Bomb in Derry - first since bowing at garden of remberance

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.

gigino

spider guardian wrote: »

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".

You cannot say it was right to be terrorists without a mandate in 1916 and then its wrong to be terrorists without a mandate in 1975 or 2011.

Like it or not, the RIRA and CIRA and PIRA see / saw themselves as the continuation of the rebels of 1916. Thats the danger / monster republican indoctrination produced.

Nodin

gigino wrote: »

.........
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.

Yes, the privilege of having some of the worst slums in Europe, the joy of being able to go work for the Empire and shoot dark skinned folk who cheekily wanted to rule themselves....

Liam Byrne

gigino wrote: »

You cannot say it was right to be terrorists without a mandate in 1916 and then its wrong to be terrorists without a mandate in 1975 or 2011.

Like it or not, the RIRA and CIRA and PIRA see / saw themselves as the continuation of the rebels of 1916. Thats the danger / monster republican indoctrination produced.

Minor flaw in that argument : a democratic vote where the both the country and the North got to decide.

spider guardian

gigino wrote: »

You cannot say it was right to be terrorists without a mandate in 1916 and then its wrong to be terrorists without a mandate in 1975 or 2011.

Like it or not, the RIRA and CIRA and PIRA see / saw themselves as the continuation of the rebels of 1916. Thats the danger / monster republican indoctrination produced.

I am not saying anything of the sort. The 1916 Rising was an armed insurrection, not a terrorist campaign. The volunteers stood and fought out in the open, they didn't leave sneaky bombs around the city.

paky

spider guardian wrote: »

I am not saying anything of the sort. The 1916 Rising was an armed insurrection, not a terrorist campaign. The volunteers stood and fought out in the open, they didn't leave sneaky bombs around the city.

theres no difference. war is murder, plain and simple

spider guardian

paky wrote: »

theres no difference. war is murder, plain and simple

It ain't that plain and simple. As reprehensible as both may be there is a distinction to be drawn between the two. Otherwise there is no such thing as war or no such thing as terrorism.

UDAWINNER

paky wrote: »

theres no difference. war is murder, plain and simple

Hope you would agree that the British commited murders too a bloody sunday, dublin and monaghan, etc

paky

spider guardian wrote: »

It ain't that plain and simple. As reprehensible as both may be there is a distinction to be drawn between the two. Otherwise there is no such thing as war or no such thing as terrorism.

theres no such thing as terrorism. im afraid it is that plain and simple.

spider guardian

paky wrote: »

theres no such thing as terrorism. im afraid it is that plain and simple.

I can see this leading down the road of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". No point getting too deep into one them arguments, it never ends.

Adamisconfused

later10 wrote: »

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 refuse to put any of that into context whatsoever. You'll compare Adams to de Valera while ignoring the fact that Sinn Féin stood in the 1918 election and won 73 of 105 seats. It was no secret who he was, nor the many other republicans recently released from internment. It's quite clear these men were not merely seeking Home Rule.
You'll also condemn Emmett for being undemocratic in a time long before the British allowed all Irish or even their own subjects a vote. Sixty five years later and huge reform still meant that only one in three men could vote. Forget women having a voice.
You ignore the sheer bribery involved in the dictatorial Acts of Union 1800 which pulled Ireland into the UK. You won't pause for a second to contemplate the possibility of resistance to a foreign crown, being imposed at the tip of a bayonet, being necessary in order to give universal suffrage to a people without a voice.
I don't intend to suggest all revolutions happened for the same reason. That would be far too simplistic, but if one is to compare the struggle of the United Irishmen to the RIRA then they must be placed completely into their own context. A ridiculous comparison otherwise.


[QUOTE=later10;7234272
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.
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. [/QUOTE]

I didn't say that the dissidents didn't claim them. I was trying to imply that it didn't matter who they claimed. They could compare themselves to Mohandas Gandhi, but it doesn't mean there are any similarities.
Ireland of 1641, 1798 and 1803 are most definitely not the same as Ireland 2011. We can do something now that could not be done then. We can support or reject the use of violence through the ballot box. Dissidents are well and truly rejected.