The RIRAs legitimacy

Yitzhak Rabin · 09-10-2010 07:03PM

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I have never been able to understand this viewpoint. The country was brutally occupied by a brutal army and yet people who resist are the ones that are thought of as being to blame or in the wrong.

What would you say if a fringe rebel group attacked Cork city today, as they felt they were being brutally occupied and suppressed by the Irish army and the Gardaí?

Also, the main point is they didn't have popular support. It may have been different if violence was the last resort, but it wasn't. There was already an admirable, and legitimate home rule movement underway. The heroes of this country for me were, Butt, Parnell, and Redmond, not the rebels.

delta720 · 09-10-2010 07:04PM

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Evidence of this please?
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to have issue with the dissidents, however I do not think this is true at all.

Remember this??

Text of 'real' Irish Republican Army (rIRA) Statement, 20 October 2002
Statement issued by jailed members of the rIRA in Portlaoise prison calling on the Army Council of the organisation to "stand down"

On Friday, September 27, in a written communication to the Army leadership, the (Real) IRA unit in Portlaoise prison took the unprecedented step of calling the Army Council to stand down with ignominy.

We will not demean our struggle or provide succour to our enemies by revealing the comprehensive catalogue of evidence which has exposed this leadership.

However, we do feel duty-bound to state that this Army leadership's financial motivations far outweigh their political commitment to our struggle at this time.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ira/rira201002.htm

R P McMurphy · 09-10-2010 07:06PM

The history of the British occupation of Ireland was never a pretty one and one that revisionists try to gloss over. An army of occupation is exactlywhat it has always been, was always quite a substantial military infrastructure in this country for our nieghbouring visitors

Denerick · 09-10-2010 07:55PM

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The history of the British occupation of Ireland was never a pretty one and one that revisionists try to gloss over. An army of occupation is exactlywhat it has always been, was always quite a substantial military infrastructure in this country for our nieghbouring visitors

Please stop communicating in slogans. There is an Irish Republican forum for that.

round tower huntsman · 09-10-2010 08:07PM

it depends on your point of view. if it was legitimate to take up arms in the name of a 32 county republic in '16 or the 20's or 30's or 40's etc........right up to the 90's then its legitimate now.
if you believe that it was never legitimate then its not legitimate now.
anything else is just tactics and pedendics.

questionmark? · 09-10-2010 08:08PM

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Hardly the most neutral sources are they? The first, or the second. And in the second case a court was "told" that.

I firmly believe that the dissidents are not involved in selling drugs. I think this because currently they seem to be on a mission to gather support by attempting to eliminate drug dealers.

Can their be a neutral source considering the distinct lack of support for these organizations both here and obviously in the UK. Please dont quote anything Bill Clinton or the UN says.

The section i have highlighted raises the question are they getting rid of the dealers to control it themselves? Why do i say that? Its a bit like the accusations being made that they are trying to get rid of the opposition for the control of providing security at pubs and clubs.

KeithAFC · 09-10-2010 08:10PM

The RIRA don't have a mandate, no one votes for them. What do they expect to get out of this campaign anyway? Do they expect Unionists to just bend over for them and Surrender? It isn't going to happen.

It didn't happen 30-40 years ago, not going to happen now. The ship is sailing past them.

Yitzhak Rabin · 09-10-2010 08:12PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

The RIRA don't have a mandate.

and neither did the 1916 rebels.

round tower huntsman · 09-10-2010 08:16PM

questionmark? wrote: »

Can their be a neutral source considering the distinct lack of support for these organizations both here and obviously in the UK. Please dont quote anything Bill Clinton or the UN says.

The section i have highlighted raises the question are they getting rid of the dealers to control it themselves? Why do i say that? Its a bit like the accusations being made that they are trying to get rid of the opposition for the control of providing security at pubs and clubs.

i've no recollection of any ira member ever being arrested or convicted of a drugs offence. surely it would have been a wet dream for mi5 or special branch to catch a republican dealing drugs but its never happened. even the cleverist professional drug dealers get caught at least once,so why have republicans never been caught? i can only assume that they dont deal drugs.

Nehaxak · 09-10-2010 08:18PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

The RIRA don't have a mandate, no one votes for them. What do they expect to get out of this campaign anyway? Do they expect Unionists to just bend over for them and Surrender? It isn't going to happen.

It didn't happen 30-40 years ago, not going to happen now. The ship is sailing past them.

<Groan>... Idealist, delusional politics abound still on both sides I see...

Even if the RIRA had a political mandate, would it make any difference in regards whether anyone saw them as legitimate or otherwise ?

A small group of delusional idealists persist in criminal activity even after so much progress and so much has been done by all sides to accommodate each other with the peace process and moving forward to change things in a peaceful manner. I don't care if they are legally, politically or otherwise seen or not as legitimate - the fact remains that the vast majority of right thinking people on this island do not want them to continue their activities.

Denerick · 09-10-2010 08:19PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

The RIRA don't have a mandate, no one votes for them. What do they expect to get out of this campaign anyway? Do they expect Unionists to just bend over for them and Surrender? It isn't going to happen.

It didn't happen 30-40 years ago, not going to happen now. The ship is sailing past them.

The problem with the Republican movement is that the dissidents and the PIRA essentially share the same ideology, thus making it very difficult for Irish Republicans of a less extreme bent to completely disown them, as to do so would be to denounce their entire world view. This is why we hear so much about 'complexities' and 'grey areas'. Most sane people will automatically reject the idea of a handful of ardent extremists murdering in the name of a people who have explicitly said they wanted no further truck with such madness. It genuinely infuriates me how this neanderthal position is still indulged and humoured by people who really should know better.

Happy Monday · 09-10-2010 08:24PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

The RIRA don't have a mandate, no one votes for them.

I oppose them.

But they draw their mandate from Pearse's assertion that "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" made in 1915 at O'Donovan Rossa's funeral.

Once the genie was let of that bottle it was hard to put in back in.

Nehaxak · 09-10-2010 08:24PM

Denerick wrote: »

The problem with the Republican movement is that the dissidents and the PIRA essentially share the same ideology, thus making it very difficult for Irish Republicans of a less extreme bent to completely disown them, as to do so would be to denounce their entire world view. This is why we hear so much about 'complexities' and 'grey areas'. Most sane people will automatically reject the idea of a handful of ardent extremists murdering in the name of a people who have explicitly said they wanted no further truck with such madness. It genuinely infuriates me how this neanderthal position is still indulged and humoured by people who really should know better.

I'm an Irish Republican with strong Irish republican views and I completely disown the RIRA ? Even the mainstream political parties in the Republic claim to be Irish Republicans, so enough of the childish generalisations please.

round tower huntsman · 09-10-2010 08:25PM

yekahs wrote: »

and neither did the 1916 rebels.

nor the anti treaty ira right up to the provos. gerry adams himself said that the ira gets its mandate from the brit presence in ireland,thats what so funny to hear sinn fein harping on about mandates, they scorned the mention of electoral mandates for yrs....until they had one of course.

KeithAFC · 09-10-2010 08:28PM

Happy Monday wrote: »

I oppose them.

But they draw their mandate from Pearse's assertion that "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" made in 1915 at O'Donovan Rossa's funeral.

Once the genie was let of that bottle it was hard to put in back in.

If the world was to go along this line, peace would never happen. They simply need to move forward.

All they are doing is planting stupid bombs and hoping for the best, taking money out of the economy and annoying most republican citizens and Unionists.

They don't have a mandate, no one votes for them, they aren't going down the democratic path. Nothing to offer.

Denerick · 09-10-2010 08:33PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

I'm an Irish Republican with strong Irish republican views and I completely disown the RIRA ? Even the mainstream political parties in the Republic claim to be Irish Republicans, so enough of the childish generalisations please.

The mainstream political parties pay credence to a national myth - essential to any nation state. Every country makes a big deal out of its foundational event, I doubt very many Irish politicians care or think about Easter 1916 other than the occasional crowd pleasing platitudes.

Nehaxak · 09-10-2010 08:37PM

Denerick wrote: »

The mainstream political parties pay credence to a national myth - essential to any nation state. Every country makes a big deal out of its foundational event, I doubt very many Irish politicians care or think about Easter 1916 other than the occasional crowd pleasing platitudes.

Your opinion anyway, with which you're entitled too. Still does not give you any right to generalise in the way you did as if to suggest all Irish Republicans support the RIRA in some way, just because you say so.

oscarBravo · 09-10-2010 10:56PM

Happy Monday wrote: »

But they draw their mandate from Pearse's assertion that "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace" made in 1915 at O'Donovan Rossa's funeral.

Once the genie was let of that bottle it was hard to put in back in.

Contrary to what some people seem to think, Pearse wasn't reading that assertion from tablets of stone handed directly to him by God Almighty. Has it ever crossed their mind that Pearse might not have been some sort of infallible oracle? That he might have been, y'know, wrong?

KeithAFC · 09-10-2010 11:09PM

There was a great show on BBC N.I about 20+ minutes ago on Irish history by Tim McGarry.

Einhard · 10-10-2010 02:44AM

Denerick wrote: »

What a scarily disproportionate opinion you have of early 20th century Irish history. And don't go on about the Black and Tans, please, 1916 happened well before 1920.

I actually share his viewpoint to an extent. People speak of legitimacy, and IMO the only true route to legitimacy is though the ballot box, but how can such a thing be achieved when democratic means are withheld? The Brits were far from the most brutal power of the period, but they were still an occupation power. Their rule was undemocratic in itself. Would you similarly call the Free French undemocratic? I mean, their country might have been occupied by a foreign power, but they had no official, democratic mandate from the people.

Einhard · 10-10-2010 02:49AM

yekahs wrote: »

and neither did the 1916 rebels.

But there was no chance that anyone could have gained such a mandate in ireland at the time, when the entire system was set up to deny one. British rule in Ireland was deeply undemocratic. I think it's quite unfair to expect Republicans to have an official, popular mandatem, when to seek one was positively stymied. The majority of the population wanted Irish independence. The British diluted that democratic demand in Westminster. To demand a legitimate, ballot determined mandate in the circumstances is, in my opinion, obtuse in the extreme.

Yitzhak Rabin · 10-10-2010 03:06AM

Einhard wrote: »

But there was no chance that anyone could have gained such a mandate in ireland at the time, when the entire system was set up to deny one. British rule in Ireland was deeply undemocratic. I think it's quite unfair to expect Republicans to have an official, popular mandatem, when to seek one was positively stymied. The majority of the population wanted Irish independence. The British diluted that democratic demand in Westminster. To demand a legitimate, ballot determined mandate in the circumstances is, in my opinion, obtuse in the extreme.

I'm not trying to say that they should have balloted the public before the rising.

However, that doesn't take away from the fact that they were unsupported by the general public. It doesn't take away from the fact that they shot and clubbed innocent civilians who tried to resist their places of work being taken over. It doesn't take away from the fact that they undermined and by-passed an ongoing legitimate, democratic, and non-violent process, which to my mind would have formed a much more stable, and perhaps even unified Ireland.

They believed they were doing what was in the best interest of the country, but then again, so do RIRA today.

Einhard · 10-10-2010 03:28AM

yekahs wrote: »

I'm not trying to say that they should have balloted the public before the rising.

However, that doesn't take away from the fact that they were unsupported by the general public. It doesn't take away from the fact that they shot and clubbed innocent civilians who tried to resist their places of work being taken over. It doesn't take away from the fact that they undermined and by-passed an ongoing legitimate, democratic, and non-violent process, which to my mind would have formed a much more stable, and perhaps even unified Ireland.

They believed they were doing what was in the best interest of the country, but then again, so do RIRA today.

Yes, but the major difference is that the RIRA have a democratic option. The IRB, or any of the Republican bodies that participating in the Rising were operating in what was effectively a democratic vacuum. That's not the case with the dissidents and, for me, therein lies the difference. Would you condemn the Maquis for their actions during WWII for example? I think it's too revisionist to expect a democratic mandate in a non democratic environment. If that were the standard, then black agitation against apartheid, the Afghan fight against the Soviets, and even van Stauffenburg's plot would all have to be condemned.

oscarBravo · 10-10-2010 12:13PM

Einhard wrote: »

Yes, but the major difference is that the RIRA have a democratic option. The IRB, or any of the Republican bodies that participating in the Rising were operating in what was effectively a democratic vacuum.

You keep repeating that, but it's just not true. Not only was there a democratic path available, but that path was being pursued.

You make it sound like the UK at the start of the 20th century was a despotic dictatorship. That's revisionism.

Happy Monday · 10-10-2010 12:19PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Contrary to what some people seem to think, Pearse wasn't reading that assertion from tablets of stone handed directly to him by God Almighty. Has it ever crossed their mind that Pearse might not have been some sort of infallible oracle? That he might have been, y'know, wrong?

But you must remember that Cowen et al troop along to the GPO on Easter Mondays to celebrate this man and his rebels.
Irish history books celebrate him as an icon whilst ignoring Redmond and the men who served in the Great War.
His words were used to justify republican violence this past 100 years.
That will not stop until his 32 county Republic is formed.
Ireland unfree shall never be at peace.

Denerick · 10-10-2010 12:57PM

Einhard wrote: »

Yes, but the major difference is that the RIRA have a democratic option. The IRB, or any of the Republican bodies that participating in the Rising were operating in what was effectively a democratic vacuum. That's not the case with the dissidents and, for me, therein lies the difference. Would you condemn the Maquis for their actions during WWII for example? I think it's too revisionist to expect a democratic mandate in a non democratic environment. If that were the standard, then black agitation against apartheid, the Afghan fight against the Soviets, and even van Stauffenburg's plot would all have to be condemned.

This verges on Godwins Law and is also patently untrue. If the British government were so restrictive and intrinsically evil, why did they allow people like D.P. Moran and Richard Pigott to consistently publish journals and newspapers that implicity endorsed sedition and seperatism? How come Pearse managed to have his homocidal ramblings published and fully disseminated in the national discourse? The British Empire was not run like a totalitarian State, there was wide freedoms of the press (That were occasionally shut down in times of crisis, of course) but by and large extreme nationalist ideas were widely written about and read for at least 60ish years by 1916. There is simply no basis to your claim.

One of the supreme ironies of all of this is that independent Ireland had fewer civil liberties than that 'brutal occupation' of the British Empire. I am largely indifferent about whether we are governed by Dublin, London, or Timbuktu, so long as my basic personal liberties are ensured and that I live in a body politic that aspires to reduce poverty and inequality in accordance with ensuring an ever expanding standard of life. Nationalist fairy tales and romantic ethnic drama's hold no interest for me whatsoever, I find it rather queasy when I look at nationalism as an abstract idea in any detail.

jackbenimble · 10-10-2010 01:03PM

I was under the impression that The Irish could vote at that time and return MPs to Westminster. How was the situation not democratic? How was it different from Scotland today for instance?

Nodin · 10-10-2010 01:32PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You keep repeating that, but it's just not true. Not only was there a democratic path available, but that path was being pursued.

,.....

.....rather a revisionist joke, considering that the imposition of British rule was without mandate, and the representation afforded to Ireland was never going to amount to self rule.

Yitzhak Rabin · 10-10-2010 01:49PM

Nodin wrote: »

.....rather a revisionist joke, considering that the imposition of British rule was without mandate, and the representation afforded to Ireland was never going to amount to self rule.

Why wouldn't it have? I don't think that there is any reason to doubt that the Home Rule Bill of 1914 wouldn't have resulted in a devolved government had it not been for the intervention of a minority rebel groups attack.

Perhaps it even would have allowed for a united Ireland, where both protestant, and catholic Irishmen were welcome, rather than the situation where protestants and unionists were seen as 'not Irish'.

Happy Monday · 10-10-2010 02:06PM

Nodin wrote: »

.....rather a revisionist joke, considering that the imposition of British rule was without mandate, and the representation afforded to Ireland was never going to amount to self rule.

The Home Rule bill was on the statute book in 1914.

The Irish parliamentary party held the balance of power after the 1910 election - this contradicts your assertion that Irish representation couldn't achieve home rule.

The Rising was planned by Clarke and MacDiarmada not because Ireland wasn't ever going to get Home Rule - they carried it out because they knew we were going to be granted Home Rule. They knew this meant that Ireland with a democratic parliament in Dublin and still part of the UK would remain loyal to King and country and their hopes for a Republic would be ended.

Check out an excellent series on TG4 at the moment called Seachtar na Casca which explains all of this - (that means the 7 of Easter for our Northern Republican Anglophone friends.

)

The RIRAs legitimacy

Comments