Martin McGuinness attacks IRA imposters

Wolfe Tone

Sinn Féin leader Martin McGuinness has hit out at dissident republicans, labelling them “imposters” for using the name of the IRA.


Mr McGuinness made the remark as he gave the Eamonn Lafferty Memorial Lecture in the Creggan Sports Hall on Thursday night to mark the 40th anniversary of the IRA man’s death.

The Sinn Féin MP said IRA volunteers like Eamonn Lafferty were an inspiration to a new generation of republicans and continue to inspire today.

“It was partition, injustice, and unionist domination that compelled people like myself and Eamonn Lafferty to join the ranks of Óglaigh na h’Éireann. It was not for romantic reasons nor was it done on a whim. When Eamonn decided to join the IRA it was obvious that a whole new generation of republicans was coming forward and that life would never be the same again.

“I am proud to have known him as a volunteer. I’m proud of all the men and women volunteers from this city. There have been attempts by the British media and by our opponents, not all of them British, to present the IRA campaign as a terrorist campaign. Nothing could be further from the truth. The war in this city was between the IRA and the British army. Probably unlike anywhere else in the North, the demarkation lines were very clear in Derry,” he said.

Mr McGuinness contrasted the actions of the IRA in the past with dissident republicans today. “46 IRA volunteers gave their lives in this city since the war began. That has probably been the most remarkable period this city has ever seen in terms of resistance to foreign rule.

“All were young people. All a credit to their families and to republicanism. I am very proud that they were part of us. Every meeting we go into today and in everything we do they are with us.

“We were all part of the one organisation; the IRA. We see others strutting about today who are imposters, They are not fit to lace the boots of people like Eamonn Lafferty and James O’Hagan. They are trying to turn back the clock,” he said.

In a direct message to dissident republicans, Mr McGuinness said; “When you gather at the Cuchulain monument in the City Cemetery with a handful of supporters just remember that the people commemorated there were not part of your organisation.” The Sinn Féin leader also said he believes the IRA made the right decision to pursue its objectives by entirely peaceful and democratic means. “When the British conceded they could not defeat the IRA that posed a very difficult question for us, could the IRA defeat the British army? I have no doubt that if the IRA had not called a caesefire in 1994 would be fighting now and for ever but I would have been a very poor leader of Irish republicanism if it continued and more young people went to their deaths.

“We opted for a different approach; to put it up to the unionists and the British and Irish governments. That strategy brought the British to the negotiating table. It was the right thing to do. I am proud that we took the right approach. The IRA make their own democratic decision and they supported the strategy. Its not always easy but at the next election it’s almost certain that Sinn Féin will be the largest nationalist party in Derry. It’s been a long time coming but it can be achieved,” he said.

I have to say, I agree 100% with Marty here.

The so called "dissident" republicans are trying a tactic which if it reaches the heights of the past, a very unlikely scenario as it has marginal support among republicans, never mind the Irish people, its' inevitable conclusion is the same as what the provos achieved, the negotiation table.

Actions such as those which occurred today, throwing a bomb into a Newry bank will not bring about a united Ireland. Had the IRA continued fighting, things today would be the same as they were then, a stalemate with neither side capable of winning and a never ending cycle of death and suffering on all sides.

It took a lot of courage and soul searching on the part of men like Gerry Adams and MMG, not to mention the IRA army council which had the ultimate say, to opt for a democratic route in two separate states despite the illegitimacy of that division and the Unionist veto, a course which required vast compromise and pragmatism with regard to traditional republican principals. Engaging in Stormont and backing the PSNI, not because of any impartiality, but in the name of progress, where both massive deviations from tradition and bitter pills to swallow, but these men have prevented any significant split in the republican movement. Many here are quick to bash both SF and the IRA and are very quick to forget how much these men and women have compromised in an effort to bring about peace and an agreed Ireland.

Marty, the IRA and Sinn Féin have acknowledged that armed struggle, a necessity at one time in my opinion, has taken us as far as it can. It is high time that the so called IRAs wake up and see that not only does their strategy have little chance of bringing about a united Ireland, the provos could only bring the Brits to a stalemate, their campaign is pitiful in comparison, it is actively working against that just conclusion of the ongoing republican struggle. In abandoning their fruitless armed campaign it would free up SF to tackle many of the problems they highlight, unfair prisoner licensing procedures, PSNI harassment etc etc, issues which they cannot tackle with great gusto, but do so in a reserved fashion, out of reluctance to be portrayed as allies with those who continue to promulgate armed campaign, something which stands in the way of the way which a united Ireland will come about, something Marty (I have been very impressed with him in recent weeks and months) touches on here;

Martin McGuinness and the new Republican Vision
Sinn Féin leader Martin McGuinness said the entire Irish society and politics must change to convince unionists of the benefits of “a new republic.”

Mr McGuinness made the comments last night when he delivered the Eamonn Lafferty Memorial Lecture in the Creggan Sports Hall on the 40th anniversary of the IRA man’s death.

It was one of a number of events organised to mark the anniversary and followed a wreath laying ceremony in Kildrum Gardens yesterday afternoon at the site where the Creggan man was fatally wounded in a gun battle with British soldiers in August 1971.

Speaking in Creggan last night, Mr McGuinness said; “I believe that it is generally accepted that if we are to map our way towards Irish unity we need to do so in a manner that is both economically attractive and politically sensitive to those unionists who fear change will disadvantage them. We must change our politics, our economy and our whole society for the better. But we can’t do that without examining a fundamental issue – the way we govern ourselves. At present, Ireland has two states, North and South, and three governments in Dublin, Belfast and London.”

The Deputy First Minister also said economic arguments must be used. “I think that it is presently recognised across the political and economic spectrum that the way forward out of our current economic morass is through integrated economic structures for the island. We cannot expect to reach our full economic potential by maintaining two economic and political structures for a population of 6 million people.

“All the people who share this island would benefit from the creation of a vibrant, dynamic all-Ireland economy based on democratic control over Irish monetary and fiscal policies, an equitable and progressive tax regime, a harmonised vat, income tax and corporation tax and all-Ireland regulation of public and private sector business to ensure protection of the economic interests of the people of Ireland

“I have no doubt that by presenting the argument for Irish Unity in these non-threatening terms which will have a beneficial impact on peoples’ daily lives it will help convince a majority of those in the north of the benefits of Irish political as well as economic unity.”

lugha

Not sure what this thread is supposed to be about WT. It seems to just another of your “hoorah for Marty and the RA” propaganda ones.

But let me say: I can feel “Marty’s” frustration. It can be very infuriating when a relatively small bunch wilfully ignore the Irish people and decide that they know better than us when it comes to addressing the national question. But what can you do?

Wolfe Tone

lugha wrote: »

Not sure what this thread is supposed to be about WT. It seems to just another of your “hoorah for Marty and the RA” propaganda ones.

But let me say: I can feel “Marty’s” frustration. It can be very infuriating when a relatively small bunch wilfully ignore the Irish people and decide that they know better than us when it comes to addressing the national question. But what can you do?

Its about MMGs thoughts on the dissidents, I gave my opinion on the topic, what do you think of Martins assessment of the dissidents and his vision for bringing about a united Ireland in contrast to the non existent, imo, plan the dissidents have?

I should probably have put that in the OP somewhere.

Monty Burnz

lugha wrote: »

But let me say: I can feel “Marty’s” frustration. It can be very infuriating when a relatively small bunch wilfully ignore the Irish people and decide that they know better than us when it comes to addressing the national question. But what can you do?

It should be pointed out that we have about 25 years more experience of this particular frustration than Marty does.

Alopex

Sinn Fein are in no position to moralise about the other IRAs. They could have called off the campaign long before they did.

Dissidents realise the GFA will never lead to a united Ireland. They're pissed off they were sucked into a pointless war by people like commander McGuinness.

The ROI have overwhelmingly rejected Sinn Fein in every election. The clowns think they're doing great with less than 10% of the dail. That shows you where they're at.

So what hope is there northern Protestants will ever embrace them? no matter what they do they will always be terrorists to us. Yet the Belfast agreement requires us to vote for a united Ireland. The state was partitioned to guarantee a unionist majority so that seems somewhat unlikely:cool:

That's how dissidents see it. Sinn Fein led them down the garden path with a united ireland promise for peace. Its been dawning on them the last few years it was a calculated deception. These attacks are more about revenge on Sinn Fein than the Irish cause

getzls

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I have to say, I agree 100% with Marty here.

Actions such as those which occurred today, throwing a bomb into a Newry bank will not bring about a united Ireland. QUOTE]

The IRA also knew blowing up innocent civillians etc would not bring about an united ireland but they still did it. Well they did realise that long before they stopped.Marty and a lot off them just liked the kill fest. Esp Prods.

cyberhog

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I have to say, I agree 100% with Marty here.

So now u believe the dissidents are imposters?

A short while ago you were telling us that they were genuine republicans.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I see little need for using "republicans" I really despise the "No I am a real republican!" crap that gets trotted out, they are republicans, no point denying it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73500045&postcount=7


As for the OP I think Marty is a bit slow off the mark. Gerry Adams already dismissed the idea that dissidents are true republicans.

They are unrepresentative of the community and do not define republicanism. They claim to be republican but their actions are anti-republican and against peace.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/04/05/00016.asp

lugha

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What do you think of Martins assessment of the dissidents and his vision for bringing about a united Ireland in contrast to the non existent, imo, plan the dissidents have?

TBH I'm not sure he is saying anything very new here. He talks about persuading the unionists of the merits of a united Ireland. That simply will never happen. They will not be persuaded anymore than nationalists would be persuaded that we should all throw out lot in with Britain. And it doesn't matter how good a move it might be. Nationalism (orange or green) can be a rather irrational master.

So how will a UI come about? Well, as established by the Good Friday Agreement, when a majority of citizens of NI want it (which is to say, a long time from now, if ever). In a sense, GFA was a bit of a non-event in this respect. Given that NI has no great riches and indeed is a considerable drain on the British exchequer, there was never any real prospect of it remaining a British jurisdiction if the people there (i.e. a majority) opted for something else. I can certainly see how dissidents might feel that nothing was conceded by GFA (in terms of bringing a UI closer) which they did not already have.

Zubeneschamali

I wonder what Martin McGuinness's Official IRA comrades said about him when he left and joined the Provisional IRA.

FUNKY LOVER

Aye yes marty you have every right to question peoples motives in trying to achieve a united ireland,pot kettle black?

Anyone in any doubt about this man just google J118.

EDIT-ill help with it

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Is_Martin_McGuinness_a_British_Agent

Wolfe Tone

cyberhog wrote: »

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I have to say, I agree 100% with Marty here.

So now u believe the dissidents are imposters?

A short while ago you were telling us that they were genuine republicans.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I see little need for using "republicans" I really despise the "No I am a real republican!" crap that gets trotted out, they are republicans, no point denying it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73500045&postcount=7


As for the OP I think Marty is a bit slow off the mark. Gerry Adams already dismissed the idea that dissidents are true republicans.

They are unrepresentative of the community and do not define republicanism. They claim to be republican but their actions are anti-republican and against peace.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/04/05/00016.asp

Of course they are republicans, you need to read what I wrote again...

Sunnyisland

lugha wrote: »

Not sure what this thread is supposed to be about WT. It seems to just another of your “hoorah for Marty and the RA” propaganda ones.

But let me say: I can feel “Marty’s” frustration. It can be very infuriating when a relatively small bunch wilfully ignore the Irish people and decide that they know better than us when it comes to addressing the national question. But what can you do?

Seems to me your condemning our 1916 leaders ?

anymore

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I have to say, I agree 100% with Marty here.

The so called "dissident" republicans are trying a tactic which if it reaches the heights of the past, a very unlikely scenario as it has marginal support among republicans, never mind the Irish people, its' inevitable conclusion is the same as what the provos achieved, the negotiation table.

Actions such as those which occurred today, throwing a bomb into a Newry bank will not bring about a united Ireland. Had the IRA continued fighting, things today would be the same as they were then, a stalemate with neither side capable of winning and a never ending cycle of death and suffering on all sides.

It took a lot of courage and soul searching on the part of men like Gerry Adams and MMG, not to mention the IRA army council which had the ultimate say, to opt for a democratic route in two separate states despite the illegitimacy of that division and the Unionist veto, a course which required vast compromise and pragmatism with regard to traditional republican principals. Engaging in Stormont and backing the PSNI, not because of any impartiality, but in the name of progress, where both massive deviations from tradition and bitter pills to swallow, but these men have prevented any significant split in the republican movement. Many here are quick to bash both SF and the IRA and are very quick to forget how much these men and women have compromised in an effort to bring about peace and an agreed Ireland.

Marty, the IRA and Sinn Féin have acknowledged that armed struggle, a necessity at one time in my opinion, has taken us as far as it can. It is high time that the so called IRAs wake up and see that not only does their strategy have little chance of bringing about a united Ireland, the provos could only bring the Brits to a stalemate, their campaign is pitiful in comparison, it is actively working against that just conclusion of the ongoing republican struggle. In abandoning their fruitless armed campaign it would free up SF to tackle many of the problems they highlight, unfair prisoner licensing procedures, PSNI harassment etc etc, issues which they cannot tackle with great gusto, but do so in a reserved fashion, out of reluctance to be portrayed as allies with those who continue to promulgate armed campaign, something which stands in the way of the way which a united Ireland will come about, something Marty (I have been very impressed with him in recent weeks and months) touches on here;

If 1916 was the mpotivation for McGuinness and Adams. then McGuinness and Adams are the motivation for today's Real IRA - he may not like it, but that is how life works.

who the fug

Can somebody change the name of the thread to PIRA imposters, which is what Martin is talking about

Sunnyisland

anymore wrote: »

If 1916 was the motivation for McGuinness and Adams. then McGuinness and Adams are the motivation for today's Real IRA - he may not like it, but that is how life works.

The motivation for militant republicans is getting our country united in ways that most of us don't like it, but that's how life works and the only way Brittain seems to listen.

Fratton Fred

realies wrote: »

The motivation for militant republicans is getting our country united in ways that most of us don't like it, but that's how life works and the only way Brittain seems to listen.

The future of Northern Ireland has **** all to do with Britain. The only people who can decide their future are the people of NI.

What dissidents are trying to do is circumvent democracy.

lugha

realies wrote: »

Seems to me your condemning our 1916 leaders ?

Well I had PIRA more in mind. But true, the 1916 lot were guilty of the same thing and are quite possibly responsible for "inspiring" the modern lot to ape them.

And they were not "our" leaders.

Sunnyisland

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The future of Northern Ireland has **** all to do with Britain. The only people who can decide their future are the people of NI.

What dissidents are trying to do is circumvent democracy.

You try and explain that to a few people here.

sarumite

realies wrote: »

Seems to me your condemning our 1916 leaders ?

I disagree. Support for PIRA can be assessed at the ballot box, whereas there was no ballot box in 1916 Ireland. As such it is impossible to know what the people of Ireland wanted in 1916 as they were never asked nor given choices. At worst, you could argue that the leaders of 1916 were presumptous.

anymore

realies wrote: »

The motivation for militant republicans is getting our country united in ways that most of us don't like it, but that's how life works and the only way Brittain seems to listen.

I can remember the outbreak of violence in the North - Adams , McGuinness and Co have emerged to be part of the British elite - yes they have irish passports etc but in reality they are simply part of the most massive quango in Europe entirely subsidised by english taxpayers - they are now more dependent on England than they ever were before.
As for the rest of Ireland, well the 26 counties is divided into the Public sector and the elite of the private sector and then you have the rest of us. 1916 has been entirely undone - Pearse might as jsut as well have kept writing maudlin poetry.

Chuck Stone

Wasn't John Hume espousing, long ago, that it would be all Island trade which would ultimately delegitamize the border?

At risk of coming across as facetiousis, imo, a considerable section of the Unionist community would become socialists if they seen all island trade as eroding their.. erm... Unionism.

I can't remember what Unionist politician it was who having been interviewed on the success of the Ireland rugby team could only retch out that some day he'd like to see an 'independant' NI rugby team.

I'd invision Unionists living in little paranoid cantons 300 years from now with their UDAesque militias still waiting for the hordes of papists to invade from a long since moved on secular Ireland.

irishh_bob

Alopex wrote: »

Sinn Fein are in no position to moralise about the other IRAs. They could have called off the campaign long before they did.

Dissidents realise the GFA will never lead to a united Ireland. They're pissed off they were sucked into a pointless war by people like commander McGuinness.

The ROI have overwhelmingly rejected Sinn Fein in every election. The clowns think they're doing great with less than 10% of the dail. That shows you where they're at.

So what hope is there northern Protestants will ever embrace them? no matter what they do they will always be terrorists to us. Yet the Belfast agreement requires us to vote for a united Ireland. The state was partitioned to guarantee a unionist majority so that seems somewhat unlikely:cool:

That's how dissidents see it. Sinn Fein led them down the garden path with a united ireland promise for peace. Its been dawning on them the last few years it was a calculated deception. These attacks are more about revenge on Sinn Fein than the Irish cause

so is the sinn fein leadership in danger

steddyeddy

In fairness martin please everyone here. If he doesnt condem them he would be criticised, if he ignored them he would be criticised and when he does condenm them hes in the wrong too aparantly.

I think he was right to condenm the violence. Its at a stage now were talking has already made a massive difference to all that was wrong in northern ireland. I dont care who criticises the violence either. If the head of the uvf criticsed the murder of catholics that would be valid too. Its time to look to the future.

anymore

It just occurs to me that the Provos aren't actually the Real IRA either; the Provos were just in McGuinnes's words imposter's who set up thier own renegade terrorist group. So he is on very very shaky ground here.

The Waltzing Consumer

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Wasn't John Hume espousing, long ago, that it would be all Island trade which would ultimately delegitamize the border?

At risk of coming across as facetiousis, imo, a considerable section of the Unionist community would become socialists if they seen all island trade as eroding their.. erm... Unionism.

I can't remember what Unionist politician it was who having been interviewed on the success of the Ireland rugby team could only retch out that some day he'd like to see an 'independant' NI rugby team.

I'd invision Unionists living in little paranoid cantons 300 years from now with their UDAesque militias still waiting for the hordes of papists to invade from a long since moved on secular Ireland.

Hume is right. Trade breaks down barriers and ultimately, stops wars. There has been all-Ireland trade for quite some time now so I don't why you are talking about trade as if it is a new thing between the Republic and the North. Plus I don't understand how you go from trading partners to eroding political identities? Where did that jump come from?

I am sure we can get all types of crazy quotes from TDs and local politicians in the Republic, sure just look at Gay Mitchell who thought abortion was the same as deaths in Nazi concentration camps :rolleyes:
So one politician saying something silly in the North does not bother me. All the same anyway.

Your last paragraph does not reflect reality imo, it just sounds paranoid and not based on any actual facts.

steddyeddy

anymore wrote: »

It just occurs to me that the Provos aren't actually the Real IRA either; the Provos were just in McGuinnes's words imposter's who set up thier own renegade terrorist group. So he is on very very shaky ground here.

Ah come on hes condeming violence and thats all that matters.

Alopex

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness martin please everyone here. If he doesnt condem them he would be criticised, if he ignored them he would be criticised and when he does condenm them hes in the wrong too aparantly.

I think he was right to condenm the violence. Its at a stage now were talking has already made a massive difference to all that was wrong in northern ireland. I dont care who criticises the violence either. If the head of the uvf criticsed the murder of catholics that would be valid too. Its time to look to the future.

He should come out and say "our campaign failed. therefore the dissident campaign will definitely fail"

But no he tries to pretend his campaign achieved something so he can justify the deaths of all the innocents. He's an utter joke like everyone else in that party who now seemingly believe their own bullsh*t

Wolfe Tone

anymore wrote: »

It just occurs to me that the Provos aren't actually the Real IRA either; the Provos were just in McGuinnes's words imposter's who set up thier own renegade terrorist group. So he is on very very shaky ground here.

Following the split with the officials the mandate was given to the PIRA army council, then after the 86 split to the CIRA army council by the last surviving member of the second Dail... That ragtag crowd that did nothing. The claim by them that they are the real IRA is, and has always been laughable.

Todays dissidents are claiming they are the IRA, when in fact they arent, it is that to which he refers.

anymore

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah come on hes condeming violence and thats all that matters.

Well I spent my teens and young adulthood hearing people saying that to the Provo leaders, McGunness and Adams to no avail. Perhaps thier pension funds hadnt been fully financed through the 70'a and 80's .

Laminations

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Following the split with the officials the mandate was given to the PIRA army council, then after the 86 split to the CIRA army council by the last surviving member of the second Dail... That ragtag crowd that did nothing. The claim by them that they are the real IRA is, and has always been laughable.

Todays dissidents are claiming they are the IRA, when in fact they arent, it is that to which he refers.

So you disagree with what?

The actions of the dissidents or the claim that they are IRA and acting in your name?

Because most of us disagreed with the IRA acting and speaking as if they had some mandate from the people of Ireland.

maccored

Laminations wrote: »

So you disagree with what?

The actions of the dissidents or the claim that they are IRA and acting in your name?

Because most of us disagreed with the IRA acting and speaking as if they had some mandate from the people of Ireland.

they had quite a mandate from nationalists in the north over the last 40 years. might not have had such a mandate from people south of the border, who lets face it, werent exactly facing the same hardships as those in the north.

who the fug

maccored wrote: »

they had quite a mandate from nationalists in the north over the last 40 years. might not have had such a mandate from people south of the border, who lets face it, werent exactly facing the same hardships as those in the north.

No they did not, the largest party was the SDLP , until Sinn Fein dropped the armalite option .

lugha

maccored wrote: »

they had quite a mandate from nationalists in the north over the last 40 years. might not have had such a mandate from people south of the border, who lets face it, werent exactly facing the same hardships as those in the north.

But they didn't claim to represent only the nationalist people from the North (and they didn't even command majority support from them), they claimed to represent all Irish people.

The Waltzing Consumer

who the fug wrote: »

No they did not, the largest party was the SDLP , until Sinn Fein dropped the armalite option .

To be fair, that is not very accurate. Reading any history of the North has shown that there is more to mandates then just the ballot box. Communities gave mandates to various paramilitary groups during those times, now that mandate has gone and you will see the only mandate they give is through the ballot box.

Alopex

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

To be fair, that is not very accurate. Reading any history of the North has shown that there is more to mandates then just the ballot box. Communities gave mandates to various paramilitary groups during those times, now that mandate has gone and you will see the only mandate they give is through the ballot box.

not quite. Sinn Fein ran for election since 1982. didn't overtake SDLP for over 21 years

one would think if they gave the provies a mandate(how that could be shown I'm not sure) they would vote for the provie's political wing.

Given a majority of catholics want to remain in the UK it seems the provies didn't have a mandate but rather controlled people with fear

Zubeneschamali

Laminations wrote: »

Because most of us disagreed with the IRA acting and speaking as if they had some mandate from the people of Ireland.

You missed the bit about the magical Mandate passed down from the last survivor of the 2nd Dáil. This is the same mandate Caitlín ni Houlihan rose up out of the Liffey at Easter 1916 and handed to James Connolly at the start of the Rising, which Pearse drove into the plinth of a statue in the public hall of the GPO, and which De Valera pulled from the stone, proving himself King and Pope of all Ireland.

maccored

hands up from the previous batch of posters how many lived as a nationalist in the north long term between 1969 and 1998 ......... yeah, as I thought, not too many. fantastic to cast judgement from a distance.

who the fug

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

To be fair, that is not very accurate. Reading any history of the North has shown that there is more to mandates then just the ballot box. Communities gave mandates to various paramilitary groups during those times, now that mandate has gone and you will see the only mandate they give is through the ballot box.

In the privacy of the polling booth the majority of nationalists in the North rejected Sinn Fein whilst they were supporting the use of violence.

The Waltzing Consumer

Alopex wrote: »

not quite. Sinn Fein ran for election since 1982. didn't overtake SDLP for over 21 years

one would think if they gave the provies a mandate(how that could be shown I'm not sure) they would vote for the provie's political wing.

Given a majority of catholics want to remain in the UK it seems the provies didn't have a mandate but rather controlled people with fear

Yes but you are still ignoring the way many communities operated during the Troubles. Communities (not all, but some) gave the PIRA a mandate to operate in their areas and without that support, they could not possibly have carried on for so long. As we can see now, there is no mandate from communities in any form and the dissidents are reviled on all sides.

As for your last sentence, it is very obvious many communities actively supported the PIRA as did loyalist communities with their own paramilitaries. We are talking about communities who had zero trust in police, had no access to city centre after a certain time and were pretty much locked into their communities between certain times. I am sure fear was a factor with people too but that would exist in any place at any time where violence exists. So your theory is very loose and you would need to back it up because it just sounds like a baseless opinion.

The Waltzing Consumer

maccored wrote: »

hands up from the previous batch of posters how many lived as a nationalist in the north long term between 1969 and 1998 ......... yeah, as I thought, not too many. fantastic to cast judgement from a distance.

The idea should not be to cast judgement. This is history, my only aim is to try and learn the most truthful version of it.

RichieC

Alopex wrote: »

Sinn Fein are in no position to moralise about the other IRAs. They could have called off the campaign long before they did.

Dissidents realise the GFA will never lead to a united Ireland. They're pissed off they were sucked into a pointless war by people like commander McGuinness.

The ROI have overwhelmingly rejected Sinn Fein in every election. The clowns think they're doing great with less than 10% of the dail. That shows you where they're at.

So what hope is there northern Protestants will ever embrace them? no matter what they do they will always be terrorists to us. Yet the Belfast agreement requires us to vote for a united Ireland. The state was partitioned to guarantee a unionist majority so that seems somewhat unlikely:cool:

That's how dissidents see it. Sinn Fein led them down the garden path with a united ireland promise for peace. Its been dawning on them the last few years it was a calculated deception. These attacks are more about revenge on Sinn Fein than the Irish cause

Dammed if you dammed if you don't - it seems.

The Waltzing Consumer

who the fug wrote: »

In the privacy of the polling booth the majority of nationalists in the North rejected Sinn Fein whilst they were supporting the use of violence.

Yeah, I agree. But in those times, mandates were given in more ways then one.

lugha

maccored wrote: »

hands up from the previous batch of posters how many lived as a nationalist in the north long term between 1969 and 1998 ......... yeah, as I thought, not too many. fantastic to cast judgement from a distance.

Hands up from the republican apologists here who are prepared to address the specific criticism being made of PIRA; that the purported to represent all Irish people when the clearly had no authority. Yeah, as I thought, not too many.

who the fug

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Yeah, I agree. But in those times, mandates were given in more ways then one.

You forgot to mention the keep you mouth shut if you want to live mandate

Laminations

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Yes but you are still ignoring the way many communities operated during the Troubles. Communities (not all, but some) gave the PIRA a mandate to operate in their areas and without that support, they could not possibly have carried on for so long.

Was this a mandate enforced by punishment beatings?

Whatever flimsy popular mandate (but not so popular as to appear in the ballot box) PIRA had in the north they had none in the south and their actions were felt both sides of the border. I'm sure the BNP has a 'mandate' in certain communities while getting decimated at elections, how would that justify them taking to arms in the name of Britain? PIRA did not represent Ireland, they had no mandate from the Irish and they were a criminal dissident army, distinct from their predecessors the IRA and the IRB.

The Waltzing Consumer

who the fug wrote: »

You forgot to mention the keep you mouth shut if you want to live mandate

I have already acknowledged the premise of fear being a contributing factor to any community where such violence occurs so can you please read before you post.

who the fug

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I have already acknowledged the premise of fear being a contributing factor to any community where such violence occurs so can you please read before you post.

Jsut wished to clarify your fear was a factor

Nodin

lugha wrote: »

Hands up from the republican apologists here who are prepared to address the specific criticism being made of PIRA; that the purported to represent all Irish people when the clearly had no authority. Yeah, as I thought, not too many.

I've done so in the past and see little point in going over it again. I believe you were involved in the discussion.

The Waltzing Consumer

Laminations wrote: »

Was this a mandate enforced by punishment beatings?

Whatever flimsy popular mandate (but not so popular as to appear in the ballot box) PIRA had in the north they had none in the south and their actions were felt both sides of the border. I'm sure the BNP has a 'mandate' in certain communities while getting decimated at elections, how would that justify them taking to arms in the name of Britain? PIRA did not represent Ireland, they had no mandate from the Irish and they were a criminal dissident army, distinct from their predecessors the IRA and the IRB.

Yeah I agree. I have no interest in justifying diddly squat, I have an interest in history, this is a history debate pretty much. The only thing that is reasonable is to try to and find the most truthful version of events. We have no reason to try and justify things, bit late for that isn't it? the event has happened, it's in the past. Your post and counterposts of such nature will result in frustration as there is no answer, it is history.

Laminations

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Yeah I agree. I have no interest in justifying diddly squat, I have an interest in history, this is a history debate pretty much. The only thing that is reasonable is to try to and find the most truthful version of events. We have no reason to try and justify things, bit late for that isn't it? the event has happened, it's in the past. Your post and counterposts of such nature will result in frustration as there is no answer, it is history.

There is an answer. PIRA did not have a popular or democratic mandate. There is no alternative history.

While it is welcome that MMG now denounces violence (*though is he actually doing that?), it is hypocritical that he complains about an illegal organisation hijacking his name and legacy and acting in what they think are the interests of Ireland. PIRA did exactly that.

*he seems to be more upset about them using the IRA brandname. He calls them imposters but doesn't call them criminals or call for people to rise up against them and contact the PSNI with any information - i.e. a proper denouncement.

The Waltzing Consumer

Laminations wrote: »

There is an answer. PIRA did not have a popular or democratic mandate. There is no alternative history.

While it is welcome that MMG now denounces violence (*though is he actually doing that?), it is hypocritical that he complains about an illegal organisation hijacking his name and legacy and acting in what they think are the interests of Ireland. PIRA did exactly that.

*he seems to be more upset about them using the IRA brandname. He calls them imposters but doesn't call them criminals or call for people to rise up against them and contact the PSNI with any information - i.e. a proper denouncement.

Firstly, your first sentence is really just an opinion and is not historical fact, sorry, it just is. Any history book or article on the matter will show that without community support, the PIRA could not have maintained their campaign. As for the reasons for that, there can be many, but another discussion for that, the fact is, the PIRA did have community support and that was their mandate.

Second point. Fair enough, I would agree, but again, opinion.

Third point. I would agree with your opinion there.