Bomb in Derry - first since bowing at garden of remberance

RMD

paky wrote: »

theres no difference. war is murder, plain and simple

The 1916 Volunteers occupied various key buildings, knew they had next to no chance of winning and fought a conventional battle in uniform.

The current shower of scumbags plant bombs, runaway and hide all while trying to blend in with civilians. The CIRA, RIRA and a certain contingent of PIRA deserve no association to the volunteers of 1916, they have done nothing to merit it.

gigino

RMD wrote: »

The current shower of scumbags plant bombs, runaway and hide all while trying to blend in with civilians. The CIRA, RIRA and a certain contingent of PIRA deserve no association to the volunteers of 1916, they have done nothing to merit it.

The IRA in early 20th century Ireland prided themselves on having used guerilla warfare. In various parts of the country most of the murders, intimidation etc were carried out by the same means the PIRA used in say the eighties. They should not have used violence either time. If you say it was right for the IRA to shoot civilians or attack an IRA barracks in west Cork in the early 20th century, then that gives credibility in the minds of those who for example, gathered together fully armed with AK47's around a stolen jcb a, loaded a bomb on it, and attacked an unmanned police station in Tyrone in the 80's.

Mint Sauce

Murdering scumbags.

later12

Adamisconfused wrote: »

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.

I do describe the context where necessary, but my point in mentioning Tone, Emmett, O Leary, Barrett, Pearse, DeValera and Adams is to outline the line that these dissidents see as their own pedigree. And perhaps not without reason, for all of these men, at least inititially, set out to bring about an independent island using physical force.

Dont forget that the ballot box was open to a man like Padraig Pearse, or to Eamon DeValera when they partook in the Easter Rising. Neither had ever stood for election at that stage because they did not see any support for the independence movement (according to Griffith himself, the total independence movement did not carry mainstream support) or because they did not wish to engage with British constitutional democracy. Dissident republicans could use the exact same reasoning today as those men who we now honour, Pearse in particular (they would presumably have a lot of disrespect for DeV)

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.

Emmett was one of my childhood heroes and I take my middle name from him, although I came to gain a more rounded view of Emmett after school, I still wouldnt be so rash as to condemn him, as you say he did not have the same democratic rights open to his contemporaries as did, say, PH Pearse, or Gerry Adams

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.

It is quite appropriate that you stopped at 1803. There is not such a stretch between Ireland of 1926 and the Ireland of 1916. By 1916 Irishmen enjoyed accessible local government and municipal authorities, foreign landlords had effectively vanished, and those that remained had been subject to rules that had been more generous than many land laws today. The civil service was made up largelly of Irishmen, as were the RIC and the unarmed Dublin Metropolitan Police (nevertheless shot during the Easter Rising). Irish people in Edwardian times enjoyed a hugely similar level of social mobility as their counterparts in England and Scotland, the penal laws were beyond living memory, as was an established church. Civil freedoms abounded. There were independence movements, such as SF, but they did not enjoy mainstream support apart from having about three local councillors. There is not much of a stretch between that scenario and what we see today in Northern Ireland.

EDudder

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

The only difference between the provisional IRA in the 70's and the IRA back in 1916, is the passing of time and the fact that one group won their war and the other went into ceasefire/peace process. History is written by the winners.

I don't support these dissidents one ounce.

But condemning one group and holding the historical group as heroes is complete fairytale bull****. It's something people tell themselves so that they can take the moral high ground today yet still be proud of their countries history.

K-9

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.

Yeah you can. For loads of reasons. Home Rule denied and denied by a British Government, the democratic choices of a peaceful people who were ignored before, ignored and ignored again, women getting the vote after 1916, young men getting votes.

None of these apply to now and unfortunately they'll never understand the distinction, just as you never will.

EDudder

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah you can. For loads of reasons. Home Rule denied and denied by a British Government, the democratic choices of a peaceful people who were ignored before, ignored and ignored again, women getting the vote after 1916, young men getting votes.

None of these apply to now and unfortunately they'll never understand the distinction, just as you never will.

So what do you think of the IRA during the Troubles?

All these points you just listed off apply to the North during the troubles.

i.e. No home rule, and huge numbers of catholics couldn't vote.

In fact there still isn't home rule in the North. Stormont is a mickey mouse governement. When it comes down to it, any major decision (such as corporation tax) is still made in London.

K-9

EDudder wrote: »

So what do you think of the IRA during the Troubles?

All these points you just listed off apply to the North during the troubles.

i.e. No home rule, and huge numbers of catholics couldn't vote.

In fact there still isn't home rule in the North. Stormont is a mickey mouse governement. When it comes down to it, any major decision (such as corporation tax) is still made in London.

They actually don't.

Nationalists were oppressed, there is no doubt doubt that.

There is also no doubt the democratic majority of Northern Ireland want to remain in Northern Ireland as it currently exists.

If you can't show any signs of acknowledging a morsel of the above, I'm not wasting my time.

later12

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah you can. For loads of reasons. Home Rule denied and denied by a British Government

Home Rule was on the statute books, had been sent up by the King, and from an objective point of view, its postponement was reasonable to expect. I do not know of any credible historian who actually doubts that Home Rule would have materialised after the war as had been promised, do you? I have never seen this suggested in a creditable academic context, have you?

women getting the vote after 1916, young men getting votes.

This was not the reason given for the rising, as we all know, and mirrored the norm at the time. Nothing very different to elsewhere in the UK until its Representation Act of 1918, although in 1916 electoral access was strong in Ireland as well as elsewhere in the UK, even if less so to women.

later12

K-9 wrote: »

They actually don't.

Nationalists were oppressed, there is no doubt doubt that.

When and how?

Considering, particularly, that they sat in local government and ran for parliament (often unsucessfully, particularly the partitionists of Sinn Fein)

EDudder

And the majority of the South wanted to remain part of the Union before the rebellion.

The point I'm making is that this isn't as black and white as we would like to believe.

"they were the goodies back then, but nowadays they're baddies"

The biggest difference is what they acheived. And therefore how they went down in the history books.

K-9

later10 wrote: »

When and how?

Considering, particularly, that they sat in local government and ran for parliament (often unsucessfully, particularly the partitionists of Sinn Fein)

Right before we get dragged into other things, what actually are you saying here?

EDudder

later10 wrote: »

When and how?

Considering, particularly, that they sat in local government and ran for parliament (often unsucessfully, particularly the partitionists of Sinn Fein)

Before the troubles/during.

Large numbers of nationalists could not vote. And the "democratic" process was set up in a way that gave much more power to unionist areas.

The effects of which can still be seen today. The second university going to Coleraine (a small unionist area) despite Derry being the 2nd city and having a plan in place for the university.

If you think nationalists were not oppressed in the North, as recently as 2 decades ago, your dreaming.

K-9

later10 wrote: »

Home Rule was on the statute books, had been sent up by the King, and from an objective point of view, its postponement was reasonable to expect. I do not know of any credible historian who actually doubts that Home Rule would have materialised after the war as had been promised, do you? I have never seen this suggested in a creditable academic context, have you?

Was NI envisaged in that Home Rule Bill? It's the only answer.

later12

K-9 wrote: »

Right before we get dragged into other things, what actually are you saying here?

That Nationalists of the Home Rule variety, and seperatist nationalists of the SF variety, who became more seperatist towards 1910, were not oppressed. How can an ideology which is oppressed be advanced by individuals who quite freely ran for parliament, or local Government.

Saying that nationalists were oppressed when so many of them ran for election, as nationalists, is just absurd.

K-9

later10 wrote: »

That Nationalists of the Home Rule variety, and seperatist nationalists of the SF variety, who became more seperatist towards 1910, were not oppressed. How can an ideology which is oppressed be advanced by individuals who quite freely ran for parliament, or local Government.

Saying that nationalists were oppressed when so many of them ran for election, as nationalists, is just absurd.

Ah right wires crossed, I thought you were talking about NI post 1922!

EDudder

K-9 was referring to the North pre/during the Troubles.

Mix up here

K-9

later10 wrote: »

That Nationalists of the Home Rule variety, and seperatist nationalists of the SF variety, who became more seperatist towards 1910, were not oppressed. How can an ideology which is oppressed be advanced by individuals who quite freely ran for parliament, or local Government.

Saying that nationalists were oppressed when so many of them ran for election, as nationalists, is just absurd.

SF espoused Dual Monarchy.

They ran for election in 1918 on an independence motive and dually set up the first Dail.

Politics changed so much in a 10 year period. It just has. Can you comprehend such a change in a different direction?

yammycat

We celebrate these people every anniversery of 1916, so much hypocrisy

later12

SF had ended its dual monarchy proposals by 1916. By 1910 the movement had been infiltrated by more hardline seperatists and dual monarchy gradually vanished, it was not an issue in 1916 nor for its few local councillors. It was not the dual monarchy that people did not support, they did not support the nationalist seperatist movement at all in any real way. From the period 1880 - 1916 this movement was never electorally popular. Yes it was popular in 1918, but that does not justify what happened two years before in 1916, except in a revisionist way.

K-9

What did it remove the dual monarchy policy for? Home Rule or Independence?

No it does not mean 1916 was universally popular, we al know it wasn't. By 1918 it had become popular and trying to pretend that endless denials of Home Rule did not play a part in that is delusional and pointless.

later12

K-9 wrote: »

What did it remove the dual monarchy policy for? Home Rule or Independence?

Independence. And if anything its popularity waned considerably.

No it does not mean 1916 was universally popular, we al know it wasn't. By 1918 it had become popular and trying to pretend that endless denials of Home Rule did not play a part in that is delusional and pointless.

Nobody is denying that the rising had become popular in hindsight, but the point being made is it had no mandate in 1916. One cannot reasonably provoke violence by justifying it based on future glory - that is exactly what the dissidents are doing today.

Frustration over home rule may well have led to revisionist support of 1916, but so did other factors including the British mishandling of the rebels, warnings of conscription by Sinn Fein campaigners, the church~s opposition to conscription and support for Sinn Fein candidates, and the growing incompetence of the Irish Party.

purplepanda

K-9 wrote: »

Was NI envisaged in that Home Rule Bill? It's the only answer.

Redmonds Nationalists wanted a partitioned Home Rule Parliament that they & their cohorts in the RC Church & AOH could control themselves without interference. So they didn't seriously object when Britain inserted clauses into the Home Rule bills for the Northern counties to opt out.

More principled Nationalists like William O'Brien & the All for Ireland League Party insisted on a 32 county assembly as campaigned for by Parnell & many others for decades before. They were however prepared to compromise to some demands for Ulster Unionist safeguards in the new Irish Parliament.

As soon as Edward Carson & the newly formed Paramilitary Ulster Volunteers threatened sedition & rebelion against the British Government backed by elements of the Tory party & military the chance of a peaceful political solution was potentially lost, confirmed by the formation of the Irish Volunteers, part of which split into the Redmonite National Volunteers thus ensuring even the IPP was prepared to use force to get it's way as well.

At this stage a democratic & peaceful solution seemed perhaps unlikely but still possible until the Great War intervened. Three paramiltary groupings, The British Military, IRB & others like James Connelly's Trades Unionist Citizens Army suggests conflict was however inevitable IMO.

SF adopted a republican policy at the 1917 Ard Fheis around the time of the Longford By Election according to Carlton Youngers Book on Ireland's Civil War. By then the party was of course associated with the Easter Rising.

oldyouth

yammycat wrote: »

We celebrate these people every anniversery of 1916, so much hypocrisy

Not everyone does