A new wave of republican violence

Denerick

Camelot wrote: »

WAR? I ofter find the use of this word in relation to the IRA campaign in the early part of the twentieth century as somewhat misleading. I'm not sure I would call it a 'War', certainly not in the conventional understanding of the term WAR, ie (Two armies, Tank against tank, fighter aircraft, Big guns), etc, etc ......... surely it was more like popping off policemen in rural areas, civil disobedience, ambushing police stations, holding up mail trains, shooting security personnel & that sort of thing. I don't know the full facts, so would anyone like to clarify?

You are mainly right. But I don't think you can condemn young men for using their assets (knowledge of terrain, surprise) against one of the most powerful armies on the face of the earth. I don't condemn the chivalry of the campaign - I condemn the underlying philosophy.

Hugo Drax

Denerick wrote: »

You are mainly right. But I don't think you can condemn young men for using their assets (knowledge of terrain, surprise) against one of the most powerful armies on the face of the earth. I don't condemn the chivalry of the campaign - I condemn the underlying philosophy.

What underlying philosophy??

Ireland had arrived at the point then that the only way to achieve independance was through force.

It was the only game in town.

Hugo Drax

Denerick wrote: »

You are mainly right. But I don't think you can condemn young men for using their assets (knowledge of terrain, surprise) against one of the most powerful armies on the face of the earth. I don't condemn the chivalry of the campaign - I condemn the underlying philosophy.

You know Denerick, I'm assuming you live in Ireland?

If so, I also assume you'll be renouncing your citizenship of this REPUBLIC asap since it was founded on ideology that you plainly despise....

Denerick

Hugo Drax wrote: »

What underlying philosophy??

Ireland had arrived at the point then that the only way to achieve independance was through force.

It was the only game in town.

I don't agree with that. Its unproductive to get into a debate of the causes of the War of Independence - they had the makings of a democratic mandate to launch a war of national independence. They did not in 1969.

And you confuse me, once again. I'm calling the Republicanism of northern Republicans during the Troubles a bastardisation of Classical Republicanism. Lets not go off on any more tangents, please.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

You are mainly right. But I don't think you can condemn young men for using their assets (knowledge of terrain, surprise) against one of the most powerful armies on the face of the earth. I don't condemn the chivalry of the campaign - I condemn the underlying philosophy.

Of Irish national liberation?

So I take it you are a Unionist? Might explain the vitriol like calling Irish Republicans 'fascists', which in a historical context is very fallacious. What political tradition fought in Spain against fascism? Thats right, the ones you label as fascists. Thats simply lazy.

Hugo Drax

Denerick wrote: »

I don't agree with that. Its unproductive to get into a debate of the causes of the War of Independence - they had the makings of a democratic mandate to launch a war of national independence. They did not in 1969

Who's "they"??

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

I don't agree with that. Its unproductive to get into a debate of the causes of the War of Independence - they had the makings of a democratic mandate to launch a war of national independence. They did not in 1969

Which is the crux of the arguement over dissidents. 'They' derive the same legitimacy.

At what point did the Republican mandate (you accept) to liberate Ireland expire? 1921? 1947? 1969? 1998? Never?

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Of Irish national liberation?

So I take it you are a Unionist? Might explain the vitriol like calling Irish Republicans 'fascists', which in a historical context is very fallacious. What political tradition fought in Spain against fascism? Thats right, the ones you label as fascists. Thats simply lazy.

No, no, and no. Tangent city here. I'm talking about Republicanism post 1960s.

P.S- Though we could go into the whole causes of the Civil War, how a tiny elite felt they had the sole right to decide the destiny of the nation etc. etc. But lets not.

Hugo Drax

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Of Irish national liberation?

So I take it you are a Unionist? Might explain the vitriol like calling Irish Republicans 'fascists', which in a historical context is very fallacious. What political tradition fought in Spain against fascism? Thats right, the ones you label as fascists. Thats simply lazy.

It's a typically lazy tactic of the neo-unionist "reform" group to try and smear irish republicans through the last century by attempting to conflate them with fascists.

Cheap smear tactics I'm afraid.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Which is the crux of the arguement over dissidents. They derive the same legitimacy.

At what point did the Republican mandate (you accept) to liberate Ireland expire? 1921? 1947? 1969? 1998? Never?

Legitimicacy is conditional upon the consent of the Irish people. The Irish people revoked the sole right of Republicans to decide the fate of the Irish people in 1922. The semi mystical/religious belief that the 1918 general election is some kind of religious accord with a higher power, that has perpetual existance, is exactly the kind of creepy fascist philosophy I'm complaining about.

Denerick

Hugo Drax wrote: »

It's a typically lazy tactic of the neo-unionist "reform" group to try and smear irish republicans through the last century by attempting to conflate them with fascists.

Cheap smear tactics I'm afraid.

LoL! Says the same man who tries to smear me by associating me with a neo-unionist group! IRONY!

Hugo Drax

Denerick wrote: »

Legitimicacy is conditional upon the consent of the Irish people. The Irish people revoked the sole right of Republicans to decide the fate of the Irish people in 1922. The semi mystical/religious belief that the 1918 general election is some kind of religious accord with a higher power, that has perpetual existance, is exactly the kind of creepy fascist philosophy I'm complaining about.

You obviously don't know anything about the actual definintion of what constitutes fascism beyond what you've read in a Kevin Myers or Ruth Dudley Edwards diatribe...

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

Legitimicacy is conditional upon the consent of the Irish people. The Irish people revoked the sole right of Republicans to decide the fate of the Irish people in 1922. The semi mystical/religious belief that the 1918 general election is some kind of religious accord with a higher power, that has perpetual existance, is exactly the kind of creepy fascist philosophy I'm complaining about.

So you are saying in 1922. Why that specific point in time? You accept they had legitimicy then, why did it stop 4 years later.

And will you give over labelling Irish Republicans as 'fascits'. They are left leaning in general and are the only Irish political tradition who actually stood up against them on principal - with many dying in the process.

getz

Hugo Drax wrote: »

PS, history records the first use of poison gas in Iraq was by the RAF on Iraqi civilians in the 1920s...

Sorry old chap!

is that another republican lie ?history only records that churchill only contemplated the use of poison gas against the kurds,but never did,but poison gas was used in the first world war by all sides,even in the second world war[1940s]those of us who were young children in england were taught to put on gas masks,

Hugo Drax

Denerick wrote: »

LoL! Says the same man who tries to smear me by associating me with a neo-unionist group! IRONY!

I'm not saying you're in the "reform" group, probably not as there's only 3 or 4 of them.

But i am saying you seem to be parroting verbatim the sort of revisionist clap trap they peddle....

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

LoL! Says the same man who tries to smear me by associating me with a neo-unionist group! IRONY!

To be fair, the only other people who I have heard or read attempt to label Republicans as fascits are in or around that group....

Hugo Drax

getz wrote: »

is that another republican lie ?history only records that churchill only contemplated the use of poison gas against the kurds,but never did,but poison gas was used in the first world war by all sides,even in the second world war[1940s]those of us who were young children in england were taught to put on gas masks,

Is it really so hard to believe the English were murdering people with poison gas 20 years before the Nazis?

Of course they wouldn't so something like that would they

Winston Churchill:"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."[1]

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So you are saying in 1922. Why that specific point in time? You accept they had legitimicy then, why did it stop 4 years later.

The Irish people accepted the Treaty settlement in 1922 and 1923 at the ballot box.

And will you give over labelling Irish Republicans as 'fascits'. They are left leaning in general and are the only Irish political tradition who actually stood up against them on principal - with many dying in the process.

Thats lazy. I define fascism as a small elite superseding the wishes of the majority because they believe themselves to adhere to an ideology which is ranked by 'purity'. A rather pedestrian definition I'll admit, but I think I'll hang on to it. It ruffles feathers if nothing else.

Hugo Drax

Denerick wrote: »

The Irish people accepted the Treaty settlement in 1922 and 1923 at the ballot box.



Thats lazy. I define fascism as a small elite superseding the wishes of the majority because they believe themselves to adhere to an ideology which is ranked by 'purity'. A rather pedestrian definition I'll admit, but I think I'll hang on to it. It ruffles feathers if nothing else.

Name me one instance of an Irish republican spouting on about "purity".

Denerick

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Name me one instance of an Irish republican spouting on about "purity".

Every single Republican who opposed the Treaty in 1922 went on to claim that every single Republican who accepted it, was no longer a Republican. They had renounced their claim to that mantle because they were impure, because they were willing to compromise, because they were willing to make peace.

And I could probably give you 10,000 examples of Republicans in pubs arguing about who has the biggest cock. (A metaphor)

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

The Irish people accepted the Treaty settlement in 1922 and 1923 at the ballot box.

And the Irish political elite were openly discussing how to reclaim the 6 counties. But regardless, you have a date where the legitimacy ended, others have a different one. So ideologically, you are only splitting hairs with the dissidents.

Denerick wrote: »

Thats lazy. I define fascism as a small elite superseding the wishes of the majority because they believe themselves to adhere to an ideology which is ranked by 'purity'. A rather pedestrian definition I'll admit, but I think I'll hang on to it. It ruffles feathers if nothing else.

By that definition FF are fascists....

Is pedestrian your word for plain wrong? But at least you acknowledge that your use of the word is lazy and done to provoke.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

Every single Republican who opposed the Treaty in 1922 went on to claim that every single Republican who accepted it, was no longer a Republican. They had renounced their claim to that mantle because they were impure, because they were willing to compromise, because they were willing to make peace.

But thats not fascism. Thats comrades falling out.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

By that definition FF are fascists....

Is pedestrian your word for plain wrong? But at least you acknowledge that your use of the word is lazy and done to provoke.

Of course, even the most irritating an delusional modern dissident is not technically a 'fascist' (As in they don't believe in the institution of a corporate state etc. etc.) But it does contain very specific fascist ideas. Namely that small elites have the right to decide the fates of millions, based on their perceived ideological superiority and purity.

McNulty32

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But thats not fascism. Thats comrades falling out.

I woudnt engage in an argument with this person, he/she has no understanding of Irish history, nevermind republicanism.

McNulty32

Denerick wrote: »

Of course, even the most irritating an delusional modern dissident is not technically a 'fascist' (As in they don't believe in the institution of a corporate state etc. etc.) But it does contain very specific fascist ideas. Namely that small elites have the right to decide the fates of millions, based on their perceived ideological superiority and purity.

Please give even the minutest example of how republicans hold a sense of 'preceived ideological superiority and purity'???

Your attempts to link republicanism to the links of those in Nazi Germany is laughable to be frank, republicans are more akin to those in Cuba and South America that abhor the notion of fascism and strive for all manners of liberation

Republicanism is the very opposite of fascism.

getz

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Is it really so hard to believe the English were murdering people with poison gas 20 years before the Nazis?

Of course they wouldn't so something like that would they

Winston Churchill:"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."[1]

i know what he said,now show me any proof it was used

moonpurple

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Name me one instance of an Irish republican spouting on about "purity".

take a look at the statue in fairview park, Mr. russell, one of a few irish chaps who was backing the triumph of a thousand year reich of the aryan white northern europeans ubermensh (higher people) who would be served by the untermensh (underlings)

the rira and ira are fascists, violent closed communites not tolerating dissent

the only difference between them and the crime gangs of limerick is location

Dannyboy83

McNulty32, any chance you will answer my question for me?
The Fourth time in this thread now.

1.Is Gerry Adams a legitimate target & what would be your reaction to his assassination by dissident republicans?

2. Can you clarify the legitimate targets of which you spoke earlier.
Does it include the PSNI?
Does it include Sinn Fein?

getz

McNulty32 wrote: »

Please give even the minutest example of how republicans hold a sense of 'preceived ideological superiority and purity'???

Your attempts to link republicanism to the links of those in Nazi Germany is laughable to be frank, republicans are more akin to those in Cuba and South America that abhor the notion of fascism and strive for all manners of liberation

Republicanism is the very opposite of fascism.

during the last war republicans were trained and armed by nazi germany,one german sub was sunk off the west coast of ireland delivering arms to the IRA

trapsagenius

Look, I am a Republican,I fully acknowledge the many, many wrongs Britain did to us over the years and I accept that violence is sometimes necessary, but the RIRA are completely in the wrong .The people of the North approved the GFA, they are war-weary and there is no appetite for a return to the Troubles up there.The fact that the RIRA have no possibility of military success is lost on them.Just wait.We will have a united Ireland eventually.Violence now on from Republicans will only serve to alienate the unionist community when we should be trying to show them they have nothing to fear from Republicans.