Are the ideals of the RIRA the same as those of the men of 1916?

b12mearse

Which much publicity of dissident republicans today and there attempts at destroying the Peace Process it makes me wonder are the ideals of these men the same as the ideals of the men who declared independence in 1916?

P. Breathnach

That invites the question: what were the ideals of the men of 1916?

Sand

Yeah, Id say theyre pretty similar. I think all those saluting the men of 1916 would tend to nod respectfully in the direction of the RIRA. Not that theyd agree with everything they do - they're mad bastards dem boys - but their hearts in the right place.

starbelgrade

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That invites the question: what were the ideals of the men of 1916?

Quite. I wonder if the RIRA would ever consider appointing a Prussian prince to the Irish throne?

starbelgrade

Sand wrote: »

I think all those saluting the men of 1916 would tend to nod respectfully in the direction of the RIRA.

I would beg to differ.

thebman

Irish society has changed a lot since we got independence, if they saw modern Ireland they'd probably consider us sell outs because things change.

It is pretty much irrelevant what the people that fought for our independence would think of the country at the moment as they aren't here and they came from a different time with different ideals.

I think they'd have a lot of the same ideas as the RIRA have today.

bobbyjoe

No

anonymous_joe

Probably a little too close for comfort in some cases.

Most of us don't give a lot of thought to what the lads in 1916 wanted. The Rising was very unpopular for good reason.

Irish nationalism is a good thing in my mind, but it has a nasty side. A successful 1916 would potentially have led to a 32 county socialist country. Many would rather have been ruled by a free-market country than that.

mike65

Is the context the same as 1916?

blinding

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That invites the question: what were the ideals of the men of 1916?

They certainly would shoot the goverment and the bankers that have put this country into a depression.

Its surprising that todays dissidents don't look to that ideal.

coldwood92

[quote=Are the ideals of the RIRA the same as those of the men of 1916? ?[/quote]

yes but in more deadly way eg bombing downing street

imme

Sand wrote: »

Yeah, Id say theyre pretty similar. I think all those saluting the men of 1916 would tend to nod respectfully in the direction of the RIRA. Not that theyd agree with everything they do - they're mad bastards dem boys - but their hearts in the right place.

:eek:
they've no right to kill people for their ideals, imo.
the people who took part in 1916 were a wide-collective, socialists, anti-imperialists, nationalists.

Mr.Blue

Yes. Their aims are no different really. And at the time the men of 1916 were looked upon with just as much disdain as modern republicans (let alone militarily active ones).

Although now I must brace myself as unfortunately an irishman can't even make such a comparison without getting a barrage of abuse by fellow irishmen.

DoireNod

mike65 wrote: »

Is the context the same as 1916?

What was the context of 1916?

imme wrote: »

:eek:
they've no right to kill people for their ideals, imo.
the people who took part in 1916 were a wide-collective, socialists, anti-imperialists, nationalists.

Who does have a right to kill people for their 'ideals'? I'd say the people that are in the RIRA or support them are probably a wide-collective too, what's your point?

Basically, the RIRA are the same as those who conspired and took part in the 1916 rebellion. The labels of terrorist are applied by the government that is threatened. I mean, everything the rebels did was illegal and by modern definitions, for example, George Washington and the lads who founded America are terrorists, whereas almost everything Hitler did in his rise to power was technically legal.

bleg

Does it matter? Times change. If something was relevant in 1916 doesn't mean it's relevant today. Nationalist ideals included.

imme

DoireNod wrote: »

Who does have a right to kill people for their 'ideals'? I'd say the people that are in the RIRA or support them are probably a wide-collective too, what's your point?

the RIRA obviously think they do.

I don't believe the RIRA are from a wide-collective, I believe they're from a uniform class of society.

DoireNod

imme wrote: »

the RIRA obviously think they do.

I don't believe the RIRA are from a wide-collective, I believe they're from a uniform class of society.

The rebels of 1916 thought they had the right to kill for their ideals too. They asserted that thought in the proclamation and their actions. I see no difference there.

Why don't you believe the RIRA come from a wide-collective? What uniform class of society do you believe they come from?

Happy Monday

Mr.Blue wrote: »

Yes. Their aims are no different really. And at the time the men of 1916 were looked upon with just as much disdain as modern republicans (let alone militarily active ones).

Although now I must brace myself as unfortunately an irishman can't even make such a comparison without getting a barrage of abuse by fellow irishmen.

Absolutely correct.

People are fed a distilled version of 1916 today - that daring Irish republicans wishing to throw off the shackles of an oppressed historic people put their lives on the line.

No - a small group of dissidents - just like the RIRA - were unwilling to accept the expressed wish of the Irish people and saw violence as the only way to push forward their position.

The RIRA has more members than James Connolly's ICA I would imagine.

DoireNod

bleg wrote: »

Does it matter? Times change. If something was relevant in 1916 doesn't mean it's relevant today. Nationalist ideals included.

Was armed rebellion 'relevant' and appropriate in 1916?

imme

DoireNod wrote: »

The rebels of 1916 thought they had the right to kill for their ideals too. They asserted that thought in the proclamation and their actions. I see no difference there.

Why don't you believe the RIRA come from a wide-collective? What uniform class of society do you believe they come from?

the RIRA trace their 'legitimacy' back to the Proclamation of Independence , things have changed so much since then. The provisional government that the Proclamation announced has been superseded.

I believe the RIRA is make up of a very small number of people from working class areas in some Irish cities.

DoireNod

imme wrote: »

the RIRA trace their 'legitimacy' back to the Proclamation of Independence , things have changed so much since then. The provisional government that the Proclamation announced has been superseded.

I believe the RIRA is make up of a very small number of people from working class areas in some Irish cities.

Things have obviously changed since 1916, but the fact remains that part of Ireland is still under British rule. To them, that's reason enough, as it was for the rebels of 1916.

Who knows what the makeup of the RIRA is? There's every possibility that it has a broad range of characters from all social classes in its ranks. The rebels of 1916 had a lot of working class in the ranks too.

Happy Monday

imme wrote: »

I believe the RIRA is make up of a very small number of people from working class areas in some Irish cities.

Like James Connolly's Irish Citzen army - a couple of hundred dispossessed layabouts from Dublin's inner city.

imme

Happy Monday wrote: »

Like James Connolly's Irish Citzen army - a couple of hundred dispossessed layabouts from Dublin's inner city.

the Citizen Army was formed by 'Big' Jim Larkin. It had in it's membership Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, a noted pacifist. The Irish Citizen Army developed as a result of the Lock Out, so yes it would have included a lot of unemployed or 'layabouts' as you refer to them as.

daithicarr

well the period of the men of 1916 was a lot different, then the english refused and then dragged their feet over even limited independance, now they declare they will support the democratic wishs of the people, if northern ireland wishs to vote itself out of the union it will do so.

The RIRA are going to achieve nothing towards this aim, if anything it will push unionists more fimrly against the idea and there for prolonge the arrival of a period where the democratic will for a united ireland on a cross comunity basis could be found.

Whats the point having a united ireland with a large hostile protestant popualtion who will just do the same as the RIRA.

Also connoly and all the other men of 1916 didnt go around kneecapping people and intimidating them, unless i am hugely mistaken

imme

DoireNod wrote: »

Things have obviously changed since 1916, but the fact remains (1) that part of Ireland is still under British rule. To them, that's reason enough, as it was for the rebels of 1916.

(2) Who knows what the makeup of the RIRA is? There's every possibility that it has a broad range of characters from all social classes in its ranks. The rebels of 1916 had a lot of working class in the ranks too.

(1) So you don't accept the Good Friday Agreement, the Stormont Assembly, the Oireachtas.
(2) I'd imagine the Gardai and the PSNI know the makeup of the RIRA, and are keeping their eye on them.

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

Things have obviously changed since 1916, but the fact remains that part of Ireland is still under British rule. To them, that's reason enough, as it was for the rebels of 1916.

There's one notable difference, though. In 1916, Irish people hadn't been asked what they wanted, in 2009, they have.

So the fact that the RIRA are going against the expressed will of the people is even more obvious.

There is the valid argument that if the people of the island hadn't had to factor in a call to stop the madness and violence, that they wouldn't have accepted the GFA as emphatically, but then if the IRA & RIRA hadn't indiscriminately killed civilians, then that wouldn't have been a factor, so that's their own doing.

DoireNod

imme wrote: »

(1) So you don't accept the Good Friday Agreement, the Stormont Assembly, the Oireachtas.

Dear lord, you're jumping to conclusions aren't you? Part of the island of Ireland is still under British rule. Fact.

(2) I'd imagine the Gardai and the PSNI know the makeup of the RIRA, and are keeping their eye on them.

If they know, why don't they sort them out? I mean, if they were keeping their eyes on them, there would be no bombs in the cars of family members of those cops and there would have been no killing of solidiers and cops. Truth is, not many people really know. The possibility remains that there could be people from all social classes in the RIRA.

mega man

Ther RIRA share the same ideals as those who fought in 1916. They are probably the only legitimate descendants, if you would like, of the men who fought in the 1916 rising.

Happy Monday

imme wrote: »

the Citizen Army was formed by 'Big' Jim Larkin. It had in it's membership Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, a noted pacifist. The Irish Citizen Army developed as a result of the Lock Out, so yes it would have included a lot of unemployed or 'layabouts' as you refer to them as.

Larkin left for the US in 1914 - Connolly took over and changed the focus of the organisation away from trade union activity to violent revolutionary activity.

Point is - they took part in 1916 - were working class - numbered 200/300 - believed in violence to secure Irish indepedence on their own terms - very similar in make up and belief to the Real IRA.

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There's one notable difference, though. In 1916, Irish people hadn't been asked what they wanted, in 2009, they have.

True, but isn't that what the RIRA were formed out of? Rejection of the GFA? Those in the RIRA, like the rebels did, don't like the status quo and act against it.

There is the valid argument that if the people of the island hadn't had to factor in a call to stop the madness and violence, that they wouldn't have accepted the GFA as emphatically, but then if the IRA & RIRA hadn't indiscriminately killed civilians, then that wouldn't have been a factor, so that's their own doing.

There were civilians killed (indiscriminately in some cases) on both sides throughout the Troubles, but there was still a fair bit of support for the likes of the IRA through the 70s and 80s. The political climate certainly began to change in the 90s though.

imme

DoireNod wrote: »

Dear lord, you're jumping to conclusions aren't you? Part of the island of Ireland is still under British rule. Fact. (1)

If they know, why don't they sort them out? I mean, if they were keeping their eyes on them, there would be no bombs in the cars of family members of those cops and there would have been no killing of solidiers and cops. Truth is, not many people really know. The possibility remains that there could be people from all social classes in the RIRA.

(1) OK apologies for accusing you of not accepting The Good Friday Agreement, the Stormont Assembly, the Oireachtas.
Another fact would be that anyone who supports the RIRA cannot accept any of the above institutions/agreements.

(2) I believe the Gardai and the PSNI are monitoring the RIRA, as should be the case, they against the authority of the state, they are trying to act outside the law. Security commentators in the media regularly suggest that the RIRA is composed of less than 300 people.

imme

Happy Monday wrote: »

Point is - they took part in 1916 - were working class - numbered 200/300 - believed in violence to secure Irish indepedence on their own terms - very similar in make up and belief to the Real IRA.

Oh, did the ICA plant a bomb in Omagh as well.

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

True, but isn't that what the RIRA were formed out of? Rejection of the GFA? Those in the RIRA, like the rebels did, don't like the status quo and act against it.

My point was that there wasn't an all-island vote on 1916, so therefore it could be argued that those involved back then had more of a "mandate", or at least didn't have a categorical opposition to the mandate.

Mike 1972

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That invites the question: what were the ideals of the men of 1916?

Or did all the men (not to mention the women) have exactly the same ideals ?

Or how much had they survived would they have adopted and compromised on those ideals over the years that followed and how relevent are they in todays world ?

Or are/were (some/all of) these ideals even correct and if so was the manner in which they chose to pursue them (both morally and tactically) also correct. ?

DoireNod wrote: »

whereas everything Hitler did in his rise to power was technically legal.

1) /Goodwin
2) Munich Putsch anyone ?

RiverWilde

What is it in Irish psyche that allows groups of murdering bastards like the RIRA to gain support?

These anti-democratic, murdering thugs should be rounded up, prosecuted and thrown in gaol!

Riv

DoireNod

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Munich Putsch anyone ?

Almost everything then - edited accordingly. I'm a pedant myself, so I'll let you have this one!

EDIT: You're not having it.

RiverWilde wrote: »

What is it in Irish psyche that allows groups of murdering bastards like the RIRA to gain support?

These anti-democratic, murdering thugs should be rounded up, prosecuted and thrown in gaol!

Riv

See, this is the thing. The question is are the ideals the same, which they pretty much are. The rebels or 'murdering bastards' of 1916 were rounded up, prosecuted and executed.

DoireNod

Mike 1972 wrote: »

1) /Goodwin

Godwin, even?

So? The point I make is completely valid.

And, even so, it could be argued that the Munich Putsch wasn't a part of his rise to power.

daithicarr

The people in 1916 were not involved in crime and intimidation on a massive scale like the RIRA thugs

DoireNod

daithicarr wrote: »

The people in 1916 were not involved in crime and intimidation on a massive scale like the RIRA thugs

They were criminals though and the question is whether they share ideals.

Nodin

DoireNod wrote: »

They were criminals though and the question is whether they share ideals.

British rule had no legitamacy, therefore they can hardly be termed thus.


Didn't we have this thread before.......?

DoireNod

Nodin wrote: »

British rule had no legitamacy, therefore they can hardly be termed thus.


Didn't we have this thread before.......?

They were tried and executed as criminals though.

starbelgrade

Liam Byrne wrote: »

those involved back then had more of a "mandate", or at least didn't have a categorical opposition to the mandate.

Not strictly true.

RiverWilde

DoireNod wrote: »

See, this is the thing. The question is are the ideals the same, which they pretty much are. The rebels or 'murdering bastards' of 1916 were rounded up, prosecuted and executed.

Well that's where the govt. erred. The 1916 rebels should not have been executed. Prior to their execution, the general populace was against the rising. After their execution, they were turned into martrys; the rest is history. How does that phrase go? Using a cannon to kill a fly?

Riv

Happy Monday

RiverWilde wrote: »

Well that's where the govt. erred. The 1916 rebels should not have been executed. Prior to their execution, the general populace was against the rising. After their execution, they were turned into martrys; the rest is history. How does that phrase go? Using a cannon to kill a fly?

Riv

They should have let them go - the local population would have done the rest. There was a lot of anger as Dublin - the 2nd city of empire - had been destroyed and young Dublin boys had been gassed to death earlier that month on the Western front.

DoireNod

RiverWilde wrote: »

Well that's where the govt. erred. The 1916 rebels should not have been executed. Prior to their execution, the general populace was against the rising. After their execution, they were turned into martrys; the rest is history. How does that phrase go? Using a cannon to kill a fly?

Riv

So, you think they should not necessarily have been executed, but that they should have been prosecuted and imprisoned?

RiverWilde

DoireNod wrote: »

So, you think they should not necessarily have been executed, but that they should have been prosecuted and imprisoned?

Yes. They committed acts of terrorism against the state. Executing them just gave their actions legitimacy. They should have been thrown in prison or shipped off to the front.

Riv

DoireNod

RiverWilde wrote: »

Yes. They committed acts of terrorism against the state. Executing them just gave their actions legitimacy. They should have been thrown in prison or shipped off to the front.

Riv

So the Irish people and government annually commemorate terrorists and terrorism?

RiverWilde

DoireNod wrote: »

So the Irish people and government annually commemorate terrorists?

Yes, they were terrorists. Europe was in the middle of a bloody awful war. Men from Ireland and all over the empire were fighting and dying on various front lines and while all that was going on a bunch of 'nationalists' decided to take over the GPO and murder a whole lot of people in the name of 'freedom.'

What did it get us? An island ultimately divided into two jurisdictions, years of bloodshed and hatred and Irish society went back into the dark ages thanks to the State and the RC church.

Oh yes and a constitution that's so rigid the govt. cannot enact balanced legislation because we have to have a referendum on anything important.

Riv

gurramok

RiverWilde wrote: »

Yes, they were terrorists. Europe was in the middle of a bloody awful war. Men from Ireland and all over the empire were fighting and dying on various front lines and while all that was going on a bunch of 'nationalists' decided to take over the GPO and murder a whole lot of people in the name of 'freedom.'

What did it get us? An island ultimately divided into two jurisdictions, years of bloodshed and hatred and Irish society went back into the dark ages thanks to the State and the RC church.

Oh yes and a constitution that's so rigid the govt. cannot enact balanced legislation because we have to have a referendum on anything important.

Riv

Crazy stuff, we can't let Irish people have a say in the affairs of their own homeland.:rolleyes::D

Nodin

gurramok wrote: »

Crazy stuff, we can't let Irish people have a say in the affairs of their own homeland.:rolleyes::D

jaysus no......shower of spud eatin savages....I hear they don't even wash properly...have to ring a priest beforehand or something.....

gurramok

Nodin wrote: »

jaysus no......shower of spud eatin savages....I hear they don't even wash properly...have to ring a priest beforehand or something.....

Bunch of servants and peasants. They need a master in a far away land to make decisions for them.:p