Irelands War Dead

tdv123

In the last few months in several posts I've seen users describe the 1916 leaders as "terrorists". I don't know if their using that word to be politically correct or to be provocative but I'm guessing it's the latter.

I've seen tons of people call the IRA that fought in the WOI as "cold blooded murderers" & "cowards". Well technically anybody who's fought in a war & killed someone in a war is a "murderer". Well maybe these people don't understand how Guerrilla Warfare works or don't know or realize that's it's a legitimate type of warfare & was the only option that could & probably can still only work for us in a war situation.

Whats this fascination with trying to criminalize people who managed against all odds to free 26 of our 32 counties from the largest & most powerful empire in the world at the time? Is nobody proud of that?

In America & Britain they celebrate there war dead, we on the other hand seem ungrateful towards ours.

In the words of a famous IRA Guerrilla warrior ..... ""If a man comes into my home, my country and tries to take it over by force I will kill him and I will use any means possible. I am sorry for nothing, to no man or God"

Do you think it's because the Provos have sullied these peoples legacy?

Discuss.

Fr_Dougal

Discuss me bollicks.

tdv123

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Discuss me bollicks.

If you want people to discuss your testicles start your own thread, don't hijack mine.

donvito99

In answer to your question, have the provos "sullied" their legacy, in a way, yes.

Zebra3

The Volunteers and the ICA had no mandate from the people to carry out the Easter Rising. If people call the current IRA groups "terrorists" then that's what the should refer to the IV and ICA as.

Bizarre in Britain and the US, the cult worship of their soldiers who go abroad to slaughter innocent civilians.

Karl Stein

As long as there are empires that are maintained by the threat of destruction, torture, and murder there will be rebellions against them.

To ignore the inherent violence of Empire while decrying violence against it little other than evidence of people's double standards.

Galwayguy35

tdv123 wrote: »

In the last few months in several posts I've seen users describe the 1916 leaders as "terrorists". I don't know if their using that word to be politically correct or to be provocative but I'm guessing it's the latter.

I've seen tons of people call the IRA that fought in the WOI as "cold blooded murderers" & "cowards". Well technically anybody who's fought in a war & killed someone in a war is a "murderer". Well maybe these people don't understand how Guerrilla Warfare works or don't know or realize that's it's a legitimate type of warfare & was the only option that could & probably can still only work for us in a war situation.

Whats this fascination with trying to criminalize people who managed against all odds to free 26 of our 32 counties from the largest & most powerful empire in the world at the time? Is nobody proud of that?

In America & Britain they celebrate there war dead, we on the other hand seem ungrateful towards ours.

In the words of a famous IRA Guerrilla warrior ..... ""If a man comes into my home, my country and tries to take it over by force I will kill him and I will use any means possible. I am sorry for nothing, to no man or God"

Do you think it's because the Provos have sullied these peoples legacy?

Discuss.

The reason seems to be that we appear to be the only country where some Irish people have a self loathing, bordering on hatred at times for their country, it's history and the people who fought for our freedom.

I really wish these people would just clear off if they dislike the place so much.

LordSutch

Empires have come and gone since the beginning of time, from the Roman empire to the Ottoman empire to the
British empire to the US "empire"? And who knows what empires await us in the future, the Chinese empire maybe?

Re the British empire, Won by the Irish, administered by the Scots, maintained by the Welsh, & lost by the English!
(or words to that effect). Maybe somebody else can find the original version, as I can't find it in Google anymore.

Iwasfrozen

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

As long as there are empires that are maintained by the threat of destruction, torture, and murder there will be rebellions against them.

To ignore the inherent violence of Empire while decrying violence against it little other than evidence of people's double standards.

It's the exact same double standard applied by those who worship the terrorists of 1916 while decrying the actions of British soldiers. And before you say "its different coz its our country" (paraphrasing) try telling that to the ghost of some mother who lost her son on Easter Monday 97 years ago.

Galwayguy35

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's the exact same double standard applied by those who worship the terrorists of 1916 while decrying the actions of British soldiers. And before you say "its different coz its our country" (paraphrasing) try telling that to the ghost of some mother who lost her son on Easter Monday 97 years ago.

The men and women of 1916 were fighting to get the Brits out of our country and free us from an empire founded on slavery, rape and murder and greed to try and "own" half the world.

Killer Wench

Zebra3 wrote: »

The Volunteers and the ICA had no mandate from the people to carry out the Easter Rising. If people call the current IRA groups "terrorists" then that's what the should refer to the IV and ICA as.

Bizarre in Britain and the US, the cult worship of their soldiers who go abroad to slaughter innocent civilians.

Memorial Day was an annual event started by freed slaves. They would walk miles to a local battleground and place flowers and ornaments on the graves of fallen Union Soldiers. These former slaves wanted to acknowledge the price these soldiers paid in securing their freedom. Residents of a local town watched this yearly march and decided that they would continue the tradition. Decoration Day became an annual event, and was eventually re-named Memorial Day and adopted as a federal holiday.

Frequently, people on this board talk about the worship us Americans feel for soldiers who go abroad to 'slaughter innocent civilians' as if contemporary soldiers are the only soldiers that have ever fought. Truthfully, there were many, many Americans - actually more than 100,000 - who died fighting in the Civil War, and many more thousands who died fighting in the Revolutionary War.

Regardless of your own viewpoint, it is absurd to insult people who choose to acknowledge the sacrifice of any individual who was willing to die in service to their country.

Dostoevsky

Killer Wench wrote: »

it is absurd to insult people who choose to acknowledge the sacrifice of any individual who was willing to die in service to their country.

It's far from "absurd". Empires rise (or fall) on the actions of their cannonfodder/soldiers. To laud the warrior of Empire but decry the oppression of imperialism which they fought to secure is the illogical absurdity (with apologies for the tautology) here.

tdv123

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The reason seems to be that we appear to be the only country where some Irish people have a self loathing, bordering on hatred at times for their country, it's history and the people who fought for our freedom.

I really wish these people would just clear off if they dislike the place so much.

Indeed, the the defeat of a part of the British tyrannical empire in Ireland by a group of ordinary men, forced into an armed struggle, must have brought hope and encouragement to oppressed and brutalized people everywhere.

Indeed, many selfless men such as Nelson Mandela have expressed their admiration of the Irish who engaged in the armed struggle from 1916 through to 1921.

Although we were lucky it was a British administration we were up against as there were much worse & much more brutal regimes around the world at the time.

Killer Wench

Dostoevsky wrote: »

It's far from "absurd". Empires rise (or fall) on the actions of their cannonfodder/soldiers. To laud the warrior of Empire but decry the oppression of imperialism which they fought to secure is the illogical absurdity (with apologies for the tautology) here.

Are you one of those people who just wants to bitch about the evil empire? If so, not interested in continuing that dialogue.

If you want to talk about honoring war dead, regardless of who they fought for, then I will be happy to continue the dialogue.

tdv123

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's the exact same double standard applied by those who worship the terrorists of 1916 while decrying the actions of British soldiers. And before you say "its different coz its our country" (paraphrasing) try telling that to the ghost of some mother who lost her son on Easter Monday 97 years ago.

I was waiting for that response. You made it pretty clear in other recent threads your hatred for Irish nationalism & Ireland's right to defend itself from invading forces.

Dostoevsky

Killer Wench wrote: »

If you want to talk about honoring war dead, regardless of who they fought for, then I will be happy to continue the dialogue.

Curiously enough, I'd be inclined to find out who somebody fought for before "honouring" them.

As you seem to not be such a person, can we surmise that if you would honour the British and Americans who, for instance, ran the colonial concentration camps in South Africa and the Philippines, you would honour the Germans who fought for the Third Reich?

Dostoevsky

tdv123 wrote: »

Indeed, many selfless men such as Nelson Mandela have expressed their admiration of the Irish who engaged in the armed struggle from 1916 through to 1921.

Although we were lucky it was a British administration we were up against as there were much worse & much more brutal regimes around the world at the time.

Such as? The one which proposed the gassing of the Kurds in 1919?

the keen edge

Well the important thing is that since winning that freedom from the Brits we've greatly improved our lot and standing in the world and proven we can govern a country.:rolleyes:

Karl Stein

the keen edge wrote: »

Well the important thing is that since winning that freedom from the Brits we've greatly improved our lot and standing in the world and proven we can govern a country.:rolleyes:

Britain went cap-in-hand to the IMF in the 70's. Do we judge them forever by that? We will recover economically and it will be a genuine recovery. If we were not in control of our own affairs we'd probably be like the north - heavily dependent on transfers of wealth from England with an economy almost devoid of economic dynamism.

666irishguy

Zebra3 wrote: »

The Volunteers and the ICA had no mandate from the people to carry out the Easter Rising. If people call the current IRA groups "terrorists" then that's what the should refer to the IV and ICA as.

Bizarre in Britain and the US, the cult worship of their soldiers who go abroad to slaughter innocent civilians.

Last time I checked neither did the British to rule us.

Killer Wench

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Curiously enough, I'd be inclined to find out who somebody fought for before "honouring" them.

As you seem to not be such a person, can we surmise that if you would honour the British and Americans who, for instance, ran the colonial concentration camps in South Africa and the Philippines, you would honour the Germans who fought for the Third Reich?

There is a distinct difference between talking about honoring them and outright honoring them. In my previous comment, I invited you to talk about honoring war dead, but you seem to want to incite an argument on whether or not I would honor someone based off their deeds.

I don't see an honest attempt to engage in productive dialogue, so I wish you a good day.

Zebra3

666irishguy wrote: »

Last time I checked neither did the British to rule us.

I'm fully aware of that.

If you read my post again, you'll notice I didn't refer to the IV and ICA of 1916 as terrorists. Just pointing out other people's double standards.

Fratton Fred

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Curiously enough, I'd be inclined to find out who somebody fought for before "honouring" them.

As you seem to not be such a person, can we surmise that if you would honour the British and Americans who, for instance, ran the colonial concentration camps in South Africa and the Philippines, you would honour the Germans who fought for the Third Reich?

Do you honour people why murdered innocent children and forced prisoners to clear mines whilst shooting at them to detonate the mines at the same time?

purplepanda

What about William Wallace, George Washington, Hereward the Wake, Boudicca ,Vercingetorix, Wolfe Tone, Ho Chi Minh, Yitzhak Shamir, Arminius, Mao Tse Tung and so many others that could be mentioned?

Instead of arguing regarding the Easter Rising & War of Independence / Civil War how about expanding the debate to overseas historical conflicts?

I would suggest one of the above list is certainly a terrorist, but the enemies of all would have serious issues with their deeds, be they underhand, vicious, brutality, treachery, and many other actions.

oppenheimer1

I think a large part of this comes from the application of modern morality to historical situations.

Historical situations need to viewed in the context they took place, not transported to a time modern peace and relative prosperity.

Karl Stein

tdv123 wrote: »

Indeed, many selfless men such as Nelson Mandela have expressed their admiration of the Irish who engaged in the armed struggle from 1916 through to 1921.

purplepanda wrote: »

Yitzhak Shamir

Shamir sought to emulate the anti-British struggle of the Irish Republicans and took the nickname "Michael" after Irish Republican leader Michael Collins.

Shindler, Colin (2001), The Land Beyond Promise: Israel, Likud and the Zionist Dream, IB Tauris, p. 177.

I wonder how our anti-Easter Rising pro-Zionism folks feel about that?

Notorious97

I dont know about anyone else on this irish hating website

But im proud and thankful for those who died in the pursuit of irish freedom, especially Michael Collins, thank you

purplepanda

The King David Hotel bombing 1946 against the United Nations / League of Nations British mandate in Palestine, regarded by some terrorism experts as an early example of modern types of terrorism.

There was controversy a few years back when Israel commemorated the 60th anniversary of the bombing. Nowadays Israel is called a beacon of democracy in the middle east yet many of it's prominent leaders, politician's & military were former members of such organisations.

The murder of UN mediator Count Bernadotte, a man who saved 30,00 Jewish people from the Nazi's is certainly a terrorist outrage IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Folke_Bernadotte_of_Wisborg

wendell borton

The IVF was set up in response to the armed unionist opposition to home rule, the home rule party had the most Irish MP's.
While it's probably a bit of a stretch to say there was a mandate for the 1916 rising there was a clear one for a change in governance of the country but this was held back by a veto by the unelected house of lords and then WW I. After the 1918 election the british did not recognise the dail made up of the majority of irish MPs, this then lead to the WOI.

Manic Moran

Well technically anybody who's fought in a war & killed someone in a war is a "murderer". .

Well, technically murder is defined as unlawful homicide. Warfare has a set of rules to be followed, "The Laws of Land Warfare", for example. Killing in violation of those rules would be murder, starting within the rules would not be.

There are some subtle differences between guerrilla warfare and terrorism. As a general rule, guerrillas will keep themselves with the general laws of war, they will attack government targets, and often do so openly. Terrorists do not feel particularly constrained by target type, and usually, when they attack, they do so while hiding their identities.

purplepanda

wendell borton wrote: »

The IVF was set up in response to the armed unionist opposition to home rule, the home rule party had the most Irish MP's.
While it's probably a bit of a stretch to say there was a mandate for the 1916 rising there was a clear one for a change in governance of the country but this was held back by a veto by the unelected house of lords and then WW I. After the 1918 election the british did not recognise the dail made up of the majority of irish MPs, this then lead to the WOI.

The illegal arming & importation of large amounts of guns & material by the Ulster Volunteers and the Curragh mutiny of senior British Army officers before WW1 meant that any semblance of democracy was an illusion.

They were more than prepared to resist with violence any laws passed by Parliament that they disagreed with.

Ireland soon had two private armies with the British Army and government seriously weakened by the forthcoming war.

Easter 1916 could actually have been a more prolonged conflict had the original orders to the volunteers by McNeill not been countermanded.

yore

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Discuss me bollicks.

One of your parents (a female), told me they were very very tiny.

But she said she still loves you regardless........... Just not in that way (and that's not because of the mini-balls)

riffmongous

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, technically murder is defined as unlawful homicide. Warfare has a set of rules to be followed, "The Laws of Land Warfare", for example. Killing in violation of those rules would be murder, starting within the rules would not be.

There are some subtle differences between guerrilla warfare and terrorism. As a general rule, guerrillas will keep themselves with the general laws of war, they will attack government targets, and often do so openly. Terrorists do not feel particularly constrained by target type, and usually, when they attack, they do so while hiding their identities.

What's your opinion on drone strikes Manic? And the general feeling of your coworkers would be interesting too?

For Paws

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Do you honour people why murdered innocent children and forced prisoners to clear mines whilst shooting at them to detonate the mines at the same time?

See www.caherleaheen.com/Local%20History.html for an account of an incident from the Irish Civil War in Kerry.

jugger0

I'd be on the side of the Provo's as well to be honest, back then they were left to the mercy of the anti-Irish unionist government while the cowardly south stood by and done nothing, the Irish army was created to defend the Irish people but they did no such thing!

tdv123

jugger0 wrote: »

st government while the cowardly south stood by and done nothing, the IrisI'd be on the side of the Provo's as well to be honest, back then they were left to the mercy of the anti-Irish unionih army was created to defend the Irish people but they did no such thing!

I was on their side when they were a defensive organization. But when they went on the offensive & started blowing up innocent people I was disgusted. I was for an armed struggle to take place as I felt it was needed to bring about change in the North but not with those sort of tactics.

purplepanda

jugger0 wrote: »

I'd be on the side of the Provo's as well to be honest, back then they were left to the mercy of the anti-Irish unionist government while the cowardly south stood by and done nothing, the Irish army was created to defend the Irish people but they did no such thing!

The "Cowardly South" government which the IRA in it's various factions & dissident groupings had been trying to overthrow since being defeated in the Civil War, the government which extreme republicans said was an illegal puppet state of the British, the state that if elected, republicans would then refuse to take their seats in the Dail? Exactly the same policy as they had in regards to the Westminster Parliament.

It wasn't just one state that that various groups of republicans were at war with, judging by the thousands of internees in Mountjoy & Portlaoise prisons under the Offences against the State Acts.

Why should a democratic government help those that wanted to overthrow it?

wendell borton

The IRA was more or less finished after the border campaign of the 50's.
The nationalist population in the north were mostly looking for their civil rights through peaceful means. The brutality and indifference shown by those in power lead directly to a resurgence in the IRA.

bilston

LordSutch wrote: »

Re the British empire, Won by the Irish, administered by the Scots, maintained by the Welsh, & lost by the English!
(or words to that effect). Maybe somebody else can find the original version, as I can't find it in Google anymore.

It does always amuse me when Irish people try to take the moral high ground when discussing the British Empire!

KTRIC

Ok lads , who's in the RA ?? :pac:

bilston

jugger0 wrote: »

I'd be on the side of the Provo's as well to be honest, back then they were left to the mercy of the anti-Irish unionist government while the cowardly south stood by and done nothing, the Irish army was created to defend the Irish people but they did no such thing!

What did you want the Irish army to do in the late 60s early 70s? Invade Northern Ireland? How do you think that would have ended?

jugger0

purplepanda wrote: »

Why should a democratic government help those that wanted to overthrow it?

I doubt the entire nationalist population of the North was in the IRA, the Irish army is supposed to protect the Irish people, they didn't, they had to do it themselves.

jugger0

bilston wrote: »

What did you want the Irish army to do in the late 60s early 70s? Invade Northern Ireland? How do you think that would have ended?

Badly, but maybe through those actions it would of exposed the plight of the Irish people.

solas111

tdv123 wrote: »

In the last few months in several posts I've seen users describe the 1916 leaders as "terrorists". I don't know if their using that word to be politically correct or to be provocative but I'm guessing it's the latter.

I've seen tons of people call the IRA that fought in the WOI as "cold blooded murderers" & "cowards". Well technically anybody who's fought in a war & killed someone in a war is a "murderer". Well maybe these people don't understand how Guerrilla Warfare works or don't know or realize that's it's a legitimate type of warfare & was the only option that could & probably can still only work for us in a war situation.

Whats this fascination with trying to criminalize people who managed against all odds to free 26 of our 32 counties from the largest & most powerful empire in the world at the time? Is nobody proud of that?

In America & Britain they celebrate there war dead, we on the other hand seem ungrateful towards ours.

In the words of a famous IRA Guerrilla warrior ..... ""If a man comes into my home, my country and tries to take it over by force I will kill him and I will use any means possible. I am sorry for nothing, to no man or God"

Do you think it's because the Provos have sullied these peoples legacy?

Discuss.

It comes from being brought up on a diet of the ‘Orish’ versions of the Mirror, Star, Sun etc. which is where many of these unfortunate people get the inspiration that forms their opinions. Add the horrible Irish Independent and one or two other native rags and love of country doesn’t stand a chance. The history books have also been revised so as to avoid offending certain sections of society and probably need another revision now in order to cater for the foreign brothers who have come to reside in our green and pleasant welfare state.

As a nation we have renounced our language, our national identity, our history and many other threads that held our society together. You only have to look at the litter that is strewn along the sides of the roads to see how little respect Irish people have for their country. If you cannot respect your country, can you respect yourself?

If you sleep with dogs you will have fleas and if you are stupid enough to take your values from the British media you will see the 1916 leaders as "terrorists".

CruelCoin

Zebra3 wrote: »

Bizarre in Britain and the US, the cult worship of their soldiers who go abroad to slaughter innocent civilians.

i'm sure this is the sole reason they go abroad...

Manic Moran

riffmongous wrote: »

What's your opinion on drone strikes Manic? And the general feeling of your coworkers would be interesting too?

No issues with the concept. I trust that the decisions on when to engage are being made in good conscience and actually trying to engage military targets in accordance with the laws of war.

I've seen little to indicate that they are not, regardless of the wailing over civilians killed in the strikes.

who the fug

bilston wrote: »

It does always amuse me when Irish people try to take the moral high ground when discussing the British Empire!

Even Better, the English take all the blame for the British

Crooked Jack

donvito99 wrote: »

In answer to your question, have the provos "sullied" their legacy, in a way, yes.

Or, to be more accurate, no.

RandomName2

tdv123 wrote: »

Whats this fascination with trying to criminalize people who managed against all odds to free 26 of our 32 counties from the largest & most powerful empire in the world at the time? Is nobody proud of that?

Against all odds? What odds? They had already passed a law granting the whole of Ireland Home Rule when the heroes of 1916 decided to trash the nationalist political process.

What pride? The pride of seeing Irishmen killing Irishmen, making partition inevitable, and then throwing the country into civil war when peace was obtained?

What freedom? The freedom to be socially dominated by the Roman Catholic Church and politically dominated by ultra-nationalists who maintained an absolute majority in the Dail for some 60 years?

There's the fascination for you.

Blisterman

Why is this debate always reduced to the false dichotomy of you have to either support the Easter Rising and old IRA or you support the British empire?

Can it not be acknowledged that, while the British were completely wrong to occupy Ireland, killing people and starting a war of independence in which countless innocent people died, may also have been wrong and unnecessary?

hello there folks

Killer Wench wrote: »

Are you one of those people who just wants to bitch about the evil empire? If so, not interested in continuing that dialogue.

If you want to talk about honoring war dead, regardless of who they fought for, then I will be happy to continue the dialogue.

So basically it's a case of 'i will not discuss with you if you insist on framing it in a certain way, i will only discuss it if you allow me to frame it'