Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

The Tricolour on the coffins of terrorists

24567…16

Comments

  • #32
    quirkster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭quirkster


    Elessar wrote: »
    The people who fought for Irelands independence were also terrorists. In fact without them we'd probably still be under British rule.

    Is it ok for them and not for others? Where do you draw the line?

    In relation to the War of Independence, they were terrorists in the sense they rose against the established ruler of the land, yes. However they rose on behalf of the majority who were and been oppressed and who expressed their desire to be free from said ruler in a legitimate election.

    I'd draw the line when they lose a mandate from the people and are not acting on behalf of (in Ireland's case), an overwhelming majority. Post Civil War, they had no mandate.


  • #33
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭gallag


    Elessar wrote: »
    The people who fought for Irelands independence were also terrorists. In fact without them we'd probably still be under British rule.

    Is it ok for them and not for others? Where do you draw the line?
    Planting bombs to kill women and children in shoping centers, also ireland has never been independent, went from British rule to vatican rule to Brussels rule, out of them three the British mabey were not the worst?


  • #34
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    quirkster wrote: »
    In relation to the War of Independence, they were terrorists in the sense they rose against the established ruler of the land, yes. However they rose on behalf of the majority who were and been oppressed and who expressed their desire to be free from said ruler in a legitimate election.

    I'd draw the line when they lose a mandate from the people and are not acting on behalf of (in Ireland's case), an overwhelming majority. Post Civil War, they had no mandate.

    I would define them more as Freedom fighters. At least they had the cajones to take a stand and hoist a flag, rather than place bombs in four cars and high tail it leaving innocent people to face the consequences.

    In all honesty, would Pearse et al have approved of the actions of Delours Price?


  • #35
    okedoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 925 ✭✭✭okedoke


    quirkster wrote: »
    In relation to the War of Independence, they were terrorists in the sense they rose against the established ruler of the land, yes. However they rose on behalf of the majority who were and been oppressed and who expressed their desire to be free from said ruler in a legitimate election.

    I'd draw the line when they lose a mandate from the people and are not acting on behalf of (in Ireland's case), an overwhelming majority. Post Civil War, they had no mandate.

    Certainly no mandate in 1916 for a rising - fair enough there was in 1919


  • #36
    Logical_Bear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 799 ✭✭✭Logical_Bear


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    That's not fair on people with autism and asperger's.

    :pac::eek::o:rolleyes::):D;):p:confused::pac:
    ban will be waived on production of doctors note:pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Skinnykenyan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 306 ✭✭Skinnykenyan


    The ideologies of the modern day IRA are so muddied they dont even know what they represent anymore.
    But look at it this way the IRA that secured us partial independence were also terrorists?
    If modern day republicans weren't the perpetrators of such horrible crimes against the public but instead waged war against the British institution in the name of full independence would they have our mandate to do so?


  • #38
    ITS_A_BADGER
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,232 ✭✭✭ITS_A_BADGER


    whos going to stop someone putting the tricolour on someones coffin? I dont think anyones would upset a dead persons family


  • #39
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Skinnykenyan wrote: »
    The ideologies of the modern day IRA are so muddied they dont even know what they represent anymore.
    But look at it this way the IRA that secured us partial independence were also terrorists?
    If modern day republicans weren't the perpetrators of such horrible crimes against the public but instead waged war against the British institution in the name of full independence would they have our mandate to do so?

    Can you compare the IRA of 1921 and the IRA of 1981 though?

    In 1921, did they deliberately target civilians?

    Genuine question. I'm curious as to whether or not the comparison that modern day republicans like to make is actually a bonafide one.


  • #40
    quirkster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭quirkster


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I would define them more as Freedom fighters. At least they had the cajones to take a stand and hoist a flag, rather than place bombs in four cars and high tail it leaving innocent people to face the consequences.

    In all honesty, would Pearse et al have approved of the actions of Delours Price?

    I'd agree.
    Interestingly, Brugha (if I remember correctly) proposed the machine gunning of crowds leaving the cinemas in Britain something Tom Barry vehemently opposed.


  • #41
    Skinnykenyan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 306 ✭✭Skinnykenyan


    Fratton Fred wrote: »

    Can you compare the IRA of 1921 and the IRA of 1981 though?

    In 1921, did they deliberately target civilians?

    Genuine question. I'm curious as to whether or not the comparison that modern day republicans like to make is actually a bonafide one.
    I think there was aspects of the IRA in the 20s who targeted British civilians. I dont support the IRA in any way I'm just putting an idea out their. If the IRA today or a new group for that matter fought against Britain and the British institution in Ireland without deliberately targeting civilians would they have our mandate. They would be freedom fighters in effect. Yet they would still be viewed as terrorists.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,679 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Can you compare the IRA of 1921 and the IRA of 1981 though?

    In 1921, did they deliberately target civilians?

    Genuine question. I'm curious as to whether or not the comparison that modern day republicans like to make is actually a bonafide one.

    Yes, you can. For one thing they were the one army.
    Neither generation deliberately targeted civilians.
    There were, in both cases,incidents where civilians were killed accidentally and even occasions when individuals from both generations intentionally targeted civilians but these were isolated incidents that were carried out without the approval of the organisation itself.

    Now then, enter the What About Brigade...


  • #43
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 56,583 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Yes, you can. For one thing they were the one army.
    Neither generation deliberately targeted civilians.
    There were, in both cases,incidents where civilians were killed accidentally and even occasions when individuals from both generations intentionally targeted civilians but these were isolated incidents that were carried out without the approval of the organisation itself.

    Now then, enter the What About Brigade...
    Did you type that with a straight face?


  • #44
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    A fitting tribute to a fine lady.

    http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/headlines/in-pictures-funeral-for-ira-bomber-dolours-price-1-4728271


  • #45
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    TwoShedsJackson wrote: »
    Well there's no answer to that... Anyone who posts a single rolleyes as a response should be banned.

    :rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • #46
    donvito99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Dolours Price was married to Stephen Rea?

    Da fuq?


  • #47
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Yes, you can. For one thing they were the one army.
    Neither generation deliberately targeted civilians.
    There were, in both cases,incidents where civilians were killed accidentally and even occasions when individuals from both generations intentionally targeted civilians but these were isolated incidents that were carried out without the approval of the organisation itself.

    Now then, enter the What About Brigade...
    awec wrote: »
    Did you type that with a straight face?

    Sadly, he probably believes it.


  • #48
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,679 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    awec wrote: »
    Did you type that with a straight face?

    Accounting for what I wrote beneath it as well, yes I did.
    Why would they, I mean, even moral reasons aside, it would have served them no purpose. They gained nothing from it.
    Im not saying civilians weren't killed, Im not saying individuals didn't purposely target them on occasion, but it's simply false to state the IRA in 1921 or 1981 targeted civilians.
    Statistics from both phases, as well as the IRA's own rules, attest to this


  • #49
    GRMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    Take it down from the mast....

    Someone has hijacked the tricolour alright and it aint the likes of Price.


  • #50
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Accounting for what I wrote beneath it as well, yes I did.
    Why would they, I mean, even moral reasons aside, it would have served them no purpose. They gained nothing from it.
    Im not saying civilians weren't killed, Im not saying individuals didn't purposely target them on occasion, but it's simply false to state the IRA in 1921 or 1981 targeted civilians.
    Statistics from both phases, as well as the IRA's own rules, attest to this

    are you seriously trying to claim that (for example) the Birmingham pub bombings were carried out without the full knowledge of the IRA army council?


  • #51
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 56,583 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Accounting for what I wrote beneath it as well, yes I did.
    Why would they, I mean, even moral reasons aside, it would have served them no purpose. They gained nothing from it.
    Im not saying civilians weren't killed, Im not saying individuals didn't purposely target them on occasion, but it's simply false to state the IRA in 1921 or 1981 targeted civilians.
    Statistics from both phases, as well as the IRA's own rules, attest to this

    Well, you are talking out of your hoop if that's what you really believe.

    Out of the 2000 odd people killed by the IRA over 700 of them were civilians. They either actively targeted them or they were incredibly bad at avoiding them.

    Which was it?

    I mean, if you stop a bus, get everyone out, line them up and shoot them is that an accident? If you plant a bomb in a busy street and then detonate it, is that an accident? If you plant a bomb at a memorial service that people are attending, is that an accident? What about bombing a hotel? Accident as well?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,679 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    are you seriously trying to claim that (for example) the Birmingham pub bombings were carried out without the full knowledge of the IRA army council?

    No idea, I'm not privy to the inner workings of the former IRA. In regards to Birmingham specifically I do believe that warnings (albeit woefully inadequate warnings) were given.
    The IRA also ruled out any further attacks in Birmingham due to the public reaction and a number of internal investigations took place.
    I think most of us would agree that what happened was horrific and should not have happened but you cannot seriously believe the IRA's aim was to kill civilians.
    Why give a warning? Why react to it the way they did? If they really wanted to kill average Birmingham civilians why not blow up a dozen pubs with no warning bombs?
    I would not for one second claim everything the IRA did was right but to suggest they deliberately targeted civilians is just wrong.


  • #53
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,626 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    donvito99 wrote: »
    Dolours Price was married to Stephen Rea?

    Da fuq?

    They probably did if they were married.


  • #54
    GRMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    If the IRA wanted to kill civilians they could have had an Omagh every day of the week.

    That doesn't mean they weren't careless or individuals didn't target civilians in reprisals.


  • #55
    mariano rivera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 264 ✭✭mariano rivera


    quirkster wrote: »
    In relation to the War of Independence, they were terrorists in the sense they rose against the established ruler of the land, yes. However they rose on behalf of the majority who were and been oppressed and who expressed their desire to be free from said ruler in a legitimate election.

    I'd draw the line when they lose a mandate from the people and are not acting on behalf of (in Ireland's case), an overwhelming majority. Post Civil War, they had no mandate.

    They had no mandate in 1916


  • #56
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,443 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Do we still have terrorists? I was under the impression that they're acknowledged as scumbags now. So, in answer to the question of whether or not they should be draped with the national flag on the happy occasion of their death, I'd have to say no. Nor under the starry plough either. They shouldn't be buried at all. Their corpses should be fed to rats. And their spawn should be sterilized.

    Imho.


  • #57
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,679 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    awec wrote: »
    Well, you are talking out of your hoop if that's what you really believe.

    Out of the 2000 odd people killed by the IRA over 700 of them were civilians. They either actively targeted them or they were incredibly bad at avoiding them.

    Which was it?

    I mean, if you stop a bus, get everyone out, line them up and shoot them is that an accident? If you plant a bomb in a busy street and then detonate it, is that an accident? If you plant a bomb at a memorial service that people are attending, is that an accident? What about bombing a hotel? Accident as well?

    The Kingsmill massacre was carried out without the knowledge of the army council. It was a shameful act that came during a dark time in south Armagh and should be condemned by everybody. It was not however, an IRA operation.

    The Enniskillen bomb was a balls of an operation from the start. The target was a UDR parade but it was far too risky to try that sort of a strike with so many civilians around. Again, it was utterly wrong. The IRA acknowledged this and stood down the brigade and individuals that sacntioned and carried it out.

    Dont know what bomb you are referring to specifically but most, if not all IRA bombs against economic targets came with warnings.

    We can argue about the rights and wrongs of these acts. You can continue to list off the usual names but this simple fact of the matter is the IRA did not target civilians.

    It had no reason to. It was wrong and counter productive. If it somehow helps you to see the IRA as some sort of blood thirsty monster that came from nowhere and started killing people for no reason well then go ahead and believe that, but the facts would disagree with your beliefs


  • #58
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    awec wrote: »
    Well, you are talking out of your hoop if that's what you really believe.

    Out of the 2000 odd people killed by the IRA over 700 of them were civilians. They either actively targeted them or they were incredibly bad at avoiding them.

    Which was it?

    I mean, if you stop a bus, get everyone out, line them up and shoot them is that an accident? If you plant a bomb in a busy street and then detonate it, is that an accident? If you plant a bomb at a memorial service that people are attending, is that an accident? What about bombing a hotel? Accident as well?

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=civillans+killed+by+security+forces+northern+ireland+troubles&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Troubles&ei=Mp0GUZmdEZCyhAePn4GYDw&usg=AFQjCNEj-L4Fls1GL6NTBjT87WhZRVKCiA&bvm=bv.41524429,d.ZG4


    According to Malcolm Sutton's Index of Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland:[135]
    Of those killed by British security forces:
    187 (~51.5%) were civilians
    145 (~39.9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
    18 (~4.9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
    13 (~3.5%) were fellow members of the British security forces
    Of those killed by republican paramilitaries:
    1080 (~52%) were members of the British security forces
    728 (~35%) were civilians
    187 (~9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
    56 (~2.7%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
    10 (~0.4%) were members of the Irish security forces
    Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries:
    868 (~85.4%) were civilians
    93 (~9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
    41 (~4%) were members of republican paramilitaries
    14 (~1.3%) were members of the British security forces


  • #59
    Spindle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Spindle


    Well sadly it is the first thing I think of when I see the Irish flag at weddings/funerals and the like. Ohh they are raa heads.

    It is what happens when you grew up in a time, when you see on the news guys in balaclavas with guns, sitting at a table with the tricolour behind them.

    I think there is not as much pride about our national identity and flag, as there is in other countries purely down to this reason. As when ever you saw the flag it was always associated with a bombing or such.


  • #60
    quirkster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭quirkster


    mariano rivera wrote: »
    They had no mandate in 1916

    Where have I claimed that they did?
    On the contrary I've stated that while they didn't have a mandate for Easter Week of 1916, they judged that all that Ireland needed was a spark to light the flame of nationalism, which they set out of provide, and which they succeeded in doing.

    The subsequent landslide majority for Sinn Féin in the 1919 elections attest to this fact, and furthermore show that the W of I did have a mandate from the people who no longer wanted British rule


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    super_furry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,387 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    I'm surprised they can bear the sight of the orange part of the flag. I mean the flag itself is literally a representation of peace between Republicans and Orangemen.

    That's the gob****es who somehow try to claim that the flag's colour is green white and gold.


Advertisement
Advertisement