Muppets

eroo

no,not the popular tv show.i used this title because its the cleanest way of describing the people out there on bebo/myspace who have pics of IRA/CIRA/RIRA/INLA on their profiles or who become 'fans' of these 'bands' supporting terrorist scumbags.now i wouldnt mind if they knew a bit about the 'Ra' and had come to the conclusion that they supported their ideals but they only do it because of the whole 'bash the brits and blow them to bits' and 'english grrrrr..' sort of ****e.basically,because they think its cool.id just love to slap 'em!!they know nothing.
now i am very proud of the Old IRA(war of independence)and all of the men+women who took part in the fight for our freedom throughout the centuries.i am a peace loving patriotic guy and am delighted with the peace process.ive read a lot about the PIRA etc,and i cant stand them.bunch of money laundering,fuel smuggling,murderin' gangsters!!anyway,it jusy annoys me to see 14/15 year olds who have IRA albums etc on their profiles,yet ask them about 'Narrow Water' and you'll get the reply,'i dont do chemistry'

rant over:o
eroo

Shutuplaura

Hi, just to clarify before I ask, I don't support the IRA but I don't hate them either. I also love the peace process and all that and long may it last.

Anyway, With that out of the way why do you look on the PIRA as being any different to the 'Old' IRA or the United Irishmen in 1798? How can you wholly support one and not the other?

By the way, yeah mindless Up the 'Ra heads are annoying, republicans I know dislike them as much as you seem to.

the_syco

Used to like the 'RA, but not as much now. Mainly 'cos I found that they were as bad as the politicians that I dislike, in their bribery, protection scheme's, etc. Still have respect for how they went about most of their activities (mortaring, bombings, sniping, etc), though.

As for the bebo muppets, they know nothing more than the patriotic legend that is spewed by the Shinners. One of bombing the Brits, of "going against the system", among other things.

Meh. Mindless 'RA heads are annoying, but once they do their LC, they usually snap out of it (more recent info in History class, than "the IRB kicked out the brits").

Oh, and OP, they both (IRB & PIRA) got guns. And neither of them were all that rich, so you have to wonder where they got their funds.

Fratton Fred

I think four of them won't be updating their bebo sites for a while, not until they get out of Derry prison anyway.:rolleyes:

It reminds me of Britain in the 80s where kids thought it was cool to write NF everywhere, when in reality they had absolutely no idea what it was the National front stood for.

Erin Go Brath

So long as there is still serious concerns about policing in Northern Ireland, the paras such as CIRA etc will attain a degree of legitimacy from some quarters.

There are currently serious concerns about policing in some places, for example Portadown. The SDLP's Policing Board member, Dolores Kelly MLA, has publicly decsribed PSNI inaction there as 'scandalous' and has said that she has viewed CCTV footage which clearly shows loyalists sitting on top of a Catholic man and punching him with both fists before getting up and jumping on his head. A second Catholic man was attacked with a broken bottle. She added: "A Police Land Rover was parked at the top of the street when the men were attacked and the officers did not intervene."

In a very telling statement, the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition has described sectarian attacks on two young Catholic men in Portadown at the weekend (October 6) as a direct product of unacceptable, partisan policing. It is understood by the GRRC that the Police Ombudsman's office is now investigating PSNI's response in the lead up to, during, and after both attacks. Video footage, which captures these incidents, was handed over directly to investigators from the Police Ombudsman's office by the owner of a local business premises on Monday.

It's anger from ordinary people who are subjected to this lack of police protection that gives these paramiliatries a measure of support, and ultimately is their raison d'être. If policing was sorted, they could have no excuses!

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

So long as there is still serious concerns about policing in Northern Ireland, the paras such as CIRA etc will attain a degree of legitimacy from some quarters.

There are currently serious concerns about policing in some places, for example Portadown. The SDLP's Policing Board member, Dolores Kelly MLA, has publicly decsribed PSNI inaction there as 'scandalous' and has said that she has viewed CCTV footage which clearly shows loyalists sitting on top of a Catholic man and punching him with both fists before getting up and jumping on his head. A second Catholic man was attacked with a broken bottle. She added: "A Police Land Rover was parked at the top of the street when the men were attacked and the officers did not intervene."

In a very telling statement, the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition has described sectarian attacks on two young Catholic men in Portadown at the weekend (October 6) as a direct product of unacceptable, partisan policing. It is understood by the GRRC that the Police Ombudsman's office is now investigating PSNI's response in the lead up to, during, and after both attacks. Video footage, which captures these incidents, was handed over directly to investigators from the Police Ombudsman's office by the owner of a local business premises on Monday.

It's anger from ordinary people who are subjected to this lack of police protection that gives these paramiliatries a measure of support, and ultimately is their raison d'être. If policing was sorted, they could have no excuses!

That's a fair point, policing in NI has always been "Selective". The trouble the PSNI are going to have, is that every time they fail Catholics, it will be classed as sectarian and to an extent, the OSNI are going to have to go overboard to win back the confidence of the Catholic community. (Which will no doubt lead to the loyalists crying foul:rolleyes:)

I don't think that has anything to do with these "Muppets" though, as their support to CIRA etc is probably more of a macho penis extension type thing than a genuine concern for the people of the Garvaghy Road.

Erin Go Brath

Yeh, "the muppets" in question that can be seen singing 'up the ra' from time to time around town are probably trying to look like hard men in front of people.........bunch of eejits tbh. I wouldn't spend time worrying about them, the fad will pass when they reach 17.


As for the ops hatred of IRA etc. Understandable considering some of the stuff that has passed. The PSNI get my wrath more though, because they are after all supposed to protect the community. There will always be "terrorists" or "law breakers" of some description around, and in the North Republican/Loyalist terrorists won't dissapear altogether overnight after decades of unrest. If the supposed upholders of law and order are corrupt though its a much more serious situation. That situation would need to be sorted first before the paramilitary problems decrease significantly.

eroo

well,my problem with the IRA is this:back in the WOI they werent selling weapons to criminal gangs or drugs to the populus(i know,time difference).my point is back then they were fighting for something whole-heartedly.nowadays,they are smuggling cigarettes and drugs to make money.also,a perfect example of how greedy they are is how 'Slab' Murphy is worth an estimated 58 million euro,but obviously he cant really touch it or the ARA or CAB will be on him.
also,i know they started out protecting catholics etc, but they were different times,i understand that.but i just cant stand all the violence they used and it got them very little politically.as we can all agree,i wish the troubles had never happened.also,i didnt start this thread to see who supports them and who doesnt,just wanted to see what ye all thought about the muppets!

McArmalite

eroo wrote: »

no,not the popular tv show.i used this title because its the cleanest way of describing the people out there on bebo/myspace who have pics of IRA/CIRA/RIRA/INLA on their profiles or who become 'fans' of these 'bands' supporting terrorist scumbags.now i wouldnt mind if they knew a bit about the 'Ra' and had come to the conclusion that they supported their ideals but they only do it because of the whole 'bash the brits and blow them to bits' and 'english grrrrr..' sort of ****e.basically,because they think its cool.id just love to slap 'em!!they know nothing.
now i am very proud of the Old IRA(war of independence)and all of the men+women who took part in the fight for our freedom throughout the centuries.i am a peace loving patriotic guy and am delighted with the peace process.ive read a lot about the PIRA etc,and i cant stand them.bunch of money laundering,fuel smuggling,murderin' gangsters!!anyway,it jusy annoys me to see 14/15 year olds who have IRA albums etc on their profiles,yet ask them about 'Narrow Water' and you'll get the reply,'i dont do chemistry'

rant over:o
eroo

" the people out there on bebo/myspace who have pics of IRA/CIRA/RIRA/INLA on their profiles " Sorry, but can someone tell me, what this posting is doing on a history site ?

As for 'Narrow Water', as the slogans in Derry read - " 13 dead but not forgotten, we got 19 paras and Mountbatten". The IRA's finest hour.

eroo

well,seeing as the IRA have played a massive role to our history,i thought it would be good to address young peoples ignorance of HISTORY!

The guy

eroo wrote: »

well,seeing as the IRA have played a massive role to our history,i thought it would be good to address young peoples ignorance of HISTORY!

Because you have quizzed every young person on their history knowledge.

Shutuplaura

eroo wrote: »

well,my problem with the IRA is this:back in the WOI they werent selling weapons to criminal gangs or drugs to the populus(i know,time difference).my point is back then they were fighting for something whole-heartedly.nowadays,they are smuggling cigarettes and drugs to make money.also,a perfect example of how greedy they are is how 'Slab' Murphy is worth an estimated 58 million euro,but obviously he cant really touch it or the ARA or CAB will be on him.
also,i know they started out protecting catholics etc, but they were different times,i understand that.but i just cant stand all the violence they used and it got them very little politically.as we can all agree,i wish the troubles had never happened.also,i didnt start this thread to see who supports them and who doesnt,just wanted to see what ye all thought about the muppets!

I mentioned that to get it out of the way becasue I'm sure someone would accuse me of being a IRA supporter if i didn't, leading to a boring and a besides the point agrument.

Regards giving out about muppets - young people are generally more radical than older people, hardly worth starting a post in the history section about. I find bar stool republicans more tiresome. As someone said, all they are good for is buying An Phoblachet when they are all jarred up and ready to fight the good fight.

I asked you about the difference between the modern IRA and the Good Old IRA becasue I think its a load of ****e to be frank, making clear cut distinctions betweeen the two. Slab is aparently making a living from the troubles and I'm sure he's not the only one but it did last a long time and people are nothing but great innovators when it comes to making money. Also, The 'Old IRA' did look after its own, fighters got paid, generally liked throwing their weight around and looked after their own for decades after the war ended. From being made TD's to council houses and pensions. They were yong and full of beans and knew there was a bit of glamour attached to being a revolutionary. They robbed banks and in the end what did we get but a free state which was only a dominion. I really don't see the difference. Some of them were still in the Dail in the 1960's doing very little but cashing their generaous TD checks. Not much different to smuggling fags or diesal if you ask me. I admire whatn you call the Old IRA so I can't condemn the PIRA.

Also, When did the Old IRA end? Was it the Old IRa who conducted the border campeing or the mainland campaign of the 1930's/40's? If not why not?

Finally, regarding their involvment in the Drugs trade - I don't see how they could have kept support in certain areas in the north and been heavily involved. I'm open to correction but has it ever been proven that the organisation rather than a few individuals on their own initiative have been involved?

McArmalite

eroo wrote: »

well,seeing as the IRA have played a massive role to our history,i thought it would be good to address young peoples ignorance of HISTORY!

" ive read a lot about the PIRA etc,and i cant stand them.bunch of money laundering,fuel smuggling,murderin' gangsters!! "

I'm sure you have, . Did it ever occur to you that many of these young people might be from the occupied counties and know a lot more about the IRA than you do ?

Ever been to say, Ardoyne, the Falls, the Bogside, Crossmaglen, Keady etc where in these areas most of the families would have had a family relation who was in the Provos ??? Many may not want to talk in depth to you, many will revere the Provos, some will hate them. But ever actually personally known someone invovled and asked their experiences under the unionist state/ 'impartial' brit 'peace keeping', what tipped them over the line to join up, were they sorry, would they do it again etc ???

eroo

fair enough McArmalite.i understand your opinion differs from mine,i respect that!i respect the opinoins of the people who lived through the Troubles,but i have no time for southern pro-Ra's or there 'comrades' over in the US who support/ed the republican movement without ever steppin foot in NI!what im trying to say is this;if you live/have lived in NI then your view on things can be taken seriously,again,i respect that.but for people who donate money to the 'cause' yet have no idea whats going in NI estates,i have absolutely no time for.also,i dont claim to know either but from docu's and news etc,its an extremely complex place,always has been,always will be.it just annoys me to see scangers from cork or limerick or dublin with republican pics and sectarian ****e who have no idea what the situ is really like 'up north' and if put up there they wouldnt be shouting 'prods' or 'up the ra',they'd **** their pants!
also,provos in the south;majority of em are criminals.in 80's/90's they were more interested in robbing banks and doing dodgy dealings with gangs and now they are 'leasing' out their weapons 'skills' i.e. assassins and bombers.at least northern provos(most of em i suppose)were fighting for something they believed in...thats my 2 cent anyway,btw mods if you want this thread moved or closed,i have no problems!

eroo

McArmalite

eroo wrote: »

fair enough McArmalite.i understand your opinion differs from mine,i respect that!i respect the opinoins of the people who lived through the Troubles,but i have no time for southern pro-Ra's or there 'comrades' over in the US who support/ed the republican movement without ever steppin foot in NI!what im trying to say is this;if you live/have lived in NI then your view on things can be taken seriously,again,i respect that.but for people who donate money to the 'cause' yet have no idea whats going in NI estates,i have absolutely no time for.also,i dont claim to know either but from docu's and news etc,its an extremely complex place,always has been,always will be.it just annoys me to see scangers from cork or limerick or dublin with republican pics and sectarian ****e who have no idea what the situ is really like 'up north' and if put up there they wouldnt be shouting 'prods' or 'up the ra',they'd **** their pants!
also,provos in the south;majority of em are criminals.in 80's/90's they were more interested in robbing banks and doing dodgy dealings with gangs and now they are 'leasing' out their weapons 'skills' i.e. assassins and bombers.at least northern provos(most of em i suppose)were fighting for something they believed in...thats my 2 cent anyway,btw mods if you want this thread moved or closed,i have no problems!

eroo

Fair enough eroo, I've read some of your postings from other forums and I thought you'd be a decent enough sort to be honest. I'm not actually from the north, within a few miles of it, loads of relations from it etc. ( one of them, brother in law, a Protestant form the North. And I said a Protestant, not a unionist. To equate Protestantism with unionism or Catholicism with nationalism is not just generalising, but helps to perpetuate the lies that the roots of the conflict are about religion). Republicanism obivilously in my veins etc. Yeah I too hate the "oooh, ahhh up the rah " crowd, absoulutely useless. Wear Premiership soccer shirts, smoke Johnny Blue, read the Star and the Sun and shout " up the Rah " when half drunk, the more drunk the louder.

I don't blame anyone for thinking my views are extreme, the views I post mainly on this bord are for the benefit of His Majesty, the English unionist, and one or two bizarre 'nationalists', but because of Admin, I cann't go any further or I'll be banded yet again !!!!

The Provos did some terrible, unforgiveable things, no doubt about it. I don't expect you to change your views on them, but well, all I'll say is, maybe, have second thoughts and examine much of the anti nationalist/republican 'Provos eat babies' black propaganda versus " British Squaddies - kinder than the Salvation Army " stuff thrown about this last 30 years or so.

But condemning them without condemning the other parties to the violence, the brits, RUC, UDR and their unoffical forces, the loyalists, not to mention the discrimination, thuggery and insults the nationalists suffered for 50 years before August 1969 is nothing but hypocritical and outright lies in the extreme. Condemning the Provos while ignoring the factors that caused them, not only angers me, but in commentating and analyising the situation while completely ignjoring the violence of the state, only covers up for the real cause of the violence.

A good book I'd recommend is 10 Men Dead. Written by the Manchester Guardian journalist David Beresford ( he's English, Irish mother ), it's about the 1981 hungerstrike, it gives a great insight into the factors and motivation that formed the membership of the Provisional IRA, love them or hate them, warts and all. A chilling book. ( Incidentally, he won journalist of the year when he wrote it).

eroo

im a big history fan,so i might look that book up!thanks for the heads up!
dont get me wrong,what was done to catholics and nationalists in the north(burnt out of their homes,gerrymandering and driven out of jobs)was terrible.bottom line:at least there is some degree of peace and may there in time be total peace!

eroo

the_syco

eroo wrote: »

at least there is some degree of peace and may there in time be total peace!

Until one side gets rid of the other, I can't see "real peace" ever happening. Esp as the RUC still seems to control the PSNI.

McArmalite

the_syco wrote: »

Until one side gets rid of the other, I can't see "real peace" ever happening. Esp as the RUC still seems to control the PSNI.

I have had a first hand experience of the PSNI a few months ago, motoring offence of which I was wrong and pleaded so in court. The point of my posting is, and others may well have experienced the secterianism from the PSNI that was indemic in the former RUC, but all I can say from my own experience ( and I'm not one of the Gerry is God bridgade,), to quote Adams - " It's about puttting manners on the RUC".

From my experience, Adams and co. certainly have put manners on them.

McArmalite

eroo wrote: »

im a big history fan,so i might look that book up!thanks for the heads up!
dont get me wrong,what was done to catholics and nationalists in the north(burnt out of their homes,gerrymandering and driven out of jobs)was terrible.bottom line:at least there is some degree of peace and may there in time be total peace!

eroo

Sound. Do Clare people take credit for Dev or do they blame him on the Americans these days . I'd say in your Grandparents days, Dev was a God down in the Banner

Jackie laughlin

It is entirely inconsistent to condemn today's IRA and refuse to condemn the "old" IRA. Indeed failure to condemn the original article probably contributed to the creation and maintenance of the modern version. Sure there are more ordinary, decent, criminals among the present lot but that is a SLIGHT redeeming feature in that they are not all mindless "patriots", some at least are calculating criminals.

It is virtually impossible to oppose IRA violence without being accused of being soft on British or Unionist violence. This kind of reaction is just dishonest argument which seeks to deflect blame.

The heroes of N.I. are those who suffered discrimination, abuse and thuggery and sided with civil rights agitation and later the SDLP.

The murder of Mountbatten was one the IRA's more sordid little crimes: They blew up a British oul fella on holidays in Sligo - and lest we forget they blew up a child as well.

eroo

McArmalite wrote: »

Sound. Do Clare people take credit for Dev or do they blame him on the Americans these days . I'd say in your Grandparents days, Dev was a God down in the Banner

well,im a Collins man so i cant stand Dev.but my relatives did love him yes.im sure i'll be disowned for being a Collins man,like i give a ****e!
Dev was most popular in West Limerick,which is where he lived.i seem to be the only one with the sense to see how he ****ed this country by starting the Civil War with his infamous 'wade through Irish blood' speech in Killarney,with the end result of we losing Irelands greatest man:Michael Collins.thats why i dont support PIRA really,because id be a pro-Treaty man when looking back on history.i still believe if Collins had lived we would definitely have gotten the majority nationalist counties back,and in turn,economically,that would've forced the rest of the counties in to the Free State.simply because 3 counties couldnt survive on their own!
so thats why i REALLY dont support SF/IRA but hell,we all have our different views right?no better a place to express than on Boards

Capt'n Midnight

McArmalite wrote: »

As for 'Narrow Water', as the slogans in Derry read - " 13 dead but not forgotten, we got 19 paras and Mountbatten". The IRA's finest hour.

Let's not forget that the second bomb was for the evacuation helicopter that was expected to take the injured to hospital. Admittedly it did not have red cross on the side and I don't know if the injured were being loaded at the time. And they managed to go even lower with the proxy bomb.

It's been about money for a long time. Look at the way both sides were into drugs and split up the turf between them.

It's one thing for people living on the ground in the North to support the 'RA but what sickens me are those living safe away from the terror/repression supporting violence that will never threaten them.

eroo

Capt'n,couldnt agree more.those fools who say 'no surrender' and live in Tralee are a fine example of muppetry because the violence will never reach them...they will never experience it/knowwhat its like

Jackie laughlin

Eroo,
Collins was a murdering thug and the Irish state has whitewashed him. Today the Irish and British states are whitewashing SF/IRA.

eroo

i dont see how,as he never actually killed anyone.yes he did organise but it had a terrible effect on his health towards the end of his life.also,unlike SF/IRA he didnt hate his enemies,they were just on the 'other side' to him

eroo

Mr.Nice Guy

I too hate these sites as well as those videos on Youtube glorifying CIRA attacks with comments underneath saying, "God bless these heroes" and other such bullsh*t.

I wonder if these people are aware of what the Provos did to Patsy Gillespie, a Derry man who worked in a British Army canteen and was forced to drive a bomb into a British Army checkpoint, killing himself along with five soldiers. Or how about the Warrington bomb in 1993 in England which killed two boys, one 12 years old the other just 3 years old.

The descendants of Tone and Emmet? Bollocks they are.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Eroo,
Collins was a murdering thug and the Irish state has whitewashed him. Today the Irish and British states are whitewashing SF/IRA.

Isn't that the same as shouting "Up the Ra"? Another ill thought out slogan. Care to explain it? Also, out of interest, are you advocating a return to war and a military defeat of the provo's to avoid "whitewashing" them?

Erin Go Brath

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Eroo,
Collins was a murdering thug and the Irish state has whitewashed him. Today the Irish and British states are whitewashing SF/IRA.

It was a war for Irish Sovereignty get over it!

Like Shutu, I'm curious what you mean by the Irish state has whitewashed Collins and are whitewashing SF/IRA as you put it, though its obvious to most people that the IRA has disbanded. Do tell?

Jackie laughlin

What does "Get over it" mean? Is it just yet another term for censorship?

The official position was that the "old" IRA were "good" and that the Provos were bad. The reality is that there is little to distinguish between the two. Adams and company with so much blood on their hands are now being touted as heroes.

When it is asked, "Would you prefer to go back to the violent days?", the threat is implicit: "Don't tell the truth about our past in case we return to violence!"

The truth is complex and should be told.

For the record, the IRA has not disbanded. When I asked on another thread what its purpose is now?, I was in essence told that its purpose is to enforce the peace process!!

Erin Go Brath

"Collins is a thug" is some statement to make in isolation, you have to admit. Next you'll be telling us the Black and Tans were a benelovent force doing good for Ireland. :rolleyes:

Collins fought smarter that previous generations of freedom fighters. He knew how to hit Britain where it hurted; to take out the G-men and introduce the flying columns to cause maximum mayhem and disruption to the British machine over here.

Yes it was a dirty war, but people wanted rid of Brit rule now more than ever after the massacres of 1916, and this was the most effective way of making it untenable for them to enforce their rule.

Collins is a hero for many, and I'm sure there's plenty of Britons who would put up their hand and say he was a worthy advesary, and have respect for what he achieved. It's sad that an Irish person would hold these views on a great hero.

eroo

i agree,to call him a thug shows you have no appreciation for our countrys history.if you did you'd realise he did things that he wasn't entirely proud of,but was willing to make that sacrifice.he won our independence.as for NI,i've already posted my views regarding that....

eroo

Jackie laughlin

For the umpteenth time, a criticism of an Irish person does NOT imply support for British thuggery.

I once bought the official line on Collins until I informed myself of the complex truth of Irish history.

Collins was not without redeeming features. Longford's account of the Treaty negotiations makes it plain that he wanted finally to turn away from bloodshed. Much like Adams, I guess. People unfortunately suffer while violent patriots struggle towards maturity.

I find respect for terrorism to be distinctly unIrish.

Erin Go Brath

Thats fine! I'm against violence myself too, only to be used as a necessity if all else fails. If the democratic wishes of the people aren't adhered to sometimes it is going to be inevitable that an armed conflict will occur. Nelson Mandela and the ANC tried everything possible by peaceful means to get equality and nobody wanted to know, so in their case I support their use of arms, like Collins and the IRA fighting for the freedom denied to them.

You are right though lots of innocents do suffer as a result and both sides need to take responsibility for their actions.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

For the umpteenth time, a criticism of an Irish person does NOT imply support for British thuggery.

I once bought the official line on Collins until I informed myself of the complex truth of Irish history.

Collins was not without redeeming features. Longford's account of the Treaty negotiations makes it plain that he wanted finally to turn away from bloodshed. Much like Adams, I guess. People unfortunately suffer while violent patriots struggle towards maturity.

I find respect for terrorism to be distinctly unIrish.

Such gracious praise Jackie!. The official position is that the First Dail had a democratic mandate and was therefore a government in its own right and that the IRA was the army of that government and therefore it too had a mandate to wage its war - which was seem as a war of defence. I'm not convinced how accurate it is but I'm pretty sure that what a FF or FG TD would say anyway. Of course it doesn't take several factors into account by thats a separate issue.

As for telling you get over it, he's right, please do get over it. Your thinking on this issue is pretty unimaginative. For instance, Collins was a government minister and an elected official. He was acting as he saw it to defend that government and establish its sole control over the island. He saw the rising of 1916 as an amateurish affair and along with other junior leaders of the rising was determined to wage a more effective struggle next time around. That he used methods of asymmetrical warfare is understandable. Its the only method by which a weaker opponent can wear down a stronger side. It has been used by many other people and countries, and was used by the British against the Nazi's in the guise of the SOE, the US in the for of the OSS and CIA and by Jewish fighters against the British in the later 1940's. Its also currently being used by modern powers all over the world. Call it terrorism if you like but what war doesn't involve terror. 'Its well that war should be so terrible otherwise we should grow to enjoy it' to paraphrase Robert E Lee. Also, the quote by Brendan Behan comes to mind - 'The US, UK an USSR all have the big bomb. Why can't the IRA have little bombs.' Something like that anyway. The point is all countries engage in war as a continuation of politics by other means. Collins did the same. He wasn't a terrorist any more that any other statesman for doing so.

I also believe that using the language of his opponents to criticise Collins is tacit support for British Thuggary (why not hop off the fence and say British Terrorism. What Lloyd George like to call 'gunning')

Jackie laughlin

Here we go again! Why does any criticism of an Irish figure or movement have to be accompanied by criticism of the British? It is preposterous to accuse me of fence sitting.

This is the history section of Boards and I'm told "to get over it" because I question official state history. Bizarre!

However, you seem to agree that there is little moral difference between Collins and Adams.

There has never been an electoral mandate for political violence in Ireland. The revolutionary first Dail has been - probably still is - used as a founding myth for a great deal of undemocratic authoritarianism and consequent political violence as it was the last all-Ireland poll.

I tend not to use the word "terrorist" as a label to condemn but rather as a useful designation for clandestine, non-state actors. It is wearying when debate is reduced to hurling the"terrorist" about as a catcall. I have strong views on the uglier side of British involvement in Ireland. OK, OK, there are those who will react by saying that that all British involvement in Ireland is ugly but you know what I mean.

eroo

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Such gracious praise Jackie!. The official position is that the First Dail had a democratic mandate and was therefore a government in its own right and that the IRA was the army of that government and therefore it too had a mandate to wage its war - which was seem as a war of defence. I'm not convinced how accurate it is but I'm pretty sure that what a FF or FG TD would say anyway. Of course it doesn't take several factors into account by thats a separate issue.

As for telling you get over it, he's right, please do get over it. Your thinking on this issue is pretty unimaginative. For instance, Collins was a government minister and an elected official. He was acting as he saw it to defend that government and establish its sole control over the island. He saw the rising of 1916 as an amateurish affair and along with other junior leaders of the rising was determined to wage a more effective struggle next time around. That he used methods of asymmetrical warfare is understandable. Its the only method by which a weaker opponent can wear down a stronger side. It has been used by many other people and countries, and was used by the British against the Nazi's in the guise of the SOE, the US in the for of the OSS and CIA and by Jewish fighters against the British in the later 1940's. Its also currently being used by modern powers all over the world. Call it terrorism if you like but what war doesn't involve terror. 'Its well that war should be so terrible otherwise we should grow to enjoy it' to paraphrase Robert E Lee. Also, the quote by Brendan Behan comes to mind - 'The US, UK an USSR all have the big bomb. Why can't the IRA have little bombs.' Something like that anyway. The point is all countries engage in war as a continuation of politics by other means. Collins did the same. He wasn't a terrorist any more that any other statesman for doing so.

I also believe that using the language of his opponents to criticise Collins is tacit support for British Thuggary (why not hop off the fence and say British Terrorism. What Lloyd George like to call 'gunning')

couldnt have put it better...

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Here we go again! Why does any criticism of an Irish figure or movement have to be accompanied by criticism of the British? It is preposterous to accuse me of fence sitting.

This is the history section of Boards and I'm told "to get over it" because I question official state history. Bizarre!

However, you seem to agree that there is little moral difference between Collins and Adams.

There has never been an electoral mandate for political violence in Ireland. The revolutionary first Dail has been - probably still is - used as a founding myth for a great deal of undemocratic authoritarianism and consequent political violence as it was the last all-Ireland poll.

I tend not to use the word "terrorist" as a label to condemn but rather as a useful designation for clandestine, non-state actors. It is wearying when debate is reduced to hurling the"terrorist" about as a catcall. I have strong views on the uglier side of British involvement in Ireland. OK, OK, there are those who will react by saying that that all British involvement in Ireland is ugly but you know what I mean.

I know, is gas, it seems that anyone could post a topic on anything and it will come back to the same old topic.

Well I didn't actually accuse you of fence sitting, just of using the language of British propaganda to condemn Collins. You actually called him a murderer which he clearly wasn't and sounds like the murder gangs quote of Lloyd George. You also didn't explain, and I've never come across an explanation by you of why you think he or anyone else involved in the war is a murderer so get over it is a fair response. Besides all that, using the word terrorist at all is giving an opinion. The word is so loaded that its impossible to use in a neutral way. Calling someone a good terrorist is an oxymoran. Its also from a neutral viewpoint a meaningless label since all states recognize the legitimacy of war and terror is the very nature of war. My guess is that if you are neutral then you would stay of of discussions like this. You mix it up with the rest of us so you are not and you are not on one side so its natural to assume you are on the other.

Regards your opinions on the First Dail, true, people were not voting for a war when they voted for Sinn Fein. They were voting for a separatist party whose goal from the beginning was to create our own functions of state which would usurp the functions of the British state in Ireland. Given that the Irish Volunteers threw their support behind SF my instinct is to credit people with a bit on intelligence and assume they knew that some sort of violent struggle would be the likely outcome.

Regards Adams and Collins, I personally like both of them so I definitely don't see much of a moral difference between them. I guess thats where i diverge from official history. They are very different from each other though. Like it or not Collins was an elected representative. He was a member of a government and enjoyed mass support and while in his role as DI of the IRA he may have moved in the shadows, the Dail attempted to remain overground and definitely out of the shadows until it was forced to stop meeting by the aggression of the British authorities. The Irish at the time had a bit of a mania for democracy. The GAA is an extremely democtratic organisation. Don't know much about the Gaelic league but I'm guessing the same. Internally, the IRA was too with units choosing officers and AGMs at which every unit was represented to discuss policy. The legitimate government of the day were the ones who subverted democtratic rule by letting themselves be swayed by the Army in the Curragh mutiny or the UVF in the north.

Jackie laughlin

I assure you I wasn't thinking about Llloyd George's choice of words, when I was writing. However, I'd have no problem describing them as "murder gangs". It seems accurate rather than British propaganda. "Assassination squads" would do as well. The point is that SF/IRA has a continuous history of assuming in an authoritarian way that it repesents the Irish people. I heard Ruairi O'Bradaigh in interview claim that they represented the Irish people living, dead and yet to come!

The problem with throwing the term "terrorist" about as an insult is that it leaves discussion short of a term to describe clandestine, non-state violence. In conversation I've had to say, "OK, let's call them X! Now get on with the discussion."

SF have been fortunate in their opponents as the British could be relied upon to be cruel and incompetent in the face of unpopular violence. The protracted executions in 1916 generated public sympathy and then they locked hundreds of rebels up in mutually supportive company.The British learned nothing, repeating the mistake over and over again for the greater part of a century, turning self-aggrandising, barbarians into folk heroes.

Incidentally, election doesn't make something moral or legitimate. This has arisen in many threads here concerning Haughey, Ferris, Cooper-Flynn, Lawlor etc. etc.

Tankman

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I assure you I wasn't thinking about Llloyd George's choice of words, when I was writing. However, I'd have no problem describing them as "murder gangs". It seems accurate rather than British propaganda. "Assassination squads" would do as well. The point is that SF/IRA has a continuous history of assuming in an authoritarian way that it repesents the Irish people. I heard Ruairi O'Bradaigh in interview claim that they represented the Irish people living, dead and yet to come!

The problem with throwing the term "terrorist" about as an insult is that it leaves discussion short of a term to describe clandestine, non-state violence. In conversation I've had to say, "OK, let's call them X! Now get on with the discussion."

SF have been fortunate in their opponents as the British could be relied upon to be cruel and incompetent in the face of unpopular violence. The protracted executions in 1916 generated public sympathy and then they locked hundreds of rebels up in mutually supportive company.The British learned nothing, repeating the mistake over and over again for the greater part of a century, turning self-aggrandising, barbarians into folk heroes.

Incidentally, election doesn't make something moral or legitimate. This has arisen in many threads here concerning Haughey, Ferris, Cooper-Flynn, Lawlor etc. etc.

well said but comparing haughey to the terrorists in the ira is wrong. it doesnt do you any good only makes you look stupid. in 1919 the british gov was the only governement of ireland. the sf/ira did not have the authority of anyone. the irish people were fooled into believing they deserved independence by a bunch of pschopaths.

eroo

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I assure you I wasn't thinking about Llloyd George's choice of words, when I was writing. However, I'd have no problem describing them as "murder gangs". It seems accurate rather than British propaganda. "Assassination squads" would do as well. The point is that SF/IRA has a continuous history of assuming in an authoritarian way that it repesents the Irish people. I heard Ruairi O'Bradaigh in interview claim that they represented the Irish people living, dead and yet to come!

The problem with throwing the term "terrorist" about as an insult is that it leaves discussion short of a term to describe clandestine, non-state violence. In conversation I've had to say, "OK, let's call them X! Now get on with the discussion."

SF have been fortunate in their opponents as the British could be relied upon to be cruel and incompetent in the face of unpopular violence. The protracted executions in 1916 generated public sympathy and then they locked hundreds of rebels up in mutually supportive company.The British learned nothing, repeating the mistake over and over again for the greater part of a century, turning self-aggrandising, barbarians into folk heroes.

Incidentally, election doesn't make something moral or legitimate. This has arisen in many threads here concerning Haughey, Ferris, Cooper-Flynn, Lawlor etc. etc.

barbarians.the way ye are speaking makes it sound like ye are revisionists who arent thinking of the time of which we are speaking.back then things were much different.we cant understand what it was like;to be under british rule,to have to emigrate for a good future,to be unemployed;and to be ruled by a Conservative Govt who were dire supporters of Unionists.remember Bonar Law's famous speech in which he said he'd support the Unionists resistance to Home Rule,no matter what form this resistance might take.fact is they believed that HR would never be achieved(after it being shelved because of outbreak of WW1) and that now physical force should be used again to try and get independence.sure they didnt have evryones support,but they(SF/IRA) wouldnt have succeeded if they had no support.you are looking at this issue in todays terms,back then political violence was commonplace whereas nowadays it is a rare thing(how many uprisings/rebellions have there been recently?).so by calling IRA/Leaders of Rising 'barbarians,you are also calling the founders of USA,France and many other countries(including Britain) barbarians

eroo

Jackie laughlin

I most certainly didn't liken CJH to the IRA. I listed a number of wrongdoers whose actions remain wrong and their election does not exonerate them.

I would embrace the term revisionist if it means rejecting official state lies and mythmaking.

Of course it is essential to look at the historical context in which events took place. However, it is now commonplace to justify crime by saying that it was acceptable at the time. (Indeed, this is the line taken by those who wish to whitewash child abuse.)

Your description of forced emigration and unemployment reminded me of independent Ireland up to, say, 1970 and again in the 80s.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I assure you I wasn't thinking about Llloyd George's choice of words, when I was writing. However, I'd have no problem describing them as "murder gangs". It seems accurate rather than British propaganda. "Assassination squads" would do as well. The point is that SF/IRA has a continuous history of assuming in an authoritarian way that it repesents the Irish people. I heard Ruairi O'Bradaigh in interview claim that they represented the Irish people living, dead and yet to come!

The problem with throwing the term "terrorist" about as an insult is that it leaves discussion short of a term to describe clandestine, non-state violence. In conversation I've had to say, "OK, let's call them X! Now get on with the discussion."

SF have been fortunate in their opponents as the British could be relied upon to be cruel and incompetent in the face of unpopular violence. The protracted executions in 1916 generated public sympathy and then they locked hundreds of rebels up in mutually supportive company.The British learned nothing, repeating the mistake over and over again for the greater part of a century, turning self-aggrandising, barbarians into folk heroes.

Incidentally, election doesn't make something moral or legitimate. This has arisen in many threads here concerning Haughey, Ferris, Cooper-Flynn, Lawlor etc. etc.

Barbarians eh! Harsh words there, and questionable considering the state the self aggrandizing barbarians were fighting against. (which calls itself 'Great', a pretty pompous act of self aggrandizement itself) But then they won their empire in a fit of absence of mind didn't they?

And why doesn't an election legitimize their actions? I find it ironic that you say elections don't make something moral or legitimate which was an argument used by the anti-treaty side in the civil war. Its strange also that you say this and then castigate SF for being authoritarian.

O'Bradigh and his group have minimal support and are not even in the habit of contesting elections. He is irrelevant and having to resort to mentioning his shows how convoluted and weak your case seems to be.

Jackie laughlin

Laura,
You don't seriously think that I would defend imperialism?

I'm much more concerned about the bahaviour of my fellow Irish.

O'Bradaigh is side-lined now but his was the dominant view for a long time and as far as I can see is still a view held by some. Moreover, for most of its history SF/IRA has boycotted elections.

It is very common to try to dismiss criticism by pointing to the fact of election. I accept that e.g. Beverly Cooper Flynn and Michael Lowry were elected. That indicates that some people approve of their actions but it does't mean that we all have to.

Tankman

imperialism in an irish context was a good thing though. it gave us a great railway system which succesuve and stupid governements destroyed. it also gave dublin impressive archtetecture, like georgian dublin for instance. it gave the land to people who could cultivate it and drove the savages off. it brought civilisation to ireland before that ireland was inhabited by primivite savages with silly superstitious rituals and no good culture. without imperialism we would still be little better than monkeys.

Erin Go Brath

Tankman wrote: »

imperialism in an irish context was a good thing though. it gave us a great railway system which succesuve and stupid governements destroyed. it also gave dublin impressive archtetecture, like georgian dublin for instance. it gave the land to people who could cultivate it and drove the savages off. it brought civilisation to ireland before that ireland was inhabited by primivite savages with silly superstitious rituals and no good culture. without imperialism we would still be little better than monkeys.

Well done on most idiotic post of the year. :rolleyes:

You obviously have little interest in Irelands heritage. Imperialism ruined a lot of our culture and identity. It has been restored somewhat by organisations like the Gaelic league, and Gaelic Athletic Association amongst others.

Why doesn't the whole world come together and become one big bland England! Would that make you happy?

PS. Why don't you go live in England if you think your countrymen are nothing more than monkeys. We don't want to hold you back, the bunch of primitive mucksavages that we are. :rolleyes:

McArmalite

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Well done on most idiotic post of the year. :rolleyes:

You obviously have little interest in Irelands heritage. Imperialism ruined a lot of our culture and identity. It has been restored somewhat by organisations like the Gaelic league, and Gaelic Athletic Association amongst others.

Why doesn't the whole world come together and become one big bland England! Would that make you happy?

PS. Why don't you go live in England if you think your countrymen are nothing more than monkeys. We don't want to hold you back, the bunch of primitive mucksavages that we are. :rolleyes:

I think he's only trying to be funny, just ignore it.

PHB

Tankman wrote: »

it brought civilisation to ireland before that ireland was inhabited by primivite savages with silly superstitious rituals and no good culture.

That post is just utterly lacking in any historical knowledge. If you actual look at the political culture at the time of the English invasion, Ireland compares favourably to most European nations in terms of advancement. That said, don't let facts get in the way

Jackie laughlin

For once I agree with McA. However, I want to make three brief points.

Irish culture - or perhaps more accurately advanced culture in Ireland - goes back millennia. There should be no question of an Irish person feeling anything but priviliged to identify with Ireland.

There was no English invasion.

Irish independence has been doing a pretty good job of re-producing England in Ireland. Take a look inside e.g. the Jervis St. Shopping Centre. Think of our Taoiseach "supporting" Man. U. apparently unaware of two Eircom League teams in his constituency.

conor2007

its better than people who have uda/uvf pics up


i dont use bebo , so dont say **** bout me

jackie lughlin - ''there was no english invasion''

so what were the plantations ?????????????

Erin Go Brath

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Irish culture - or perhaps more accurately advanced culture in Ireland - goes back millennia. There should be no question of an Irish person feeling anything but priviliged to identify with Ireland.

I agree with you, for a change.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

There was no English invasion.

More revisionism.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Irish independence has been doing a pretty good job of re-producing England in Ireland. Take a look inside e.g. the Jervis St. Shopping Centre. Think of our Taoiseach "supporting" Man. U. apparently unaware of two Eircom League teams in his constituency.

TG4, Gaelic Games, Irish music, Irish dancing, Irish films, Irish plays, Irish literature, Irish becoming official language of EU, Irish compulsory in schools. Irish culture is alive and well.

Man U, Liverpool etc have many supporters in Australia, Singapore, China, America just about every country in the world. Its hardly surprising they have supporters in the country next door where fans can travel over a number of times every year to see high profile players and teams.

Jackie laughlin

For the love of God, how could a plantation be confused with an invasion?

Now, you know how I love to be called a revisionist! Yep, I'm doing my bit to counteract the official state myth making and if that's revisionism, that's fine by me. It's long past time the truth were told.

OK, tell me: When did the ENGLISH invade Ireland?

I don't think you quite understand what it means to Support a team.