Bomb in Derry - first since bowing at garden of remberance

gigino

The very sad news is that there was a bomb in Derry. The first since the Queens visit.

As the people who carried it out will simply say they are just the modern day counterparts of those whom the memorial in the garden of remembrance is dedicated to....should the queen have bowed to those who gave their lives in the struggle for Irish freedom, while having nothing to say or about their victims or the hundreds of thousands who endevoured to preserve the governments of the time law and order?

Helix

jesus, the queen was only in the garden of rememberance what, 5 days ago, and you think its notable to have a bomb in derry marked as "the first since..."

tallaghtmick

as it went in keenan and kel.......AWWWWWWWW HERE IT GOES

My name is URL

Because of the actions of a few knuckle dragging scummers, you feel the respect shown by the Queen was unwarranted?

RichieC

tallaghtmick wrote: »

as it went in keenan and kel.......AWWWWWWWW HERE WE GO AGAIN.

Awww here it goes

tallaghtmick

RichieC wrote: »

Awww here it goes

dam you edit time

RichieC

Catch the scum that did it and make them paraplegics. Also, sterilize them to prevent their mental illness being spread to further generations.

RMD

They can claim to be the modern day counter-parts of whoever they want to be, but I will never allow those scumbags the association of those who lost their lives for our independence.

arybvtcw0eolkf

My name is URL wrote: »

Because of the actions of a few knuckle dragging scummers, you feel the respect shown by the Queen was unwarranted?

I think the OP mean's that these scum planting bombs will see the queen's bow as legitimizing (spelling?) their 'cause'?.

If so this the time when we all (Irish men and women) have to stand firm in the face of terror and say "NOT IN MY NAME".

squod

There were no reports of any injuries

Thank God. NW 200 also disrupted.

Biggins

The bombing gobschites didn't hear then, that the world is supposed to end today!
O' well... we know at least that if there is a hell, who will be first to burn in it!

later12

Cristian Calm Net wrote: »

I think the OP mean's that these scum planting bombs will see the queen's bow as legitimizing (spelling?) their 'cause'?.

If so this the time when we all (Irish men and women) have to stand firm in the face of terror and say "NOT IN MY NAME".

I don't think it was the Queen's bow as such, but you're right. Most of the country has just spent almost a week admiring 'gallant Irish soldiers' marching and playing brass bands to honour our very own Glorious Dead.

We have also spoken of heroes who died for Irish independence, all the while apparently blind to the fact that if some of those men were alive today they would have been down on Moorse Street protesting the royal visit, not celebrating the current status. Perhaps this man who planted this bomb was not all that different, in his political outlook, to the IRB of 1916. The whole thing is a little deranged.

pablomakaveli

Cristian Calm Net wrote: »

I think the OP mean's that these scum planting bombs will see the queen's bow as legitimizing (spelling?) their 'cause'?.

If so this the time when we all (Irish men and women) have to stand firm in the face of terror and say "NOT IN MY NAME".

Tbh it often seems like these people don't care what the majority of people think.

sollar

Sounds like they have a plan.... bomb derry and a united ireland is sure to follow :rolleyes:

Daegerty

Plaunt a wee bomb!

marcsignal

Cristian Calm Net wrote: »

If so this the time when we all (Irish men and women) have to stand firm in the face of terror and say "NOT IN MY NAME".

Well said, these complete and utter morons should be completely boxed off, and given no quarter by anyone on this island, north or south, irrespective of creed, class, background or anything else.

fucking retrarded dinosaurs :mad:

Wolfe Tone

Incomprehensible and should be condemned by all.

mgmt

later10 wrote: »

We have also spoken of heroes who died for Irish independence, all the while apparently blind to the fact that if some of those men were alive today they would have been down on Moorse Street protesting the royal visit, not celebrating the current status. Perhaps this man who planted this bomb was not all that different, in his political outlook, to the IRB of 1916. The whole thing is a little deranged.

What???

The men of 1916 stood out onto the GPO and read a signed declaration of independence. Open and transparent and in uniform. Just like what had taken place on the first reading of the US Declaration of Independence in Boston.

The fat scumbag in Derry had to hide behind a mask.

The leaders of the War of Independence were given a mandate to conduct the war against the British from the 1918 general election. The scumbags up North never had a mandate. Not even amongst the nationalist community.

arybvtcw0eolkf

later10 wrote: »

I don't think it was the Queen's bow as search, but you're right. Most of the country has just spent almost a week admiring 'gallant Irish soldiers' marching and playing brass bands to honour our very own Glorious Dead. We have spoken of heroes who died for Irish independence, all the while apparently blind to the fact that if some of those men were alive today they would have been down on Moorse Street protesting the royal visit, not celebrating the current status. The whole thing is a little deranged.

That may well be true, but those men and women are not alive today.

And maybe its time we made peace with ourselves too, and as the queen said 'bow to the past but not be bound to it'.

I asked myself similar questions on a recent visit to Glasnevin cemetery, guys if any of you haven't done this your mad - its a great way to spend a few hours and connect with Irish history.

At the last grave, Michael Collins I asked myself what these men and women would make up of us today and was I betraying their memory in welcoming the queen here - and tbh I'm still searching for the answer, but I can hear it in the back of my mind telling me to let go of the past and move on.

The British haven't got us on our knee's anymore, its not the British establishment we've to stand up to now - we've been brought to our knee's from within, and we'll stay down on our knee's if we don't start standing up for ourselves - to the banks, the developers, government, TERRORISTS - we're a new people now.

The Ireland of old is gone.

And N.I. what is it?.. We've got power sharing, cross border policing, no border crossings/check points (rubbing our noses in it).. Our military serve alongside our British counterparts in The Balkans & Afghanistan.

Apart from a currency we're effectively an Island once again, and thats it - a God damned currency devoids us now!.

Sorry for the little rant.

Oranage2

Terrible sick news really who ever done this is pure scum

Zebra3

mgmt wrote: »

What???

The men of 1916 stood out onto the GPO and read a signed declaration of independence. Open and transparent and in uniform.

However the facts remain that they had no mandate from the people and the people lined up to hurl abuse at them and empty their chamberpots over them after their surrender.

later12

mgmt wrote: »

What???

The men of 1916 stood out onto the GPO and read a signed declaration of independence. Open and transparent and in uniform. Just like what had taken place on the first reading of the US Declaration of Independence in Boston.

The fat scumbag in Derry had to hide behind a mask.

I didn't say they were similar in their methods, I said their political outlook may be similar.

You just know these quasi-IRA/ RIRA types admire Wolfe Tone and O'Leary and Pearse and it is not unreasonable to suggest that they saw the honouring of these men last week as a sort of justification to their cause, which they see themselves as advancing in their own way today.

I don't think that's the driver behind this latest attack necessarily, but I do think it might help legitimise these attacks in the minds of the perpetrators.

mike65

The target for this heroic strike for freedom?

A building society, yep a bank by the people for the people

gigino

Zebra3 wrote: »

However the facts remain that they had no mandate from the people and the people lined up to hurl abuse at them and empty their chamberpots over them after their surrender.

+1. Far more chose to serve in British uniform than to rebel in 1916. According to http://www.waterfordcountymuseum.org/exhibit/web/Display/article/31
for example, "350,000 Irishmen volunteered for service during WW1 in addition to the 50,000 Irishmen already serving in the regular army and reserve at the outbreak of the war. ". How many rebels / terrorists / freedom fighters were there in 1916 ? They had no mandate from the people. Popular opinion omly started growing after the executions etc.

Xivilai

.....

gigino

later10 wrote: »

I don't think that's the driver behind this latest attack necessarily, but I do think it might help legitimise these attacks in the minds of the perpetrators.

unfortunately so. those people who planted the bomb may be hoping in another 90 years people will come and bow at a memorial to them.

I wonder what the 120,000 Irishmen who volunteered to serve with British forces in WW2 would make of it all ? Would they think the Queen should have bowed to those who "gave their lives for Irish Freedom" at the Garden of Remberance, while those 120,000 helped ensure our freedom - and the freedom of others - from Nazism. Do not forget in WW2 DeValera had IRA men die in jail here in Ireland, and now the Queen bows to the IRA ? strange.

Zebra3

gigino wrote: »

+1. Far more chose to serve in British uniform than to rebel in 1916. According to http://www.waterfordcountymuseum.org/exhibit/web/Display/article/31
for example, "350,000 Irishmen volunteered for service during WW1 in addition to the 50,000 Irishmen already serving in the regular army and reserve at the outbreak of the war. ".

But how many fought for the Brits cos they were actaully paying?

sollar

Cristian Calm Net wrote: »

we've been brought to our knee's from within, and we'll stay down on our knee's if we don't start standing up for ourselves - to the banks, the developers, government, TERRORISTS - we're a new people now.

That is a good point. For some reason we don't seem to stand up for ourselves in any meaningful or coherent way. We have seen our economy destroyed and our society damaged by a select few. Yet there has been no protests. I don't understand why.

Look at madrid today. We haven't done anything like that yet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13481592


It would do no harm to really let the dissidents know how we feel also.

Biggins

I completely tired of this ever regurgitated crap of who's right and who's wrong.
Look, both sides are going to have to accept another side will have a different view.

Now (and this is NOT directed at those here on the forum) can we please move the fcuk on and get on with our lives?
Either you condemn the ever continuing bombing or you don't.

If you support the continuation of a bombing campaign - get the fcuk off my island because the vast majority want to get on with their lives and not remain stuck in the past!

I'm bloody sick of this schite.

I'm outa here.

Adamisconfused

later10 wrote: »

I didn't say they were similar in their methods, I said their political outlook may be similar.

You just know these quasi-IRA/ RIRA types admire Wolfe Tone and O'Leary and Pearse and it is not unreasonable to suggest that they saw the honouring of these men last week as a sort of justification to their cause, which they see themselves as advancing in their own way today.

I don't think that's the driver behind this latest attack necessarily, but I do think it might help legitimise these attacks in the minds of the perpetrators.

I would be shocked if even one of them thought that. As far as they are concerned, the thirty two county republic, as declared in 1916, exists to this day and they are the rightful government. They care not a jot what happened this week or what we think of them.

The trap you're falling into is one this country suffered from during the troubles. Out of fear of legitimising physical force republicanism, the establishment tried to distance itself from the past. It canceled 1916 ceremonies, allowed memorials to dead republicans to fall into disrepair. It created a revised history of many of the people and events of the war of independence. In doing so, it allowed one side to claim a section of history as belonging solely to them.

I almost wrote that now is the time to claim it back for us. However, history belongs to no one person or group and the actions of the past should speak for themselves. Our state was founded in a particular way and all the discussion in the world won't change that. In fact, most people now and in 1921 were proud of those who died fighting for Irish freedom. The dissidents can never claim the majority of anyone being proud of them.

gigino

Adamisconfused wrote: »

I would be shocked if even one of them thought that. As far as they are concerned, the thirty two county republic, as declared in 1916, exists to this day and they are the rightful government.

Neither the CIRA or PIRA or INLA or RIRA are the righful government, and in reality the people in those groups knew and know that. They have justified their past action because they see themselves as doing in modern times what the rebel in 1916 did then. Far more chose to serve in British uniform than to rebel in 1916,...and as pointed out already the fact remain that the rebels had no mandate from the people and the people lined up to hurl abuse at them and empty their chamberpots over them after their surrender.
Unfortunately, as someone else said it is not unreasonable to suggest that they saw the honouring of the rebels of 1916 last week as a sort of justification to their cause, which they see themselves as advancing in their own way today.

purplepanda

gigino wrote: »

+1. Far more chose to serve in British uniform than to rebel in 1916. According to http://www.waterfordcountymuseum.org/exhibit/web/Display/article/31
for example, "350,000 Irishmen volunteered for service during WW1 in addition to the 50,000 Irishmen already serving in the regular army and reserve at the outbreak of the war. ". How many rebels / terrorists / freedom fighters were there in 1916 ? They had no mandate from the people. Popular opinion omly started growing after the executions etc.

As per Washington & The American War of Independence which many historians including some Americans suggest was against the majority wish of the population before the conflict.

Zebra3

The reality is that the state and a lot of people see legitimicy in the events of Easter week 1916 by unmandated groups who killed innocent civilians while condemning the modernday actions of unmandated groups who kill innocent civilians.

It's hypocrisy.

Cherrypicking history.

Groups like CIRA and RIRA can simply say that history will absolve them a la the men of '16.

purplepanda

gigino wrote: »

unfortunately so. those people who planted the bomb may be hoping in another 90 years people will come and bow at a memorial to them.

I wonder what the 120,000 Irishmen who volunteered to serve with British forces in WW2 would make of it all ? Would they think the Queen should have bowed to those who "gave their lives for Irish Freedom" at the Garden of Remberance, while those 120,000 helped ensure our freedom - and the freedom of others - from Nazism. Do not forget in WW2 DeValera had IRA men die in jail here in Ireland, and now the Queen bows to the IRA ? strange.

De Valera actually bought the offical English hangman to Dublin to execute IRA men when he eventually became the leader of the Irish Free State that he opposed with the IRA during the civil war.

However the Garden of Rememberance is not dedicated to the various post treaty / civil war / splinter groups of the IRA to my knowledge anyway. According to Wikipedia it is dedicated to those who fought from 1798 - 1921 so that would appear to rule out the Anti Treaty Civil War IRA of which De Valera himself was enlisted in.

Are you sayng that 120,000 Irishmen who fought for Britain in WW2 & others who fought in Allied armies were all opposed the creation of the Irish Free State?

Being a Irish Nationalist was not incompatible with fighting in WW2 because I have known men who did exactly that. Now they are all sadly passed on however.

EDudder

Before I say this I want to make it clear than I am not Pro- the Troubles Era IRA.

However people need to understand the difference between the IRA during the troubles and dissidents now.

I would go as far as saying I could 'sympathise' with how the IRA started in the troubles (not their methods, but the fact that nationalists had a lack of civil rights and were backed into a corner with what felt to many like no other option).

These idiots today are a whole other kettle. Anarchists is the closest way I could describe them. With no mandate and no reason. We have civil rights. There are no jobs with 'catholics need not apply' in the advertisement. Our Irish nationality is accepted and represented. And there is a way in place for a United Ireland should the day come where the PEOPLE decide it's the right time.

later12

Adamisconfused wrote: »

I would be shocked if even one of them thought that.

I would be shocked if people didn't reflect seriously on it.

Robert Emmett's childhood was overshadowed by Wolfe Tone, a frequent visitor to the Emmett house, Robert Emmett in turn became a hero of men like Charles Kickham and John O'Leary who founded the IRB, their brotherhood featured the Fenians that Pearse and his companions admired - The Manchester martyrs and the likes of Michael Barrett. After Pearse you had Collins and deValera, after these dissidents became established you had Adams and McGuinness, who became the most recent link in the chain.

You think these new dissidents don't regard that long history as their own? You think they don't regard the Irish and British people bowing to that history as a reassurance of the worth of the goal that is a united Ireland, a goal for which they feel they have been ordained to execute? I admire your optimism.

Out of fear of legitimising physical force republicanism, the establishment tried to distance itself from the past. It canceled 1916 ceremonies, allowed memorials to dead republicans to fall into disrepair.

Good! Let it fall into disrepair. Let it all come down, I'll drive the wrecking ball - or rather, give that honour to someone who has suffered from the wrecking ball of extreme nationalism.

Honouring these men, in this way, does legitimise physical force republicanism, no matter which way you look at it.

Zebra3

EDudder wrote: »

These idiots today are a whole other kettle. Anarchists is the closest way I could describe them. With no mandate and no reason.

But there was no mandate in '16 or '69.

The 26 counties are actually under occupation by the EU/IMF (not that any republican splinter groups seem to have noticed).

later12

EDudder wrote: »

With no mandate and no reason.

What mandate had the IRB from 1900 - 1916? I don't see how one can simultaneously, as we do, honour John Redmond, Parnell, and PH Pearse.

I`m convinced now that 1916 should not be commemorated
The men of 1916 were as unelected as the British Monarchs
By seeing them as heroes we encourage every nutjob to bomb and kill without a mandate
because they didnt need a mandate in 1916

The war of Independence was AFTER the 1918 elections. The 1918 election is what we should commemorate.

mgmt

Deleted User wrote: »

I`m convinced now that 1916 should not be commemorated
The men of 1916 were as unelected as the British Monarchs
By seeing them as heroes we encourage every nutjob to bomb and kill without a mandate
because they didnt need a mandate in 1916

The war of Independence was AFTER the 1918 elections. The 1918 election is what we should commemorate.

No, 1916 should be celebrated. The people voted for the 1916 Proclamation in the 1918 election. If the people didn't want it, they would have voted for the Irish Parliamentary Party.

oldyouth

Cristian Calm Net wrote: »

If so this the time when we all (Irish men and women) have to stand firm in the face of terror and say "NOT IN MY NAME".

I've 'thanked' this post but sometimes it is not enough. Well said

Zebra3

mgmt wrote: »

No, 1916 should be celebrated. The people voted for the 1916 Proclamation in the 1918 election. If the people didn't want it, they would have voted for the Irish Parliamentary Party.

No, they didn't. They voted for the policies of Sinn Féin as mainly laid out in Arthur Griffith's The Resurrection of Hungary not for the Proclamation of '16.

mgmt

Zebra3 wrote: »

No, they didn't. They voted for the policies of Sinn Féin as mainly laid out in Arthur Griffith's The Resurrection of Hungary not for the Proclamation of '16.

lol

Zebra3

mgmt wrote: »

lol

Way to engage in debate. :rolleyes:

mgmt

Zebra3 wrote: »

No, they didn't. They voted for the policies of Sinn Féin as mainly laid out in Arthur Griffith's The Resurrection of Hungary not for the Proclamation of '16.

That document was from 1904. The Irish Republic was declared in 1916. Sinn Fein had no electoral success until 1918. It doesn't take a genius to work out which the people voted on.

Zebra3

mgmt wrote: »

That document was from 1904. The Irish Republic was declared in 1916. Sinn Fein had no electoral success until 1918. It doesn't take a genius to work out which the people voted on.

It was from 1904, but SF stood in 1918 on the main policy of abstention from Westminster and the creation of an Irish parliament as outlined in TROH not on the 1916 Proclamation which they had nothing to do with.

R P McMurphy

I suppose as a revolutionary group, it might not be advisable to organise and hold a referendum on a rebellion to overthrow an imperial power, element of surprise and all

mgmt

Zebra3 wrote: »

It was from 1904, but SF stood in 1918 on the main policy of abstention from Westminster and the creation of an Irish parliament as outlined in TROH not on the 1916 Proclamation which they had nothing to do with.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0E14FF3A5E11738DDDAE0A94D8415B878DF1D3

spider guardian

gigino wrote: »

Neither the CIRA or PIRA or INLA or RIRA are the righful government, and in reality the people in those groups knew and know that. They have justified their past action because they see themselves as doing in modern times what the rebel in 1916 did then. Far more chose to serve in British uniform than to rebel in 1916,...and as pointed out already the fact remain that the rebels had no mandate from the people and the people lined up to hurl abuse at them and empty their chamberpots over them after their surrender.
Unfortunately, as someone else said it is not unreasonable to suggest that they saw the honouring of the rebels of 1916 last week as a sort of justification to their cause, which they see themselves as advancing in their own way today.

You keep posting this over and over, as if the whole population of Dublin lined up to empty their chamber pots and what have you over the rebels. Those who were angry with the rebels did not have ownership over the question of whether they were right or wrong. There was plenty of sympathy for the rebels, not just in Dublin but across the entire country. The rising instilled the notion in people that political agitation would not be enough to drive the British out of Ireland and physical force would be required.

True that more Irish men served for the British Army than fought in the rising, but the British had encouraged Irish men to serve on the basis that home-rule would be forthcoming. So how many Irish men had really joined to obtain Irish freedom? The IRB was a secret organisation, had more known about it's activities it's possible men would have joined it instead of the British Army, and took the opportunity to fight for more freedom than what was on offer.

Your attempt to discredit the rising by linking it to the activities of modern-day idiots is absurd. You are looking at the past through the prism of the present. Rebellions by their very nature don't require popular mandates, even so the leaders of the rising had their justification from centuries of British sectarianism and misrule. They were brave men who fought out in the open, knowing that their sacrifice would inspire further action against the British. For that they should be commemorated.

gigino

spider guardian wrote: »

You keep posting this over and over, as if the whole population of Dublin lined up to empty their chamber pots and what have you over the rebels.

Wrong, I only posted about the chamber pots once. However, may I add the people of Dublin jeered - and some spat - at the rebels of 1916 after they surrendered.
Not surprising I suppose as Dublin was one of the main cities of the empire and many of the men from Dublin were engaged in the war effort against the Germans at the time. Dublin was badly damaged by the rising.

After the executions of course public sympathy swung more towards the rebels. The republican propaganda machine has ensured in most of our schools we were taught about the "heroes" of 1916 and had their posters on our walls. However, as someone else correctly said "By seeing the rebels of 1916 as heroes we encourage every nutjob to bomb and kill without a mandate".

spider guardian wrote: »

True that more Irish men served for the British Army than fought in the rising, but the British had encouraged Irish men to serve on the basis that home-rule would be forthcoming. So how many Irish men had really joined to obtain Irish freedom?

More than a few Irish men who joined did not want home rule....for example some had ties to Britain and understood the economic, cultural and social benefits that union with Britain brought. Yes some joined thinking it may lead to home rule, but there were many reasons for joining.

spider guardian

gigino wrote: »

Wrong, I only posted about the chamber pots once. However, may I add the people of Dublin jeered - and some spat - at the rebels of 1916 after they surrendered.

Some people jeered at the rebels, not all did.

gigino wrote: »

Not surprising I suppose as Dublin was one of the main cities of the empire and many of the men from Dublin were engaged in the war effort against the Germans at the time. Dublin was badly damaged by the rising.

True, but perhaps the anger of those who jeered was misplaced? Some of the Irish who served for the British were fighting for the same thing as the rebels.

gigino wrote: »

After the executions of course public sympathy swung more towards the rebels. The republican propaganda machine has ensured in most of our schools we were taught about the "heroes" of 1916 and had their posters on our walls. However, as someone else correctly said "By seeing the rebels of 1916 as heroes we encourage every nutjob to bomb and kill without a mandate".

I'm not sure about this republican propaganda machine, there had been a lot of revisionism in years gone by. There were no posters of the rising leaders in my school, we were simply taught about what happened and that was it. A lot of the recent commemoration of the leaders has been by the governments of the day, not just hardline republicans.

I don't agree that seeing the leaders of the rising as heroes is a bad thing because it encourages nutjobs, these fools will use whatever justification they can to continue with their "campaign". If that were the case we would have to start suppressing a lot of Irish history.