So, after 30 years of armed insurgency...

Tommy T

The Provisional Movement signed an agreement not only accepting but agreeing to administer British rule on the island of Ireland on Good friday 1998.

Personally, as a Republican(Fianna Fail) myself, I was delighted to see that day come after so much bloodshed and mayhem for all concerned in the conflict.

But my question is how do those who supported the Provisionals(SF/IRA) throughout the last 30 years reconcile their struggle to end foreign occupation and in the end signing an agreement copperfastening that same occupation...?

Hagar

I'd imagine the same way Fianna Fáil did.

Tommy T

Hagar wrote: »

I'd imagine the same way Fianna Fáil did.

But Fianna Fail didn't exist at the time of the Treaty. It was founded in 1926...

Hagar

FF was formed in 1926 so although technically the party didn't exist the people who founded it and their ideals did.

Tommy T

Hagar wrote: »

FF was formed in 1926 so although technically the party didn't exist the people who founded it and their ideals did.

True. In fact there was the minor matter of a Civil War if I'm not mistaken.

However after the GFA the Armani clad Republicans were more than happy to take up their roles as servants on the Brisitsh establishment...

Hagar

Didn't FF win the '32 Election and work as "servants of the British Establishment"?

Tommy T

Hagar wrote: »

Didn't FF win the '32 Election and work as "servants of the British Establishment"?

A decade after the Civil War, which was fought over the Treaty with the British, Fianna Fail did win an election.

Its a bit of a difference to the GFA situation I think you will agree...

RedPlanet

Actually it's worse isn't it?
Fianna Fail members would sign an Oath of Alligence to the Queen of England.
Sinn Fein doesn't do that up north.

Mick86

Tommy T wrote: »

A decade after the Civil War, which was fought over the Treaty with the British, Fianna Fail did win an election.

Its a bit of a difference to the GFA situation I think you will agree...

Not really. De Valera (amongst others) started a Civil War over an Oath of Allegaiance that he later called an empty formula. Incidentally he took the oath himself in 1927. 4 years after his Civil War.

Tommy T

Back to the GFA...

Fratton Fred

Not personally being an Irish Republican I can't speak personally, but I would imagine it is the best of a bad situation.

Catholic imancipation appears to be pretty much done so the IRA's role of defending the Catholic community is no longer required. An armed struggle is never going to work with regards to ending British rule, so the only way Ireland will be united is through politics and diplomacy. Yesterday saw a DUP minister attend a GAA match, would this have happened if there was still bloodshed, I doubt it.

Until there is peace, trust and understanding, there will never be a united Ireland. I presume the provisionals realise that and have adopted a new approach.

The tactics have, I guess, changed, but the strategy is still the same.

conor2007

dev took the oath = only to dismantle the treaty

ff - eammon o cuiv - basicially saying ireland would be better in the commwealth

anyway - if the people of the north vote to join a united ireland - it happens

Tommy T

Some interesting views there guys but I'm most interested in Provisional(SF/IRA) supporters' views.

What was the violence all about if in the end their leaders agree to administer the foreign occupiers writ after fighting them for so long.

It's hard not to view it as a sellout of their beliefs...

conor2007

well many believe they are sellouts

logical people see that in 5-10 or however soon down the line - catholics will be a majority in the north

therefore will vote for a united ireland

Morlar

Tommy T wrote: »

Some interesting views there guys but I'm most interested in Provisional(SF/IRA) supporters' views.

What was the violence all about if in the end their leaders agree to administer the foreign occupiers writ after fighting them for so long.

It's hard not to view it as a sellout of their beliefs...

I think you are discounting how bad things were, or would have continued to be, for catholics & nationalists had the provisionals not been active throughout the 70's/80's. The institutional discrimination was not being addressed - peaceful civil rights marches provoked a violent response where the loyalist siege mentality was 'if we give them an inch we are lost'. So against that backdrop there was more to it than their ultimate stated goal of an independent united Ireland. imo.

Tommy T

Morlar wrote: »

I think you are discounting how bad things were, or would have continued to be, for catholics & nationalists had the provisionals not been active throughout the 70's/80's. The institutional discrimination was not being addressed - peaceful civil rights marches provoked a violent response where the loyalist siege mentality was 'if we give them an inch we are lost'. So against that backdrop there was more to it than their ultimate stated goal of an independent united Ireland. imo.

That begs the question how did the Birmingham, Guilford, Brighton, Manchester, Enniskillen and Canary Wharf bombs improve the lot of catholics nevermind protect them..?

Tommy T

conor2007 wrote: »

well many believe they are sellouts

logical people see that in 5-10 or however soon down the line - catholics will be a majority in the north

therefore will vote for a united ireland

Thats ignoring the sizeable number of Catholics who'd rather stay in the Union...

Morlar

Tommy T wrote: »

That begs the question how did the Birmingham, Guilford, Brighton, Manchester, Enniskillen and Canary Wharf bombs improve the lot of catholics nevermind protect them..?

If I had said that the birmingham, guildford, manchester eniskillen bombs improved the lot of catholics in Ireland you may get a discussion going there. Seeing as though that is not what I said your on your own with that.

scruff321

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not personally being an Irish Republican I can't speak personally, but I would imagine it is the best of a bad situation.

Catholic imancipation appears to be pretty much done so the IRA's role of defending the Catholic community is no longer required. An armed struggle is never going to work with regards to ending British rule, so the only way Ireland will be united is through politics and diplomacy. Yesterday saw a DUP minister attend a GAA match, would this have happened if there was still bloodshed, I doubt it.

Until there is peace, trust and understanding, there will never be a united Ireland. I presume the provisionals realise that and have adopted a new approach.

The tactics have, I guess, changed, but the strategy is still the same.

i think you've hit the nail on the head,times have changed,peace and recognsialtion are a stronger means of obtaining a united ireland then violance, gerry adams would know that himself all too well,a violant struggle no longer would have any backing now,really hope some day we'll have a united ireland

conor2007

Tommy T wrote: »

Thats ignoring the sizeable number of Catholics who'd rather stay in the Union...

in a state that is economically worse of than the republic ?
wher ethey are discriminated against ?

yes , i forgot those numerous people

Tommy T

Morlar wrote: »

If I had said that the birmingham, guildford, manchester eniskillen bombs improved the lot of catholics in Ireland you may get a discussion going there. Seeing as though that is not what I said your on your own with that.

So the bomb attacks I mentioned did nothing for the plight of catholics...

Tommy T

conor2007 wrote: »

in a state that is economically worse of than the republic ?
wher ethey are discriminated against ?

yes , i forgot those numerous people

In what way are Catholics descriminated against...?

conor2007

you are showing a few bombings that happened after unprovoked attacks on peaceful marchers in their country which was invaded by foregin people

so . . .

and before you say it - no two wrongs do not make a right

conor2007

now?

by the mere fact that they are in a foreign country despite being surrounded by the irish sea - being on the island of ireland and livin in whichever of the siz irish counties

nevermind the numerous ways which led to the founding of the ira (in the context of the north and its current form)

Tommy T

conor2007 wrote: »

you are showing a few bombings that happened after unprovoked attacks on peaceful marchers in their country which was invaded by foregin people

so . . .

and before you say it - no two wrongs do not make a right

So the Canary Wharf bomb was in retalliation for the Civil Rights marches in the late 60's/early 70's...? Kind of a delayed reaction I'd say...:D

conor2007

dissedents
just by the by
how many loyalists groups have disarmed??????????

none

Tommy T

conor2007 wrote: »

now?

by the mere fact that they are in a foreign country despite being surrounded by the irish sea - being on the island of ireland and livin in whichever of the siz irish counties

nevermind the numerous ways which led to the founding of the ira (in the context of the north and its current form)

I ask again. Examples of descrimination against Catholics today... Being administered by a democratic State(Uk) doen't come into that category...

Tommy T

conor2007 wrote: »

dissedents
just by the by
how many loyalists groups have disarmed??????????

none

Dissidents? The Canary Wharf attack was a Provo act...

conor2007

just look at the state of the norths economy
''raped and pillaged'' and ''left for dead'' after its use as shipbuilding burned out like the coal industry
yes its democratic as in it votes - but it has done a lot of wrong

no blacks/dogs/irish ?

taig etc etc - paisley attacking the pope

conor2007

by who

pira ?
cira ?
ira ?
some randomers who got a bit hot headed ?

as i said which is all going off topic - but anyway -

have any loyalist group disbanded? - why not ? crime and attacking catholics like the sixties/seventies onwards (and by there mere presence and claim to the land)

FruitLover

Tommy T wrote: »

But my question is how do those who supported the Provisionals(SF/IRA) throughout the last 30 years reconcile their struggle to end foreign occupation and in the end signing an agreement copperfastening that same occupation...?

Jesus, are people still actually using the word 'occupation' in this context? :rolleyes:

I wonder how many Northern Irish residents consider their country to be host to a 'foreign occupation'..

conor2007

like it or not


it is occupied - troops are out - still occupied

AckwelFoley

Its good that Sinn Fein finally can accept that they are subjects of her royal Majesty.

Peace in Ireland and our fellow neighbours in the UK up North.

[/trolling]

Yea, well i think the Sinn Fein realise that they needed to get that signed if they wanted to get in to power and keep the protectants happy.

Tommy T

conor2007 wrote: »

by who

pira ?
cira ?
ira ?
some randomers who got a bit hot headed ?

as i said which is all going off topic - but anyway -

have any loyalist group disbanded? - why not ? crime and attacking catholics like the sixties/seventies onwards (and by there mere presence and claim to the land)

You're grossly ill-informed dude. None of your posts have any bearing to the reality of the situation...

Tommy T

FruitLover wrote: »

Jesus, are people still actually using the word 'occupation' in this context? :rolleyes:

I wonder how many Northern Irish residents consider their country to be host to a 'foreign occupation'..

I'm not hung up on the word but I'm damn sure Provo Republicans are spoonfed it from birth...

RedPlanet

Well Tommy T, you keep moving the goal posts so it's hard to know what exactly you're looking for.
But perhaps you can tell us all why there is a Equality Commission for Northern Ireland setup after the GFA?
If Catholics (and others) weren't discriminated against by the powers that be, than there surely would be no reason to establish things like that.

Tommy T

RedPlanet wrote: »

Well Tommy T, you keep moving the goal posts so it's hard to know what exactly you're looking for.
But perhaps you can tell us all why there is a Equality Commission for Northern Ireland setup after the GFA?
If Catholics (and others) weren't discriminated against by the powers that be, than there surely would be no reason to establish things like that.

Today, 17th January 2008. Can you give one example of how Catholics as a cohort are descriminated against in the 6 counties. Goalposts firmly in the ground...

Erin Go Brath

Tommy T wrote: »

The Provisional Movement signed an agreement not only accepting but agreeing to administer British rule on the island of Ireland on Good friday 1998.

Personally, as a Republican(Fianna Fail) myself, I was delighted to see that day come after so much bloodshed and mayhem for all concerned in the conflict.

But my question is how do those who supported the Provisionals(SF/IRA) throughout the last 30 years reconcile their struggle to end foreign occupation and in the end signing an agreement copperfastening that same occupation...?

First up its a joke to call FF 'The Republican Party'. They've done f*ck all to try bring about reunification of the country, bar every so often making noises about running candidates in the Six to keep the Republican element within it satisfied that they're going to endeavour to bring back the 4th Green Field. It never happens though! :rolleyes:

The GFA itself, has it good points and bad. The Unionist veto is my major beef with it. However it exists as a compromise by both sides, so working within it to achieve a UI is the best option.

The IRA's actions in the past few decades has been necessary. If they hadn't took the fight to the Brits and their proxy terror gangs in the North then discrimination, gerrymandering etc would probably be as common in 2008as it was in 1968.

Now that the armed struggle is at an end Republicanism is sustaning itself on the hope that a UI will be achieved through peaceful political means within the existing framework, and a changing demographic with Catholics becoming a majority by 2021 approx.

McDaid--1916

Tommy T wrote: »

Today, 17th January 2008. Can you give one example of how Catholics as a cohort are descriminated against in the 6 counties. Goalposts firmly in the ground...

Why today?..
Alot has changed since the war.

Back then the arguements were that catholics were discriminated because of there religion. This was a move by loyalists to try and make this into a religious war which, inturn justifies there sectarian killings. The war was of course a polictical struggle.

conor2007

the reality is that the british should never have been there

sure they ar allowed - once they accept its irish - ireland - the whole island

thats the biggest point

McDaid--1916

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

First up its a joke to call FF 'The Republican Party'. They've done f*ck all to try bring about reunification of the country, bar every so often making noises about running candidates in the Six to keep the Republican element within it satisfied that they're going to endeavour to bring back the 4th Green Field. It never happens though! :rolleyes:

very true

conor2007

when the free state was established

the seanad was established - for protestants
when a catholic got elected to the british government he was allowed to die

democracy - discrimination

conor2007

http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/

i think that shows where and how sinn fein is growing and where it will be in a few years

sdlp and sf compared to dup uup = not that far off each other

Mick86

conor2007 wrote: »

dev took the oath = only to dismantle the treaty

Pity he didn't think of that around the end of 1921.

conor2007 wrote: »

ff - eammon o cuiv - basicially saying ireland would be better in the commwealth

Mr Irish Road Signs. :rolleyes:

conor2007 wrote: »

if the people of the north vote to join a united ireland - it happens

What about ifthe people of the south say they don't want them?

conor2007 wrote: »

logical people see that in 5-10 or however soon down the line - catholics will be a majority in the north

therefore will vote for a united ireland

That's a fair old assumption there. You presume there are no Catholic who are closet Loyalists.

conor2007

there is loyalist catholics - not a huge lot

irish road signs - we are in ireland - duh

dev was not soley responsible for ''civil'' war

the south not wanting them? the dail will decide that - hhm name me one party that would vote against it?

sf - duh , ff - republican appaerently , fg - would anyway but cant afford to loose support

Fratton Fred

conor2007 wrote: »

just look at the state of the norths economy
''raped and pillaged'' and ''left for dead'' after its use as shipbuilding burned out like the coal industry
yes its democratic as in it votes - but it has done a lot of wrong

no blacks/dogs/irish ?

taig etc etc - paisley attacking the pope

You need to take another look at their economy, it is arguably in a better state than the south's.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The IRA's actions in the past few decades has been necessary. If they hadn't took the fight to the Brits and their proxy terror gangs in the North then discrimination, gerrymandering etc would probably be as common in 2008as it was in 1968.

Does that justify indescriminate bombing of civilians? I think it is fair to say that action had to be taken, but I don't see how blowing up a Birmingham pub protects catholics in Belfast.

conor2007 wrote: »

the reality is that the british should never have been there

sure they ar allowed - once they accept its irish - ireland - the whole island

thats the biggest point

No, the reality is that the British are there and as they have been there longer than the concept of an Irish country has been in place. 800 years ago, the English has as much right to Ulster as the Kings of Leinster did and in reality, the English only did what Brian Boru was trying to do.

conor2007 wrote: »

when the free state was established

the seanad was established - for protestants
when a catholic got elected to the british government he was allowed to die

democracy - discrimination

In effect he commited suicide.

Mick86

Morlar wrote: »

I think you are discounting how bad things were, or would have continued to be, for catholics & nationalists had the provisionals not been active throughout the 70's/80's.

You are discounting how many Catholics were murdered by the IRA in the same period. Eventually the Civil Rights Movement would have embarrassed the British government into intervening in the North. Nobody in his right mind could claim that the IRA improved matters for anybody.

conor2007 wrote: »

dissedents
just by the by

The definition of a Dissident Republican is one who got caught.

conor2007 wrote: »

how many loyalists groups have disarmed??????????

none

Loyalists generally concentrate on killing each other so that should bring about the famous Catholic majority a bit quicker.:D

Mick86

conor2007 wrote: »

irish road signs - we are in ireland - duh

Where everybody speaks English duh.

conor2007 wrote: »

dev was not soley responsible for ''civil'' war

He was in my humble opinion.

conor2007 wrote: »

the south not wanting them? the dail will decide that - hhm name me one party that would vote against it?

No the people of the south will decide that. And the decision will be made for economic reasons not for any sentimental attachment to an outdated political dogma.

Morlar

Mick86 wrote: »

Eventually the Civil Rights Movement would have embarrassed the British government into intervening in the North.

The british government did intervene in the north. If your trying to say that the lot of catholics would have improved 'with patience' then your going to have a hard time proving that as its a pure hypothetical. Especially considering the not-exactly-breakneck pace of reforms that had taken place on the part of the loyalist majority toward the nationalist minority since the founding of the statelet.

AckwelFoley

Now that the armed struggle is at an end Republicanism is sustaning itself on the hope that a UI will be achieved through peaceful political means within the existing framework, and a changing demographic with Catholics becoming a majority by 2021 approx

lol, it just shows how little you understnd the political sensativities in the north.

Even if the catholics out numbered the protestants by 3-1, the protestant community would not accept it, nor could you expect them to.

This brain dead of EIRE 32 attitude needs to be, and is forgotten among the vast majority of Irish ppl.

Why do we need a UI? Is some kraut in brussles that will be pullings our strings more as time goes by.

conor2007

no they have no claim on the north
the kings of leinster? - pff - i see you are up on irish history

i speak irish - so you show your close mindedness there

dev wasnt soley responsible - im all for opinion - but your wrong there

dissident is dissident - not one that got caught

innocents ? michael stone?