Irelands War Dead

yore · 27-05-2013 11:12PM

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)

27-05-2013 11:21PM

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 · 27-05-2013 11:29PM

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 · 28-05-2013 02:05AM

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 · 28-05-2013 04:41AM

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 · 28-05-2013 10:12PM

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 · 28-05-2013 11:10PM

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 · 28-05-2013 11:13PM

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 · 28-05-2013 11:15PM

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

bilston · 28-05-2013 11:16PM

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 · 28-05-2013 11:21PM

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 · 28-05-2013 11:26PM

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 · 28-05-2013 11:42PM

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 · 29-05-2013 01:41AM

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 · 29-05-2013 01:48PM

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 · 29-05-2013 01:52PM

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 · 29-05-2013 01:54PM

donvito99 wrote: »

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

Or, to be more accurate, no.

RandomName2 · 29-05-2013 02:05PM

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 · 29-05-2013 02:06PM

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 · 29-05-2013 10:21PM

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'

ONeill2013 · 29-05-2013 10:56PM

They should be celebrated but they are not the only men to have died for Ireland, how many people will be celebrating the Battle of Clontarf anniversary next year?

Iwasfrozen · 29-05-2013 11:25PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

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.

Typical nationalist nonsense. Inability to separate goals from actions.

tdv123 wrote: »

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.

More nationalist nonsense. Home rule was coming for Ireland. 1916 and the deaths of all it's victims were unnecessary.

purplepanda · 30-05-2013 01:35AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

More nationalist nonsense. Home rule was coming for Ireland. 1916 and the deaths of all it's victims were unnecessary.

There was no guarantee of "Home Rule" after the 1913 bill was cancelled for the duration of the war. When the fourth Home Rule bill 1920 was introduced partition with two Irish parliament's was enacted , by then the popular demand was for an independent government.

Eventual armed conflict was assured from 1912-13 because there was two large political armies in Ireland, the British had no serious intention of disarming either or both of them in a war situation, nor the resources to carry out such an operation.

Would the British Government have allowed an all Ireland Parliament if the Easter Rising didn't happen? Or two separate Irish Parliaments? Or would they have failed to even enact any legislation due to considerable opposition pressure?

Iwasfrozen · 30-05-2013 01:52AM

purplepanda wrote: »

There was no guarantee of "Home Rule" after the 1913 bill was cancelled for the duration of the war. When the fourth Home Rule bill 1920 was introduced partition with two Irish parliament's was enacted , by then the popular demand was for an independent government.

The Third Home Rule Bill of 1914 was never cancelled only postponed pending the outcome of the war. It had already passed Parliament and passed every requirement needed to pass into law.

Eventual armed conflict was assured from 1912-13 because there was two large political armies in Ireland, the British had no serious intention of disarming either or both of them in a war situation, nor the resources to carry out such an operation.

Totally unrelated to 1916 so I don't know why you brought it up. Never the less armed conflict was never inevitable the most obvious solution was to partition the island.

Would the British Government have allowed an all Ireland Parliament if the Easter Rising didn't happen?

Of course not, they didn't allow it anyway.

Or two separate Irish Parliaments? Or would they have failed to even enact any legislation due to considerable opposition pressure?

They would very likely have set up two parliaments in Ireland with the southern one being practically identical to the Free State. The Easter rising and both wars the followed were needless stupid loss of life and that's why they should not be celebrated.

il gatto · 30-05-2013 02:09AM

The objective of terrorists is to terrorise a group or general population. As such, public places and civilians are targeted. Otherwise you're not terrorising. It's more than a slight misnomer to call them terrorists. "insurgents" would be more accurate. Most of the terror during the 1916 rising was caused by the fighting between the volunteers and the British Army. Civilians were not targets.
As for the men of 1916 being responsible for freeing 26 counties, not really. They inspired those who did, but they didn't free much in and of themselves.

Karl Stein · 30-05-2013 02:11AM

Home Rule had the likelihood of making Ireland into a more permanent 'vassal state' of Great Britain thereby ensuring dependency and subordination like we see in the north currently. Those who organised the rising perhaps foresaw a last chance to reignite the aspiration of true Irish independence as a separate sovereign state; that, at least, they achieved.

Iwasfrozen · 30-05-2013 02:26AM

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Home Rule had the likelihood of making Ireland into a more permanent 'vassal state' of Great Britain thereby ensuring dependency and subordination like we see in the north currently. Those who organised the rising perhaps foresaw a last chance to reignite the aspiration of true Irish independence as a separate sovereign state; that, at least, they achieved.

Home Rule was never the end goal, it was a stepping stone to full independence. Independence that would have been achieved without war, death and broken families. Think about that the next time you praise murderers.

il gatto · 30-05-2013 02:50AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Home Rule was never the end goal, it was a stepping stone to full independence. Independence that would have been achieved without war, death and broken families. Think about that the next time you praise murderers.

I'm far from indoctrinated to the Nationalist mindset and beatification of the leaders of 1916 and the WoI, but to blankly state that independence would've been achieved even though you acknowledged home rule wasn't granted after WW1? based on what? Their mishandled withdrawal from India 30 years later?
All killing is not murder. You may make a stand of principle and say it is, but that doesn't make it so.

Iwasfrozen · 30-05-2013 02:54AM

il gatto wrote: »

I'm far from indoctrinated to the Nationalist mindset and beatification of the leaders of 1916 and the WoI, but to blankly state that independence wod've been achieved even though you acknowledged home rule wasn't granted after WW1? based on what?

Based on the bill already passing through Parliament and being formally postponed (not cancelled). The war of independence stopped the bills implementation after the war.

il gatto wrote: »

Their mishandled withdrawal from India 30 years later?
All killing is not murder. You may make a stand of principle and say it is, but that doesn't make it so.

Can you give an example of a killing that isn't murder?

il gatto · 30-05-2013 03:04AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Based on the bill already passing through Parliament and being formally postponed (not cancelled). The war of independence stopped the bills implementation after the war.

Can you give an example of a killing that isn't murder?

Home Rule is not independence. Whether it was to be granted or not we'll never know. To state that independence would've been achieved/granted is pure speculation.
Any killing which is not classed as murder under law.

Irelands War Dead

Comments