what their doing which is great because they don't have the capability of dragging Ireland back to the old days.

I'd guess the CIRA's 'recruiting sergeant' as you call him/her, recruited from exactly the same pool of 'idiots' as the Provos did before them. Do you think every PIRA foot soldier had a degree in political science?

I find it bizarre that supporters of the Provo's armed campaign are so dismissive of what the dissidents are doing and hope to achieve. What was the result of the Provo's campaign? British withdrawal - don't think so. Your name sake spoke about the failures of it quite often.

I'm not sure what the religion of the PSNI officers killed by dissidents in recent years has anything to do with it either.

DarkyHughes · 14-02-2015 11:24pm

SPM1959 wrote: »

I'd guess the CIRA's 'recruiting sergeant' as you call him/her, recruited from exactly the same pool of 'idiots' as the Provos did before them. Do you think every PIRA foot soldier had a degree in political science?

I find it bizarre that supporters of the Provo's armed campaign are so dismissive of what the dissidents are doing and hope to achieve. What was the result of the Provo's campaign? British withdrawal - don't think so. Your name sake spoke about the failures of it quite often.

I'm not sure what the religion of the PSNI officers killed by dissidents in recent years has anything to do with it either.

A lot of them did have university degrees yes. In fact MI6 officer Mike Oakley said he was extremely surprised to find the caliber of PIRA Volunteers to be so high.

My name sake & others talked about how they ha to turn people away which allowed them to pick & choose their members, I'm guessing CIRA may just do with who ever the hell comes forward.

My point being if the PIRA could only bring the British to the negotiating table & couldn't force a withdrawal even at the height of all their resources, support & weaponry & carry out attacks nearly on a daily basis for nearly 30 years then it doesn't take a genius to figure out the CIRA aren't going to achieve anything by shooting someone every few years.

Their religion has something to do with it because if they kill a protestant police their afraid they'll trigger a UVF/UDA retaliation attack(s).

SPM1959 · 14-02-2015 11:41pm

They didn't do a good job at picking and choosing then so. According to your name sake Belfast was 'riddled with informers'.

I can't speak for any dissident but I assume (from reading/conversations) that most believe the PIRA campaign could have achieved a lot more that the GFA (Got Fxck all - again according to your name sake) but were sold out by their leadership.

There seems to be a de facto ceasefire in place by the various IRA factions now. I would assume they compare themselves to the IRA between the civil war and outbreak of the troubles and are awaiting until the 'conditions' are right before launching an armed campaign again. History tells me to never write off the potential for republican violence in the future in this country.

I would think the reason Catholic PSNI members have been killed is that they are easier to target as live amongst dissidents in catholic/nationalist areas of the north. It has nothing to do with Loyalists who have degenerated into nothing more than crime gangs and mafia type organisations.

SPM1959 · 14-02-2015 11:59pm

Jesus. wrote: »

A lot of people don't like it but there was incredible skill by Adams to keep Republicanism together and eventually bring them - including most of the extremists - to the table.

Fully agree. This will be studied/written about/discussed in more detail in many years to come.

Every trick in the book was used to keep the hard liners 'on side'. And for the most part it worked - areas like South Armagh remained nearly 100% loyal until the Provos stood down.

There was a big consequences for those who dissented too loudly as well though - example being the killing of a dissident in Belfast in Oct 2000.

SPM1959 · 15-02-2015 12:04am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

A lot of them did have university degrees yes. /QUOTE]

The vast majority got their degrees while in jail. After being recruited into the movement.

The Provos recruited from the poorest and most deprived areas of the north mainly (there will always some exceptions). No need for revisionism.

Jolly Red Giant · 15-02-2015 9:34pm

The primary reason that there was no major split in 1986 is because Adams, McGuinness and the rest of their leadership group lined up all their ducks before moving to dump abstentionism and sideline the O'Bradaigh faction. The strategy of 'immediate war' in the early 70s failed - the 'long war' failed and the leadership made sure that the vast majority of the membership bought into the 'ballot box and armalite' strategy before making the decisive policy shift. The reality is that the 1986 split had been on the cards since the hunger strikes and the realisation that SF could exploit the electoral process.

DarkyHughes · 16-02-2015 6:19pm

SPM1959 wrote: »

They didn't do a good job at picking and choosing then so. According to your name sake Belfast was 'riddled with informers'.

I can't speak for any dissident but I assume (from reading/conversations) that most believe the PIRA campaign could have achieved a lot more that the GFA (Got Fxck all - again according to your name sake) but were sold out by their leadership.

There seems to be a de facto ceasefire in place by the various IRA factions now. I would assume they compare themselves to the IRA between the civil war and outbreak of the troubles and are awaiting until the 'conditions' are right before launching an armed campaign again. History tells me to never write off the potential for republican violence in the future in this country.

I would think the reason Catholic PSNI members have been killed is that they are easier to target as live amongst dissidents in catholic/nationalist areas of the north. It has nothing to do with Loyalists who have degenerated into nothing more than crime gangs and mafia type organisations.

Loyalists have always been nothing more than mafia style gangs. It wouldn't be very hard for them to find 2 members give them AK's & for them to walk into pub shot dead a couple of people in Catholic area & drive away. And they haven't done this for the same reasons dissidents haven't targeted Protestants, they don't wont to get dragged into another long tit-for-tat situation like in the 70's & early 90's.

And I agree with that there's always potential for Republican violence as long there's a core group of Republicans who believe violence is the only answer. But I disagree with them waiting for the right moment to launch a sustainable campaign, because they think the conditions for revolution will ripe in Ireland, atleast not for a long time.

And Brendan Hughes wasn't against stopping the IRA ceasefires, who explicitly in the Boston college interviews his problem was with how the sneaky way they were arranged. Like you said Belfast was "riddled with informers".

SPM1959 · 16-02-2015 8:49pm

The dissidents are targeting Protestants though. Not that I think they are targeting them due to their religion.

What was the religion of David Black - prison officer killed by a dissident IRA group in 2012? The last to be killed by them (not including criminals in the south).

DarkyHughes · 19-02-2015 6:57pm

SPM1959 wrote: »

The dissidents are targeting Protestants though. Not that I think they are targeting them due to their religion.

What was the religion of David Black - prison officer killed by a dissident IRA group in 2012? The last to be killed by them (not including criminals in the south).

A quick google search said he was a member of the OO so I'm guessing Protestant. He must be their first. He was shot on a motorway tho, I don't think they'd risk going into a Loyalist community to target any. Didn't realise it was that recent the last time they killed a security force member, I taught it was 09 or 10.

On a side note I don't think a PSNI officer should be a member of the OO or AOH or any type of bigoted cult like that. It will give communities the wrong impression. Catholics would find it very difficult to trust a officer if they seen him earlier wearing a orange sash & marching in the street. It amazes me people up there would even still want join a cult like the OO even more amazing a PSNI officer would want to join.

SPM1959 · 19-02-2015 11:03pm

I don't know but I would bet the two British soldiers killed in 09 weren't both Catholic. Not that the killers knew/cared.
Stephen Carroll - killed a couple of days later. Are you sure he was Catholic?

They would go to a British army base but a loyalist estate would be off bounds?

I agree about PSNI members being involved in the OO etc. It shouldn't amaze you though as the Orange Order is still a massive part of Protestant culture in that part of the world.

DarkyHughes · 20-02-2015 6:33pm

SPM1959 wrote: »

I don't know but I would bet the two British soldiers killed in 09 weren't both Catholic. Not that the killers knew/cared.
Stephen Carroll - killed a couple of days later. Are you sure he was Catholic?

They would go to a British army base but a loyalist estate would be off bounds?

I agree about PSNI members being involved in the OO etc. It shouldn't amaze you though as the Orange Order is still a massive part of Protestant culture in that part of the world.

Well if there free from loyalist retaliation then they have a massive advantage the Provos never had. If I was a dissident leader I would want to take full advantage of that & plan as much attacks on loyalist business as possible, they clearly have the capacity to do launch alot of attacks . If not whats the point in carrying on a very unpopular armed campaign? If it's just criminality I would want draw attention to my organization by killing police officers & soldiers.

It doesn't amaze that Protestants in NI are still joining the OO no but it does surprise me that PSNI members are still joining. I would have imagined the whole reforming of the RUC would have dealt with these types of problems. I wouldn't Gardai joining the AOH.

SPM1959 · 22-02-2015 4:08pm

Darky, I'm not sure you really understand republican armed campaigns. The 'war' was never with Loyalists, I don't have the numbers to hand but I don't believe the Provos killed too many over a 30 year period either. The dissidents have absolutely nothing to achieve from attacking loyalist businesses.

The point of an unpopular campaign you ask. Bar a couple of brief periods in Irish history every campaign was/is unpopular. Despite what Old IRA and now Provo revisionists say.

DarkyHughes · 23-02-2015 5:05pm

SPM1959 wrote: »

Darky, I'm not sure you really understand republican armed campaigns. The 'war' was never with Loyalists, I don't have the numbers to hand but I don't believe the Provos killed too many over a 30 year period either. The dissidents have absolutely nothing to achieve from attacking loyalist businesses.

The point of an unpopular campaign you ask. Bar a couple of brief periods in Irish history every campaign was/is unpopular. Despite what Old IRA and now Provo revisionists say.

I know it was never with Loyalists but Loyalists attacking random Catholics was a big hindrance to them as it cost them vital support. There was around 90 UDA killed & just over 60 UVF killed. Attacking Loyalists business was apart of what the Provos described as economic warfare, it was to make the state ungovernable.

Yeah but never this unpopular. Parties linked to the Provos (SF) did well when they started contesting elections & could possibly be head of government in the South. Like after 1916 SF sweeped the board. Groups linked to CIRA or RIRA do terrible at the polls, have done since they were formed.

SPM1959 · 23-02-2015 5:19pm

I'll check later to confirm but that number of loyalists killed is inflated I'm sure. Do you have any links to back up those figures?

Revisionism. Sinn Fein were a minority party when the armed campaign was in full swing. 1.6% of the vote in the elections in the south in 1992 and you are telling me that is 'doing well'. No MPs elected in the north that year either which was their main area of support at the time.

Polls are irrelevant to armed republican groups like the CIRA and RIRA. This quote from Gerry Adams sums up their attitude 'The IRA needs no political mandate,it derives its mandate from the presence of the British in the six counties"

Arsemageddon · 23-02-2015 6:07pm

Here's a link for Michael McKeown's research on the CAIN website. There are searchable excel spreadsheets showing who killed who and a pdf copy of Post-Mortem: An examination of the patterns of politically associated violence in Northern Ireland during the years 1969-2001 as reflected in the fatality figures for those years

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/victims/mckeown/index.html

The Sutton Index gives a short account of each known killing during the troubles...
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/

DarkyHughes · 23-02-2015 6:43pm

SPM1959 wrote: »

I'll check later to confirm but that number of loyalists killed is inflated I'm sure. Do you have any links to back up those figures?

Revisionism. Sinn Fein were a minority party when the armed campaign was in full swing. 1.6% of the vote in the elections in the south in 1992 and you are telling me that is 'doing well'. No MPs elected in the north that year either which was their main area of support at the time.

Polls are irrelevant to armed republican groups like the CIRA and RIRA. This quote from Gerry Adams sums up their attitude 'The IRA needs no political mandate,it derives its mandate from the presence of the British in the six counties"

I counted the number up on the sutton index website. The Provos klled the most I forget exactly but it was around the 100 mark. The Officials & IPLO killed 2 each. George Seawright was probably the IPLO's most famous kill.

It's really handy this Cain website. Did you know the UV/UPV planted bombs in Dublin 4 years before the Provos hit London? The UVF actually killed more Loyalists than Republicans.

Well I don't agree with Adams. You need some sort of indicator & the places voting for Sinn Fein were the places hit hard the most by RUC,BA,UDA & UVF, the Falls Crossmaglen, Cappagh etc.... They should have concentrated on socialist rhetoric to gain maximum support for from these beleaguered social areas. Should have got involved in politics sooner. The originals Twomey, MacStafoin,McKee, O'Braidgh etc...said they were continuing the War of independence, well they should have seen & known the 1919-21 war was fought on two fronts. The Volunteers on the military front & the SF on the political/propaganda front, kinda of like a ballot box/armalite strategy of it's time with obvious difference.

Who's Revisionism. Sinn Fein? You mean Official Sinn Fein? Well the Free State had a ban on SF for 25 years so it was very hard to know what they actually wanted when people in the Free State were being fed Kevin "political hatchet man" Myers media. It wasn't until the ban was lifted in 1994 & Gerry Admams beat a 5 man panel FG panel & a hostile host the Late Late Show that they started to rise & for a new party in the South it did pretty well in 1997 & have been increasing hugely since.

DarkyHughes · 23-02-2015 6:48pm

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Here's a link for Michael McKeown's research on the CAIN website. There are searchable excel spreadsheets showing who killed who and a pdf copy of Post-Mortem: An examination of the patterns of politically associated violence in Northern Ireland during the years 1969-2001 as reflected in the fatality figures for those years

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/victims/mckeown/index.html

The Sutton Index gives a short account of each known killing during the troubles...
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/

Yeah, that what i was talking about.

SPM1959 · 23-02-2015 9:25pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I counted the number up on the sutton index website. The Provos klled the most I forget exactly but it was around the 100 mark. The Officials & IPLO killed 2 each. George Seawright was probably the IPLO's most famous kill.

It's really handy this Cain website. Did you know the UV/UPV planted bombs in Dublin 4 years before the Provos hit London? The UVF actually killed more Loyalists than Republicans.

Well I don't agree with Adams. You need some sort of indicator & the places voting for Sinn Fein were the places hit hard the most by RUC,BA,UDA & UVF, the Falls Crossmaglen, Cappagh etc.... They should have concentrated on socialist rhetoric to gain maximum support for from these beleaguered social areas. Should have got involved in politics sooner. The originals Twomey, MacStafoin,McKee, O'Braidgh etc...said they were continuing the War of independence, well they should have seen & known the 1919-21 war was fought on two fronts. The Volunteers on the military front & the SF on the political/propaganda front, kinda of like a ballot box/armalite strategy of it's time with obvious difference.

Who's Revisionism. Sinn Fein? You mean Official Sinn Fein? Well the Free State had a ban on SF for 25 years so it was very hard to know what they actually wanted when people in the Free State were being fed Kevin "political hatchet man" Myers media. It wasn't until the ban was lifted in 1994 & Gerry Admams beat a 5 man panel FG panel & a hostile host the Late Late Show that they started to rise & for a new party in the South it did pretty well in 1997 & have been increasing hugely since.

I'll have to check myself but as I said I don't believe it's anywhere near that high.

I know about the UVF's bombs in Dublin. I assume you are referring to the 1974 one in Talbot street, the IRA were bombing England at the time so not sure where the 4 years come from.

So what is the indicator? What is the minimum mandate they need? 1% of the population, 5%, 10%? Interested to know your thoughts as that is not a republican viewpoint.

You mentioned the dissidents and polls earlier on in this thread. Gary Donnelly - member of the 32CSM - topped the poll last year in Creggan. Does that give the Reals a mandate to commit attacks in Derry?

I'm very well versed on the history of the Officials - but it is the Provos I'm referring to now and they are following the exact same path. Do you want examples of this? Even that quote from Adams shows the hypocrisy when it comes to current republican violence.

Sinn Fein have increased support in the south since the IRA gave up violence. Do you not see the correlation? Section 31 played a part but Irish people have never over a long period of time supported political violence and this was reflected in Sinn Fein's results.

I don't expect you to get any of the points I'm making by the way.

Addition: Just re-read your post. Sinn Fein were never banned in the south. They were not a new party in 1997 - they were formed in 1905. You really need to learn more about the history or republicanism in Ireland if you want to debate about it.

DarkyHughes · 24-02-2015 6:00pm

SPM1959 wrote: »

I'll have to check myself but as I said I don't believe it's anywhere near that high.

I know about the UVF's bombs in Dublin. I assume you are referring to the 1974 one in Talbot street, the IRA were bombing England at the time so not sure where the 4 years come from.

So what is the indicator? What is the minimum mandate they need? 1% of the population, 5%, 10%? Interested to know your thoughts as that is not a republican viewpoint.

You mentioned the dissidents and polls earlier on in this thread. Gary Donnelly - member of the 32CSM - topped the poll last year in Creggan. Does that give the Reals a mandate to commit attacks in Derry?

I'm very well versed on the history of the Officials - but it is the Provos I'm referring to now and they are following the exact same path. Do you want examples of this? Even that quote from Adams shows the hypocrisy when it comes to current republican violence.

Sinn Fein have increased support in the south since the IRA gave up violence. Do you not see the correlation? Section 31 played a part but Irish people have never over a long period of time supported political violence and this was reflected in Sinn Fein's results.

I don't expect you to get any of the points I'm making by the way.

Addition: Just re-read your post. Sinn Fein were never banned in the south. They were not a new party in 1997 - they were formed in 1905. You really need to learn more about the history or republicanism in Ireland if you want to debate about it.

Nope there was ones in 69. A UVF guy blew himself trying to plant a bomb at RTE HQ. And the trust me man the nu,bers are correct. 91 UDA killed, 62 UVF, 4 RHC, 3, LVF & 2 Ulster Resistance. A huge number of Loyalists actually killed each other more than Republicans did. Another interesting stat is 18 people were killed in mainland Europe. I knew a few undercover BA were killed but I taught it was more like 6 or 7 killed. I suppose I forget about the 3 murdered in Gibraltar.

There's hypocrisy in all violence I'm denying the Provos were at times hypocritical but I do believe looking at all the facts & books I read their campaigned was just about justified. I don't believe the conditions are justified at the moment for the CIRA & RIRA to wage an armed campaign. From the Republicans, British & Loyalists to the US in Vietnam & the VC & NVA fighting them, you'll always find hypocrisy in violent conflicts from all sides.

My point about the Dissidents & Provos is there is no longer a occupation force roaming the streets of the Creggan. There's no need for a military campaign. It shows people aren't happy with the process being made by SF but there's soldiers shooting dead little boys & girls on those streets no more.

You should checkout the book I'm currently reading "Dissidents - Divided We Stand" It's pretty right-wing but I was expecting most books about dissidents to be in the first place but it's still pretty interesting. That's of smaller Republican groups out there, there's one called the Irish Republican Liberation Army (it's like a mix of the INLA & IRA)

SPM1959 · 24-02-2015 7:40pm

I am going to finish my contribution to this thread but as a final note I have to point out.
The reason there are no British soldiers on the streets is there no sustained dissident IRA campaign. They are not needed. If it is ever stepped up again, thousands will be back in no time. There was no British soldiers on the streets of Belfast in 1965.

Please understand, there is no (or more accurate, visible) army presence because the PIRA gave up. It's a simple as that.

Fratton Fred · 25-02-2015 10:49am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Nope there was ones in 69. A UVF guy blew himself trying to plant a bomb at RTE HQ. And the trust me man the nu,bers are correct. 91 UDA killed, 62 UVF, 4 RHC, 3, LVF & 2 Ulster Resistance. A huge number of Loyalists actually killed each other more than Republicans did. Another interesting stat is 18 people were killed in mainland Europe. I knew a few undercover BA were killed but I taught it was more like 6 or 7 killed. I suppose I forget about the 3 murdered in Gibraltar.)

Isn't calling the death of British service personnel a "Killing", but using the term "murder" for the Gibraltar 3 also hypocritical?

You aso forgot Nick Spanos, Stephen Melrose, Heidi Hazell and Nivruti Islania.

Arsemageddon · 25-02-2015 6:19pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Isn't calling the death of British service personnel a "Killing", but using the term "murder" for the Gibraltar 3 also hypocritical?

You aso forgot Nick Spanos, Stephen Melrose, Heidi Hazell and Nivruti Islania.

In the interest of clarity...

Nick Spanos & Stephen Melrose - Australian tourists mistaken for British soldiers, shot dead by IRA in the Netherlands (1990)

Heidi Hazell - German wife of a British soldier, shot dead while sitting in family car with British plates in Germany (1989)

Nivruti Islania - Six month old girl shot along with her father (a British soldier) in a gun attack in Germany (1989)

I would also add to this list Karel Straub a Dutch national killed in March 1979 along with British ambassador to the Netherlands

derry dirtfisher · 25-02-2015 10:19pm

take it down from the mast blueshirt traitors lol if collins hadnt have sold out the troubles wouldnt have happened

oldozer · 27-02-2015 1:06am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Why was there no split in the Republican movement in 86 (okay there was a very small on) but nothing like 69 which was the biggest split since 21. I know there was a lot of reasons why they split in 69 but historically the straw that broke the camels back was to take seats in the Dail, which is what exactly happened in 86 & later Stormont.

Was the split in 69 then due to something else then? The moving towards Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that traditionalists taught even tho they were socialist was to extreme form of Socialism? Or was that the "communists" just weren't militaristic enough to wage a successful campaign?

I've not read this thread completely, but have you thought of Dev being a "plant" of Mr Churchill...............

Henry Makow (I think). Made me think of Gerry...........

Dozer.

Brian Shanahan · 28-02-2015 1:47pm

derry dirtfisher wrote: »

take it down from the mast blueshirt traitors lol if collins hadnt have sold out the troubles wouldnt have happened

What does this even mean?

If you knew anything about history, you'd know that a) deV (the originator of the post war of Independence IRA and its successors) sent Collins et al over to negotiate with Lloyd George because he had a pretty good handle on what Ireland could get from the British and he didn't want to be seen as the man "selling out Ulster". And he was very much suprised at what Collins managed to wrangle out of Lloyd George.

Negotiations were started with the British government because the Irish government and the IRA were exhausted by three years of war, the British were willing to come to a peace and there was a general feeling that it was the best moment to come to terms (even by the majority of those who later rebelled against the state in the Civil War) and finally c) both sides in the Free State, both pro and anti-treaty were very complacent when it came to the Boundary Commission. They assumed that because of population, most of Derry, Fermanagh, South Armagh and a good part of Tyrone would automatically be given to the Free State, and thus there was very little interaction between IFS officials and the commission. The Craigavon government in the North however were worried that with only approx. four counties their statelet wouldn't be viable and either be absorbed by the IFS or pulled fully back into the Westminster system (and they then wouldn't be able to gerrymander a permanent unionist majority) and thus lobbied very hard for the whole of Ulster (originally) and, failing that, the six counties be given to the North.

There was no treason by Collins, he was sent to do a job by his Taoiseach, deValera, a job which he managed to exceed the expectations of said Taoiseach while doing it.

DarkyHughes · 28-02-2015 10:15pm

oldozer wrote: »

I've not read this thread completely, but have you thought of Dev being a "plant" of Mr Churchill...............

Henry Makow (I think). Made me think of Gerry...........

Dozer.

Liking planting him in Bollands Mill & it was really Churchill who planned the whole Easter Rising because he he secretly didn't want Ireland & that's why he never invaded Ireland like he did Iceland in WW2 & that the Free State government was passing on vital information to him during the war.

Yes, but not very seriously.

DarkyHughes · 28-02-2015 10:24pm

derry dirtfisher wrote: »

take it down from the mast blueshirt traitors lol if collins hadnt have sold out the troubles wouldnt have happened

I don't think you can call him a traitor for the partition of Ireland as bill passed in 1920 had already done that, so the Troubles probably would have happened either way. To me the Nationalists in the North gained more from the GFA than the South did from the Anglo-Irish Treaty, nothing changed for the people on the ground only for a few at the very top, suppose that some of that could be contributed to the Civil War.

DarkyHughes · 28-02-2015 10:48pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Isn't calling the death of British service personnel a "Killing", but using the term "murder" for the Gibraltar 3 also hypocritical?

You aso forgot Nick Spanos, Stephen Melrose, Heidi Hazell and Nivruti Islania.

It depends. I wouldn't call the Volunteers at Loughgall murdered (as painful as their deaths were to Republicans it was not murder.) as they were on active service at the time. The 3 at Gibraltar were there to carry out a mission yes, but not on active service or posed a threat to anyone when they were murdered. I would call, Mountbatten's death murder, Joe McCanns death murder, the deaths of Julie Livingstone & Carol Anne Kelly murder etc...
But the soldiers killed by the IRA in the Drummuckavali Ambush or in the counter-ambush in Operation Conservation for example & other similar engagements were not murders, those soldiers were looking to engage the enemy, they did & lost.

DarkyHughes · 28-02-2015 11:12pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Isn't calling the death of British service personnel a "Killing", but using the term "murder" for the Gibraltar 3 also hypocritical?

You aso forgot Nick Spanos, Stephen Melrose, Heidi Hazell and Nivruti Islania.

Yeah the Australians were murdered, they didn't mean to murder two Australians but they did, I actually watched a 30 min documentary on it a month or two ago it was very sad. That would be bring up to about 14 or 15 then. How many British security force members died in mainland Europe?

DarkyHughes · 28-02-2015 11:26pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What does this even mean?

If you knew anything about history, you'd know that a) deV (the originator of the post war of Independence IRA and its successors) sent Collins et al over to negotiate with Lloyd George because he had a pretty good handle on what Ireland could get from the British and he didn't want to be seen as the man "selling out Ulster". And he was very much suprised at what Collins managed to wrangle out of Lloyd George. Negotiations were started with the British government because the Irish government and the IRA were exhausted by three years of war, the British were willing to come to a peace and there was a general feeling that it was the best moment to come to terms (even by the majority of those who later rebelled against the state in the Civil War) and finally c) both sides in the Free State, both pro and anti-treaty were very complacent when it came to the Boundary Commission. They assumed that because of population, most of Derry, Fermanagh, South Armagh and a good part of Tyrone would automatically be given to the Free State, and thus there was very little interaction between IFS officials and the commission. The Craigavon government in the North however were worried that with only approx. four counties their statelet wouldn't be viable and either be absorbed by the IFS or pulled fully back into the Westminster system (and they then wouldn't be able to gerrymander a permanent unionist majority) and thus lobbied very hard for the whole of Ulster (originally) and, failing that, the six counties be given to the North.

There was no treason by Collins, he was sent to do a job by his Taoiseach, deValera, a job which he managed to exceed the expectations of said Taoiseach while doing it.

Really? The country was already partitioned like I pointed out. It couldn't have been all that hard to make the the South a Free State with the English king still as all of Ireland's head. And like I said the ordinary people on the ground gained nothing from it, still mass immigration, still low levels of unemployment, still bad working conditions for the working class etc...I would be happy to be apart of a British Republic if those types of social issues were improved on. Like I said the deal only benefited a small few at the top. Capitalism in Ireland doesn't work.

Brian Shanahan · 01-03-2015 12:32am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Really? The country was already partitioned like I pointed out. It couldn't have been all that hard to make the the South a Free State with the English king still as all of Ireland's head.

Look believe your revisionist fantasies all you want, but don't be throwing them in my direction.

DarkyHughes · 01-03-2015 2:50am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Look believe your revisionist fantasies all you want, but don't be throwing them in my direction.

It's not revisionism there facts. The Government of Ireland Act1920, full name (An Act to provide for the better government of Ireland) partitioned Ireland into North & South. Ireland became a Free State with the King of England as head of state. There facts sorry if they ruin your own made up version of history.

Nice skipping past all the social problems that existed & some still do today. We lost very few military engagements in the Tan war, most of the world's press felt Ireland be given a fair, deal & the American were getting increasingly impatient with Britain's military in Ireland, all the cards weighed heavily in Collins favor. He didn't surpass anybody's expectation.

What did treaty have in it for working class people? Nothing. "If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain" How right Connolly was.

Do you know why we don't have a independence day? Were not really independent at all & a part of the country is under a other countries jurisdiction.

DarkyHughes · 07-03-2015 3:05am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

It's not revisionism there facts. The Government of Ireland Act1920, full name (An Act to provide for the better government of Ireland) partitioned Ireland into North & South. Ireland became a Free State with the King of England as head of state. There facts sorry if they ruin your own made up version of history.

Nice skipping past all the social problems that existed & some still do today. We lost very few military engagements in the Tan war, most of the world's press felt Ireland be given a fair, deal & the American were getting increasingly impatient with Britain's military in Ireland, all the cards weighed heavily in Collins favor. He didn't surpass anybody's expectation.

What did treaty have in it for working class people? Nothing. "If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain" How right Connolly was.

Do you know why we don't have a independence day? Were not really independent at all & a part of the country is under a other countries jurisdiction.

Although you raise an interesting question Brian.

Do people think Lloyd George would have went ahead with his threat of "Terrible War" or was it a bluff? And if it was a bluff & talks broke down could SF TD's now go about looking & campaign for more recognition of an Irish Republic after already been given it by the largest country in the world without the danger of any military threat?

Or if he wasn't bluffing & the talks broke & he really meant "Terrible War" would they have used chemical weapons on us like they did to the Iraqi's in the 20's?

oldozer · 07-03-2015 3:37am

Good question really as to why no split in 86 ? Well I would be of the opinion of there being many splits. There were many splits/splinters just some were guided a bit more deftly. The old idiom of divide and conquer still had a few acts ere the "final" curtain.

What organization could park outside No10 and almost wipe out a government ?

What organization could almost wipe out a government in Brighton ?

What organization worldwide could not copy what the Irish did for so many decades just one time ?

Actors/Theater/Producers/Directors. All honing skills for some new blockbuster.

Do you really think there would have been a theater of Iraq with all the crew busy at home ?

So many directors watching from the wings to see if it could be taken on a world stage.

Those directors must surely have been delighted with such a production.........

Dozer.

Fratton Fred · 07-03-2015 9:29am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Although you raise an interesting question Brian.

Do people think Lloyd George would have went ahead with his threat of "Terrible War" or was it a bluff? And if it was a bluff & talks broke down could SF TD's now go about looking & campaign for more recognition of an Irish Republic after already been given it by the largest country in the world without the danger of any military threat?

Or if he wasn't bluffing & the talks broke & he really meant "Terrible War" would they have used chemical weapons on us like they did to the Iraqi's in the 20's?

Lloyd George made no such threat.

derry dirtfisher · 08-03-2015 8:43pm

it means collins signed the 6 counties out to the british crown. 100 years of slaughter is what he gave us

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What does this even mean?

.

derry dirtfisher · 08-03-2015 8:47pm

wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty

Michael Collins later claimed that at the last minute Lloyd George threatened the Irish delegates with a renewal of, "terrible and immediate war"[13] if the Treaty was not signed at once, but this was not mentioned as a threat in the Irish memorandum about the close of negotiations, but as a personal remark made by Lloyd George to Robert Barton, and merely a reflection of the reality of any military truce.[14] Barton noted that:

At one time he [Lloyd George] particularly addressed himself to me and said very solemnly that those who were not for peace must take full responsibility for the war that would immediately follow refusal by any Delegate to sign the Articles of Agreement.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lloyd George made no such threat.

oldozer · 09-03-2015 1:42am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Liking planting him in Bollands Mill & it was really Churchill who planned the whole Easter Rising because he he secretly didn't want Ireland & that's why he never invaded Ireland like he did Iceland in WW2 & that the Free State government was passing on vital information to him during the war.

Yes, but not very seriously.

I don't think Churchill planted Dev in Bolands Mills. Churchill for all his so called tactics was not I think quite the genius he would be given accolade for. He was a most shrewd character but then so was QE 1 once her recce parties told her of how the natives were a most formidable force. She knew quite well she was up against a most formidable enemy. Her enemy had the advantage of being a more resilient enemy by virtue of the fact of being more adaptable to the terrain. Much like the resistors in our modern Ukraine. QE 1 had to resort to purchase, poisoning, and a rethink of her advisers. Guile, and a well informed network. not to mention a ready supply of funding was a great deception.

Churchill in a former time after the 14 war set this to work as to our demise as he reinvented our modern 'Orangism' after that war. That was of course started to ferment hatred on this island from Scotland after that war. Not really a plan of Churchill as to how to attack a problem in the planning. He was after all honed on 'Pig Sticking' a rule of thumb of Indian times. Tying men of dissent to cannon being another pastime of such people, leaders of that history was also a thing to make the local Sepoy rethink thought. Quite the hobby really but like all hobbies, we need some funds to play our little games. To loosely quote one of the redshields here..........If my sons disliked war. There would be no such thing.

Cromwell, and later George would be given endless supply of monies and mercenaries. Just like hiring the best chippy in town in our world. You get what you pay for by planning and payment. Not really rocket science but if you have the resources with any old chippy. The house he designs will stand as long as he is involved.

One of Napoleon's greatest regrets in one of his last letters would have him believe Ireland was the gateway to empire. I am quite sure Hitler had read that letter. Guile again springs to mind as to how both of those thinking men. Most likely better thinkers than Churchill in their own rite barring advisers. Some odd features of that history which pertains to a lot of conflict. Why did both thinkers loose out to to the latter thinker. When faced with defeat in Fonteny equally armed Irish troops of the French King decimated a far great number of British troops. Likewise a defeated Europe were allowed to escape a total defeat at Dunkirk. A defeated Europe of both world wars were saved by what is now known as a False Flag. The 14 war was decided by the sinking of The Lusitania. Stranger than fiction Mr Ripley. Most of those opposed to the Federal Reserve just happened to be on that ship.

This Ukraine war has so Many similarities to both of our world wars. Hitler was refused his corridor to stem the Polish problem. Hess, well that speaks volumes as does the abdication of King Edward. Hitler went rouge when his country became powerful enough to redress the Armistice of victor tyranny of Germany as per the 14 war. Putin is playing a similar game as to provocation of world banker elite. He watched as his people were being killed in his neighbourhood. Maybe the bankers missed that opportunity as to another colour revolution. Putin played a bold move as his popularity slumped. Soros, Nuland (nee Kagan) seemed to be playing checkers then as the grand master moved his chess pieces. Patience, a lot of armour, a few thousand Russian you may think turned the tide. You will be forgiven for such thinking though as there is a determination of the people of Eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine without the East of that country is a non entity. What those so called rebels have is what is the problem for the bankers. The bankers Churchills, the Hitlers, are aware of the civil war/coup they have to control before they move to the next piece on the board game. Look at the body bags, broken old coffins coming out of Western Ukraine. They hold the brothers of our time of aeons ago. The main pieces in this game are still working on the game.

A footnote if you will. The Bilderberg of which my own country will take orders. It was I believe an overheard statement of a private conversation. It is all going quite nicely someone said.... If only we could be sure of controlling Putin....

Dozer.

feargale · 09-03-2015 2:17am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

It couldn't have been all that hard to make the the South a Free State with the English king still as all of Ireland's head. And like I said the ordinary people on the ground gained

I believe that John Devoy, the old Fenian who died in 1928 said in 1921/22 that he didn't care who was king of Ireland so long as the British got out of Ireland.

derry dirtfisher wrote: »

wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty

Michael Collins later claimed that at the last minute Lloyd George threatened the Irish delegates with a renewal of, "terrible and immediate war"[13] if the Treaty was not signed at once, but this was not mentioned as a threat in the Irish memorandum about the close of negotiations, but as a personal remark made by Lloyd George to Robert Barton, and merely a reflection of the reality of any military truce.[14] Barton noted that:

At one time he [Lloyd George] particularly addressed himself to me and said very solemnly that those who were not for peace must take full responsibility for the war that would immediately follow refusal by any Delegate to sign the Articles of Agreement.

I wonder if the reality was as follows: Immediately before the Treaty negotiations the IRA, having suffered some serious reverses, particularly in Dublin, was close to collapse. Nobody knew this better than Collins, but he dared not let his right hand know what his left hand knew. For operational reasons this could not be divulged to the rank and file as they deliberated on the Treaty, much less to the people at large. Ironic that the IRB faction including Collins were overwhelmingly pro-Treaty.

Arsemageddon · 09-03-2015 4:10pm

oldozer wrote: »

I don't think Churchill planted Dev in Bolands Mills. Churchill for all his so called tactics was not I think quite the genius he would be given accolade for. He was a most shrewd character but then so was QE 1 once her recce parties told her of how the natives were a most formidable force. She knew quite well she was up against a most formidable enemy. Her enemy had the advantage of being a more resilient enemy by virtue of the fact of being more adaptable to the terrain. Much like the resistors in our modern Ukraine. QE 1 had to resort to purchase, poisoning, and a rethink of her advisers. Guile, and a well informed network. not to mention a ready supply of funding was a great deception.

Churchill in a former time after the 14 war set this to work as to our demise as he reinvented our modern 'Orangism' after that war. That was of course started to ferment hatred on this island from Scotland after that war. Not really a plan of Churchill as to how to attack a problem in the planning. He was after all honed on 'Pig Sticking' a rule of thumb of Indian times. Tying men of dissent to cannon being another pastime of such people, leaders of that history was also a thing to make the local Sepoy rethink thought. Quite the hobby really but like all hobbies, we need some funds to play our little games. To loosely quote one of the redshields here..........If my sons disliked war. There would be no such thing.

Cromwell, and later George would be given endless supply of monies and mercenaries. Just like hiring the best chippy in town in our world. You get what you pay for by planning and payment. Not really rocket science but if you have the resources with any old chippy. The house he designs will stand as long as he is involved.

One of Napoleon's greatest regrets in one of his last letters would have him believe Ireland was the gateway to empire. I am quite sure Hitler had read that letter. Guile again springs to mind as to how both of those thinking men. Most likely better thinkers than Churchill in their own rite barring advisers. Some odd features of that history which pertains to a lot of conflict. Why did both thinkers loose out to to the latter thinker. When faced with defeat in Fonteny equally armed Irish troops of the French King decimated a far great number of British troops. Likewise a defeated Europe were allowed to escape a total defeat at Dunkirk. A defeated Europe of both world wars were saved by what is now known as a False Flag. The 14 war was decided by the sinking of The Lusitania. Stranger than fiction Mr Ripley. Most of those opposed to the Federal Reserve just happened to be on that ship.

This Ukraine war has so Many similarities to both of our world wars. Hitler was refused his corridor to stem the Polish problem. Hess, well that speaks volumes as does the abdication of King Edward. Hitler went rouge when his country became powerful enough to redress the Armistice of victor tyranny of Germany as per the 14 war. Putin is playing a similar game as to provocation of world banker elite. He watched as his people were being killed in his neighbourhood. Maybe the bankers missed that opportunity as to another colour revolution. Putin played a bold move as his popularity slumped. Soros, Nuland (nee Kagan) seemed to be playing checkers then as the grand master moved his chess pieces. Patience, a lot of armour, a few thousand Russian you may think turned the tide. You will be forgiven for such thinking though as there is a determination of the people of Eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine without the East of that country is a non entity. What those so called rebels have is what is the problem for the bankers. The bankers Churchills, the Hitlers, are aware of the civil war/coup they have to control before they move to the next piece on the board game. Look at the body bags, broken old coffins coming out of Western Ukraine. They hold the brothers of our time of aeons ago. The main pieces in this game are still working on the game.

A footnote if you will. The Bilderberg of which my own country will take orders. It was I believe an overheard statement of a private conversation. It is all going quite nicely someone said.... If only we could be sure of controlling Putin....

Dozer.

This post is unintelligible gibberish.

pedroeibar1 · 09-03-2015 7:43pm

What did you expect, when it follows a post suggesting that Dev was planted in Bolands by Churchill?:D

oldozer · 09-03-2015 8:14pm

Arsemageddon wrote: »

This post is unintelligible gibberish.

Why thank you for that most intelligent reply. You really shot me down there with a one line drive by comment.

Thought process much.....?

Dozer.

Brian Shanahan · 10-03-2015 10:36am

derry dirtfisher wrote: »

it means collins signed the 6 counties out to the british crown. 100 years of slaughter is what he gave us

If I wanted ridiculous fantasies I'd buy a Stephanie Meyer novel, not listen to the febrile ramblings of a 32 county republican fantasist. So like with darkyhughes, please stop regurgitating them at me.

Why no big Republican split in 86?

Comments