The RIRAs legitimacy

paky

If the men of 1916 had a claim to legitimacy in this country and we celebrate that fact every year, doesnt the RIRA and CIRA share that same claim? Im not a supporter of either, I would just like to see your arguments on this matter. Please try to keep it civil.

KeithAFC

No. Different times, different situation.

paky

KeithAFC wrote: »

No. Different times, different situation.

I accept that but they do share the same ideology.

Wolfe Tone

This will be a lovely friendly thread and will end well

Mr.Micro

The RIRA or any other such outfit have no legitimacy other than in their own twisted minds. Many Irish people would love to see a united Ireland where all are happy both north and south but not through violence or intimidation.

questionmark?

paky wrote: »

I accept that but they do share the same ideology.

1916 There was large support through out the country for Independence even though after the rising the people of Dublin where non to impressed with the wide spread destruction of their city. Those that fought ranged from the upper to lower class and in general where respected members of society. Attacks were carried out on British institutions i.e. army, secret service, RIC etc... Many british colonies had or were attempting to gain independence and the Irish of the time were no differant.

2010 RIRA/CIRA plan to blow up banks, kill innocent civilians and target their fellow country men who have chosen to join the the PSNI to try and better their communities. Many if not most of the members are involved in criminality i.e drugs. There is no support for their actions from people north or south of the border wheter they be green or orange due to the pain and suffering endured in years gone by.

Tl;dr They are scum intent on causing misery and suffering and sending the peace process back 30 years.

Wolfe Tone

Many if not most of the members are involved in criminality i.e drugs.

Evidence of this please?
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to have issue with the dissidents, however I do not think this is true at all.

oscarBravo

paky wrote: »

If the men of 1916 had a claim to legitimacy in this country and we celebrate that fact every year, doesnt the RIRA and CIRA share that same claim? Im not a supporter of either, I would just like to see your arguments on this matter. Please try to keep it civil.

I don't accept that the men of 1916 had any legitimacy. They had no mandate whatsoever. They were a tiny minority of a tiny minority, and we shouldn't celebrate their decision to choose violence over peaceful means.

I recognise that I'm largely alone in that view, but the rest of the nation seem comfortable with cognitive dissonance. I don't like doublethink.

questionmark?

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Evidence of this please?
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to have issue with the dissidents, however I do not think this is true at all.

If that is the case can you prove that they are not or would you like to suggest how in fact they are funding their activities? I'm being realistic here, many times it has being mentioned that these groups are involved in criminality whether they be drugs or fuel/cigarette smuggling to fund their activity's.

Wolfe Tone

questionmark? wrote: »

If that is the case can you prove that they are not or would you like to suggest how in fact they are funding their activities? I'm being realistic here, many times it has being mentioned that these groups are involved in criminality whether they be drugs or fuel/cigarette smuggling to fund their activity's.

You should have to produce evidence for your claim tbf. You cant just come on, say anything, then say "prove me wrong".

paky

questionmark? wrote: »

1916 There was large support through out the country for Independence even though after the rising the people of Dublin where non to impressed with the wide spread destruction of their city. Those that fought ranged from the upper to lower class and in general where respected members of society. Attacks were carried out on British institutions i.e. army, secret service, RIC etc... Many british colonies had or were attempting to gain independence and the Irish of the time were no differant.

2010 RIRA/CIRA plan to blow up banks, kill innocent civilians and target their fellow country men who have chosen to join the the PSNI to try and better their communities. Many if not most of the members are involved in criminality i.e drugs. There is no support for their actions from people north or south of the border wheter they be green or orange due to the pain and suffering endured in years gone by.

Tl;dr They are scum intent on causing misery and suffering and sending the peace process back 30 years.

So are you saying that the fact that there support is small doesnt give them any legitimacy?

oscarBravo

paky wrote: »

So are you saying that the fact that there support is small doesnt give them any legitimacy?

Where does legitimacy come from, if not from a popular mandate? Or don't you believe in democracy?

questionmark?

paky wrote: »

So are you saying that the fact that there support is small doesnt give them any legitimacy?

Nope this is what i am saying

"RIRA/CIRA plan to blow up banks, kill innocent civilians and target their fellow country men who have chosen to join the the PSNI to try and better their communities. Many if not most of the members are involved in criminality i.e drugs. There is no support for their actions from people north or south of the border wheter they be green or orange due to the pain and suffering endured in years gone by."

Also how is it legitimate if the people of this Island have voted for the peace process? How is it legitimate to kill innocent civilians?

Do you actually believe it can be compared?

Mr.Micro

paky wrote: »

So are you saying that the fact that there support is small doesnt give them any legitimacy?

Are they a recognized legal political party that have legitimate legal aims where democracy is paramount?.....
thought not.

NSNO

No terrorist group has any legitimacy. With no exceptions. The use of terror or violence is never justified to achieve political goals. Is a line on a map worth even a single human life? Life is far too precious and fragile to be destroyed in the name of petty tribalism.

paky

Are the ones who they oppose not the illigitmate ones? The Northern Ireland Governement and the Irish Government?

oscarBravo

paky wrote: »

Are the ones who they oppose not the illigitmate ones? The Northern Ireland Governement and the Irish Government?

Only in the make-believe Irish republican parallel universe.

NSNO

paky wrote: »

Are the ones who they oppose not the illigitmate ones? The Northern Ireland Governement and the Irish Government?

How could they possibly be illegitimate? Government derives its legitimacy from the democratic will of a society and the active participation of its citizens.

What is illegitimate about them?

paky

oscarBravo wrote: »

Where does legitimacy come from, if not from a popular mandate? Or don't you believe in democracy?

how much backing does an organisation need to have a legitimate mandate?

P. Breathnach

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't accept that the men of 1916 had any legitimacy. They had no mandate whatsoever. They were a tiny minority of a tiny minority, and we shouldn't celebrate their decision to choose violence over peaceful means.

I recognise that I'm largely alone in that view, but the rest of the nation seem comfortable with cognitive dissonance. I don't like doublethink.

Not totally. I'm with you. [Perhaps you would prefer to be alone.]

questionmark?

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You should have to produce evidence for your claim tbf. You cant just come on, say anything, then say "prove me wrong".

All it takes is a search through google and it is easy to see why i have said what i have said. Two examples.

Some quotes from the house of commons website

15. The approaches adopted for paramilitary fund-raising over the years have ranged from the very simple to the very sophisticated, and from the simply criminal to the apparently legitimate. They include:



armed robbery;

• extortion/protection rackets;
• loan sharking;
• drinking clubs;
• gaming machines;
• smuggling of alcohol, tobacco and petrol;
• sale of counterfeit goods including audio and videotapes and CDs;
• the drugs trade (supply and dealing);
• kidnapping; and
• fraud (such as social security fraud and building sub-contractor fraud)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk

• Real IRA tested explosives to extort money, court hears
  
  The Real IRA tested an explosive device at Mount Leinster in Co Carlow for use in extorting money from drug dealers, the Special Criminal Court was told today.
  
  The court heard that two Real IRA active service units in Dublin and Carlow were involved in the extortion of money from drug dealers to raise funds for the organisation and were prepared to use guns and explosives for this.

  http://www.irishrepublican.net/forum/showthread.php?1793-Real-IRA-tested-explosives-to-extort-money-court-hears

Wolfe Tone

questionmark? wrote: »

All it takes is a search through google and it is easy to see why i have said what i have said. Two examples.

Some quotes from the house of commons website

http://www.publications.parliament.uk

• http://www.irishrepublican.net/forum/showthread.php?1793-Real-IRA-tested-explosives-to-extort-money-court-hears

Hardly the most neutral sources are they? The first, or the second. And in the second case a court was "told" that.

I firmly believe that the dissidents are not involved in selling drugs. I think this because currently they seem to be on a mission to gather support by attempting to eliminate drug dealers.

P. Breathnach

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

...
I firmly believe that the dissidents are not involved in selling drugs. I think this because currently they seem to be on a mission to gather support by attempting to eliminate drug dealers.

I have no knowledge of whether RIRA or CIRA members sell drugs. But eliminating drug dealers is not a persuasive indicator, because most elimination of drug dealers is done by other drug dealers.

Wolfe Tone

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have no knowledge of whether RIRA or CIRA members sell drugs. But eliminating drug dealers is not a persuasive indicator, because most elimination of drug dealers is done by other drug dealers.

But they do not do that in order to gather support for a political cause do they?

Yitzhak Rabin

In my mind they are no different.

As oB pointed out, neither had a mandate of the people. Both were fringe elements of a larger cause. Both use terror, targeting of civilians, and unmandated violence to achieve their aim.

I am a patriot and I love this country, but I am ashamed the my country was founded on illegitimate violence. I am ashamed that we celebrate that violence to this day. I would have been much prouder of a non-violent solution. In my mind the true patriots of this country, were the home rulers CS Parnell et al.

I am a member of the Defence Forces and I serve my country with pride, however it galls me to celebrate the 1916 rising as something to be proud of. It is not. It was a renegade action of a fringe terrorist group that lacked the publics backing.

CokaColumbo

The volunteers of 1916 shot dead a number of innocent civilians and unarmed police-men.

The claim that republicans sell drugs to fund their armed campaigns has been made over and over again but never has sufficient evidence been produced to support the claim (except in case of the post-Good Friday Agreement INLA anyway).

I support the peace process and oppose groups like ONH, CIRA and RIRA but the above two facts should be considered before drawing a massive distinction between the men and women of 1916 and the men and women of the RIRA.

I do support the 1916 volunteers though and laud them as the founding patriots of our modern state.

Jeboa Safari

The winners write history, so unless they succeed and get a united Ireland they won't be regarded as legitimate. Don't support them personally and don't think we could afford to take the north back at the moment, but I do think we're becoming more and more integrated, and that the country will probably reunited at some point in the future.

Denerick

paky wrote: »

If the men of 1916 had a claim to legitimacy in this country and we celebrate that fact every year, doesnt the RIRA and CIRA share that same claim? Im not a supporter of either, I would just like to see your arguments on this matter. Please try to keep it civil.

This is precisely the problem and the legacy of blood that men like Pearse have left this nation. Epigrams like 'Ireland unfree shall never be at peace' symbolise what is rotten to the very core with Irish Republicanism; it is an ideology that embraces violence above all other methods to achieve self determination as it implicitly states that if you do not agree with me you deserve to die. Very few ideologies have this as a founding principle, even fascism, yet violent extreme nationalism, a relic from the late 19th and early 20th century still has some traction in Ireland, no matter how bizarre, and how utterly wrong it may be.

The fighting men of 1916 are interesting as an historical curiosity, a mimic of the French republican revolutionary tradition, but it has no legitimacy whatsoever in terms of a democratic mandate. We see this with some Republicans who strive to paint the 1918 general election in a vacuum that precludes all of the local variables as well as external crises such as the conscription crisis. To these people, 1918 was a flat out endorsement of revolutionary seperatism and to attempt to tell them otherwise results in you banging your head against a particularly stubborn brick wall.

Bottle_of_Smoke

They prob do have the same legitamacy as the 1916 men did yes but then the tactics of the 1916 men were far different. Reading newspapers the days after it happened is scarily similar to the articles about the current militant groups. PIRA could prob justify their actions even further given the oppression of nationalists at the time. An opression I believe to be effectively gone now

R P McMurphy

yekahs wrote: »

In my mind they are no different.

As oB pointed out, neither had a mandate of the people. Both were fringe elements of a larger cause. Both use terror, targeting of civilians, and unmandated violence to achieve their aim.

I am a patriot and I love this country, but I am ashamed the my country was founded on illegitimate violence. I am ashamed that we celebrate that violence to this day. I would have been much prouder of a non-violent solution. In my mind the true patriots of this country, were the home rulers CS Parnell et al.

I am a member of the Defence Forces and I serve my country with pride, however it galls me to celebrate the 1916 rising as something to be proud of. It is not. It was a renegade action of a fringe terrorist group that lacked the publics backing.

I have never been able to understand this viewpoint. The country was brutally occupied by a brutal army and yet people who resist are the ones that are thought of as being to blame or in the wrong.

Denerick

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I have never been able to understand this viewpoint. The country was brutally occupied by a brutal army and yet people who resist are the ones that are thought of as being to blame or in the wrong.

What a scarily disproportionate opinion you have of early 20th century Irish history. And don't go on about the Black and Tans, please, 1916 happened well before 1920.

Yitzhak Rabin

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I have never been able to understand this viewpoint. The country was brutally occupied by a brutal army and yet people who resist are the ones that are thought of as being to blame or in the wrong.

What would you say if a fringe rebel group attacked Cork city today, as they felt they were being brutally occupied and suppressed by the Irish army and the Gardaí?

Also, the main point is they didn't have popular support. It may have been different if violence was the last resort, but it wasn't. There was already an admirable, and legitimate home rule movement underway. The heroes of this country for me were, Butt, Parnell, and Redmond, not the rebels.

delta720

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Evidence of this please?
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to have issue with the dissidents, however I do not think this is true at all.

Remember this??

Text of 'real' Irish Republican Army (rIRA) Statement, 20 October 2002
Statement issued by jailed members of the rIRA in Portlaoise prison calling on the Army Council of the organisation to "stand down"

On Friday, September 27, in a written communication to the Army leadership, the (Real) IRA unit in Portlaoise prison took the unprecedented step of calling the Army Council to stand down with ignominy.

We will not demean our struggle or provide succour to our enemies by revealing the comprehensive catalogue of evidence which has exposed this leadership.

However, we do feel duty-bound to state that this Army leadership's financial motivations far outweigh their political commitment to our struggle at this time.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ira/rira201002.htm

R P McMurphy

The history of the British occupation of Ireland was never a pretty one and one that revisionists try to gloss over. An army of occupation is exactlywhat it has always been, was always quite a substantial military infrastructure in this country for our nieghbouring visitors

Denerick

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The history of the British occupation of Ireland was never a pretty one and one that revisionists try to gloss over. An army of occupation is exactlywhat it has always been, was always quite a substantial military infrastructure in this country for our nieghbouring visitors

Please stop communicating in slogans. There is an Irish Republican forum for that.

round tower huntsman

it depends on your point of view. if it was legitimate to take up arms in the name of a 32 county republic in '16 or the 20's or 30's or 40's etc........right up to the 90's then its legitimate now.
if you believe that it was never legitimate then its not legitimate now.
anything else is just tactics and pedendics.

questionmark?

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Hardly the most neutral sources are they? The first, or the second. And in the second case a court was "told" that.

I firmly believe that the dissidents are not involved in selling drugs. I think this because currently they seem to be on a mission to gather support by attempting to eliminate drug dealers.

Can their be a neutral source considering the distinct lack of support for these organizations both here and obviously in the UK. Please dont quote anything Bill Clinton or the UN says.

The section i have highlighted raises the question are they getting rid of the dealers to control it themselves? Why do i say that? Its a bit like the accusations being made that they are trying to get rid of the opposition for the control of providing security at pubs and clubs.

KeithAFC

The RIRA don't have a mandate, no one votes for them. What do they expect to get out of this campaign anyway? Do they expect Unionists to just bend over for them and Surrender? It isn't going to happen.

It didn't happen 30-40 years ago, not going to happen now. The ship is sailing past them.

Yitzhak Rabin

KeithAFC wrote: »

The RIRA don't have a mandate.

and neither did the 1916 rebels.

round tower huntsman

questionmark? wrote: »

Can their be a neutral source considering the distinct lack of support for these organizations both here and obviously in the UK. Please dont quote anything Bill Clinton or the UN says.

The section i have highlighted raises the question are they getting rid of the dealers to control it themselves? Why do i say that? Its a bit like the accusations being made that they are trying to get rid of the opposition for the control of providing security at pubs and clubs.

i've no recollection of any ira member ever being arrested or convicted of a drugs offence. surely it would have been a wet dream for mi5 or special branch to catch a republican dealing drugs but its never happened. even the cleverist professional drug dealers get caught at least once,so why have republicans never been caught? i can only assume that they dont deal drugs.

Nehaxak

KeithAFC wrote: »

The RIRA don't have a mandate, no one votes for them. What do they expect to get out of this campaign anyway? Do they expect Unionists to just bend over for them and Surrender? It isn't going to happen.

It didn't happen 30-40 years ago, not going to happen now. The ship is sailing past them.

<Groan>... Idealist, delusional politics abound still on both sides I see...

Even if the RIRA had a political mandate, would it make any difference in regards whether anyone saw them as legitimate or otherwise ?

A small group of delusional idealists persist in criminal activity even after so much progress and so much has been done by all sides to accommodate each other with the peace process and moving forward to change things in a peaceful manner. I don't care if they are legally, politically or otherwise seen or not as legitimate - the fact remains that the vast majority of right thinking people on this island do not want them to continue their activities.

Denerick

KeithAFC wrote: »

The RIRA don't have a mandate, no one votes for them. What do they expect to get out of this campaign anyway? Do they expect Unionists to just bend over for them and Surrender? It isn't going to happen.

It didn't happen 30-40 years ago, not going to happen now. The ship is sailing past them.

The problem with the Republican movement is that the dissidents and the PIRA essentially share the same ideology, thus making it very difficult for Irish Republicans of a less extreme bent to completely disown them, as to do so would be to denounce their entire world view. This is why we hear so much about 'complexities' and 'grey areas'. Most sane people will automatically reject the idea of a handful of ardent extremists murdering in the name of a people who have explicitly said they wanted no further truck with such madness. It genuinely infuriates me how this neanderthal position is still indulged and humoured by people who really should know better.

Happy Monday

KeithAFC wrote: »

The RIRA don't have a mandate, no one votes for them.

I oppose them.

But they draw their mandate from Pearse's assertion that "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" made in 1915 at O'Donovan Rossa's funeral.

Once the genie was let of that bottle it was hard to put in back in.

Nehaxak

Denerick wrote: »

The problem with the Republican movement is that the dissidents and the PIRA essentially share the same ideology, thus making it very difficult for Irish Republicans of a less extreme bent to completely disown them, as to do so would be to denounce their entire world view. This is why we hear so much about 'complexities' and 'grey areas'. Most sane people will automatically reject the idea of a handful of ardent extremists murdering in the name of a people who have explicitly said they wanted no further truck with such madness. It genuinely infuriates me how this neanderthal position is still indulged and humoured by people who really should know better.

I'm an Irish Republican with strong Irish republican views and I completely disown the RIRA ? Even the mainstream political parties in the Republic claim to be Irish Republicans, so enough of the childish generalisations please.

round tower huntsman

yekahs wrote: »

and neither did the 1916 rebels.

nor the anti treaty ira right up to the provos. gerry adams himself said that the ira gets its mandate from the brit presence in ireland,thats what so funny to hear sinn fein harping on about mandates, they scorned the mention of electoral mandates for yrs....until they had one of course.

KeithAFC

Happy Monday wrote: »

I oppose them.

But they draw their mandate from Pearse's assertion that "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" made in 1915 at O'Donovan Rossa's funeral.

Once the genie was let of that bottle it was hard to put in back in.

If the world was to go along this line, peace would never happen. They simply need to move forward.

All they are doing is planting stupid bombs and hoping for the best, taking money out of the economy and annoying most republican citizens and Unionists.

They don't have a mandate, no one votes for them, they aren't going down the democratic path. Nothing to offer.

Denerick

Nehaxak wrote: »

I'm an Irish Republican with strong Irish republican views and I completely disown the RIRA ? Even the mainstream political parties in the Republic claim to be Irish Republicans, so enough of the childish generalisations please.

The mainstream political parties pay credence to a national myth - essential to any nation state. Every country makes a big deal out of its foundational event, I doubt very many Irish politicians care or think about Easter 1916 other than the occasional crowd pleasing platitudes.

Nehaxak

Denerick wrote: »

The mainstream political parties pay credence to a national myth - essential to any nation state. Every country makes a big deal out of its foundational event, I doubt very many Irish politicians care or think about Easter 1916 other than the occasional crowd pleasing platitudes.

Your opinion anyway, with which you're entitled too. Still does not give you any right to generalise in the way you did as if to suggest all Irish Republicans support the RIRA in some way, just because you say so.

oscarBravo

Happy Monday wrote: »

But they draw their mandate from Pearse's assertion that "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" made in 1915 at O'Donovan Rossa's funeral.

Once the genie was let of that bottle it was hard to put in back in.

Contrary to what some people seem to think, Pearse wasn't reading that assertion from tablets of stone handed directly to him by God Almighty. Has it ever crossed their mind that Pearse might not have been some sort of infallible oracle? That he might have been, y'know, wrong?

KeithAFC

There was a great show on BBC N.I about 20+ minutes ago on Irish history by Tim McGarry.

Einhard

Denerick wrote: »

What a scarily disproportionate opinion you have of early 20th century Irish history. And don't go on about the Black and Tans, please, 1916 happened well before 1920.

I actually share his viewpoint to an extent. People speak of legitimacy, and IMO the only true route to legitimacy is though the ballot box, but how can such a thing be achieved when democratic means are withheld? The Brits were far from the most brutal power of the period, but they were still an occupation power. Their rule was undemocratic in itself. Would you similarly call the Free French undemocratic? I mean, their country might have been occupied by a foreign power, but they had no official, democratic mandate from the people.