Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Great Irish Political Leaders
Options
Comments
-
Doco was a hero who gave his life to save that of many many others. He was killed stopping loyalists from blowing up a bar - even if you don't like the IRA you have to admit that it was a heroic thing to do. (Personally I reckon that a lot of those who slag him off are a bit disappointed that those who were in the pub at the time (numerous republicans) were not killed)0
-
The SDLP and John Hume played a major role in lengthening the troubles by collaborating with Thatcher and the British to exclude SF from talks/politics all together. (There's a reason they were called the Stoop Down Low Party)/ He only came on board a long ways down the line, a lot of his involvement was window dressing, the real credit for the peace process goes to Adams, Haughey and Fr Alec Reid, it was these discussions which directly lead to the peace process. (as much as it pains me to give Haughey credit for anything)OCorcrainn wrote: »A good choice, I am a Sinn Féin supporter myself but if I was living up north the SDLP would get my vote too. I have a lot respect for the effort that party did during the Troubles, more so for the work John Hume did, no one can deny his contribution. Nationalists needed men like him just as much as Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness.0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »Personal insults and what you have written to date in your 3 history posts - res ipsa loquitur. O’Doherty was not a soldier and never had a mandate from a democratically elected government. He was a convicted terrorist, a person who was proud to boast about bombing (innocent people) and who was hired as a doorman because of his ‘connections’. He questioned a couple of suspicious thugs who then shot him. He most certainly was not a Great Irish Political Leader, which is what this thread is about. :rolleyes:
The Irish Republic was a democratically elected government.0 -
Bigdeadlydave wrote: »The SDLP and John Hume played a major role in lengthening the troubles by collaborating with Thatcher and the British to exclude SF from talks/politics all together. (There's a reason they were called the Stoop Down Low Party)/ He only came on board a long ways down the line, a lot of his involvement was window dressing, the real credit for the peace process goes to Adams, Haughey and Fr Alec Reid, it was these discussions which directly lead to the peace process. (as much as it pains me to give Haughey credit for anything)
Interesting comments. Indeed I'm very aware of others having significant roles to play in the Peace Process, but it was not on that issue alone that I would put John Hume top of the list.
For me,it was more about his lifelong commitment to following his beliefs. It took a great toll on his health, and he would have taken a lot of criticism and abuse and threats from many quarters.
In the same vein, Austin Currie and Ivan Cooper are worth a mention.0 -
Bigdeadlydave wrote: »The SDLP and John Hume played a major role in lengthening the troubles by collaborating with Thatcher and the British to exclude SF from talks/politics all together. (There's a reason they were called the Stoop Down Low Party)/ He only came on board a long ways down the line, a lot of his involvement was window dressing, the real credit for the peace process goes to Adams, Haughey and Fr Alec Reid, it was these discussions which directly lead to the peace process. (as much as it pains me to give Haughey credit for anything)
Bigdeadlydave, perhaps "collaborating" is too strong a word? I can remember those days and can remember feeling totally frustrated that Sinn Fein were not allowed to enter into formal negotiations, and I can understand why you believe that the troubles were extended as a result.
But there are also many many other reasons why the troubles lasted the length that they did.
I cant remember the exact reasons why Sinn Fein were excluded, apart from the obvious alleged links with "terrorist" organisations. I for one would have disagreed with their exclusion, but I do not think that John Hume would have deliberately excluded them to protect his vote, or the SDLP's foothold in NI politics. Though others in the SDLP would for sure have had that agenda.
(Did John Hume have a vote on keeping Sinn Fein out?).
Would there also have been Loyalist "Political" organisations who were also excluded from formal discussions?
And if I may ask, would you consider Sinn Feins current status as collaborating with the British Government?
Lastly a clip of JH on the doorstep. In my opinion he had the courage of his conviction and chose to take the democratic route.
I am also reminded of Gerry Fitt, or "Fitt the Brit" as he was dubbed by his own. I think he lost count of how many times his house was attacked.
I believe that they all contributed significantly to getting us to where we are today.
http://youtu.be/j863HQ2OF5Q
Gerry Fitt:
http://youtu.be/LA4B6_REg400 -
Advertisement
-
Bigdeadlydave wrote: »The SDLP and John Hume played a major role in lengthening the troubles by collaborating with Thatcher and the British to exclude SF from talks/politics all together. (There's a reason they were called the Stoop Down Low Party)/ He only came on board a long ways down the line, a lot of his involvement was window dressing, the real credit for the peace process goes to Adams, Haughey and Fr Alec Reid, it was these discussions which directly lead to the peace process. (as much as it pains me to give Haughey credit for anything)
I cant believe you can slander the name of someone who gave so much for the Irish people, and who rightfully won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work. Sinn Fein had direct links with terrorism, and if not for the work of Hume and the SDLP they would have been excluded from peace talks for far longer.0 -
Nothing I said is not true.I cant believe you can slander the name of someone who gave so much for the Irish people, and who rightfully won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work. Sinn Fein had direct links with terrorism, and if not for the work of Hume and the SDLP they would have been excluded from peace talks for far longer.0 -
I suggest reading "A secret history of the IRA", of particular interest is the period after the hungerstrikes when the SDLP, Garret Fitzgerald and the British all collaborated in order to exclude SF and to damage their increasing votes. In order to do this they promoted the SDLP. As we all know (and SF and others pointed out at the time) peace only came when everyone was included. It's basic stuff, if you want fighting to stop you have to include all the combatants in negotiations. So yes, the SDLP through their collaboration with Thatcher helped extend the troubles. And yes, this was self interest. By the time all this was played out in front of the cameras the ball was already long rolling.Bigdeadlydave, perhaps "collaborating" is too strong a word? I can remember those days and can remember feeling totally frustrated that Sinn Fein were not allowed to enter into formal negotiations, and I can understand why you believe that the troubles were extended as a result.
But there are also many many other reasons why the troubles lasted the length that they did.
I cant remember the exact reasons why Sinn Fein were excluded, apart from the obvious alleged links with "terrorist" organisations. I for one would have disagreed with their exclusion, but I do not think that John Hume would have deliberately excluded them to protect his vote, or the SDLP's foothold in NI politics. Though others in the SDLP would for sure have had that agenda.
(Did John Hume have a vote on keeping Sinn Fein out?).
Would there also have been Loyalist "Political" organisations who were also excluded from formal discussions?
And if I may ask, would you consider Sinn Feins current status as collaborating with the British Government?
Lastly a clip of JH on the doorstep. In my opinion he had the courage of his conviction and chose to take the democratic route.
I am also reminded of Gerry Fitt, or "Fitt the Brit" as he was dubbed by his own. I think he lost count of how many times his house was attacked.
I believe that they all contributed significantly to getting us to where we are today.
http://youtu.be/j863HQ2OF5Q
Gerry Fitt:
http://youtu.be/LA4B6_REg40
At this stage (early eighties) Adams and Haughey were engaged in secret negotiations using Fr Alec Reid as an intermediary. It pains me to praise Haughey but he realized that excluding republicans would never work. (as was obvious) He took a massive risk with these negotiations as if they got out it would have been the end of him, especially considering his earlier involvement in the Arms Crisis. It is unclear if Adams actions were authorized by the IRA or not, depending on the answer to that he was also on thin ice, but it would have been far more damaging to Haughey. Out of these negotiations came the peace process, Hume gets far more credit than he should. To his credit Hume and the SDLP did eventually fall on their sword but only after over a decade of aiding the British in sidelining republicans. (As did the laughably nicknamed "Garret the Good" who incidentally showed no interest in engaging with Fr Alec Reid, the negotiations were interrupted whenever Sir Garret was in office) If you want to pick a peacemaker out of this time period that man is Fr Alec Reid.0 -
"It's basic stuff, if you want fighting to stop you have to include all the combatants in negotiations"..
This isn't a road I want to go down, but with regard to the above, what is your opinion of including the 32 Sovereignty Movement and the "Real IRA" in discussions with whoever?
And what is your opinion on Sinn Feins current status within the British Democratic process?
And as Lou Reed, said, "don't believe none of what you see and half of what you hear"... Books? Eh?0 -
"It's basic stuff, if you want fighting to stop you have to include all the combatants in negotiations"..
This isn't a road I want to go down, but with regard to the above, what is your opinion of including the 32 Sovereignty Movement and the "Real IRA" in discussions with whoever?
And what is your opinion on Sinn Feins current status within the British Democratic process?
And as Lou Reed, said, "don't believe none of what you see and half of what you hear"... Books? Eh?
Why shift the goalposts like that? So you don't believe any of the multitude of books about the topic? Ed Moloneys book about the IRA is very good and I would say the most accurate in dealing with the period of time we are talking about. But you obviously must know better? Bit odd to see books so easily dismissed in a history forum.
As for the Real IRA and whatnot, their "war" is hardly comparable to that of the provisionals is it? They have nowhere near the same support, capability, activity, membership etc, in fact I'd say there are more British agents or touts in it than republicans. But yes, I think they should be talked with, SF have offered many times but they have refused.
As for Sinn Féin and the wider provisional movement, I think they were right to stop fighting, and should have done so sooner, but I think the GFA will only lead to more tears because it doesn't solve the root issue and even worse it institutionalizes sectarianism. I don't see how any of this is at all relevant, it seems to me you are going on a fishing expedition in order to find a red herring.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm fishing for nothing. Was merely responding to your posts re John Hume. And I'm not even going to being to explain what I know. You stick to the books.0
-
Why bother posting on a HISTORY forum if your only contribution is a self satisfied smug remark like that? It's obvious it's just a cover for your ignorance - however that is the very thing which discussions like this are supposed to help with - if you'll let them.I'm fishing for nothing. Was merely responding to your posts re John Hume. And I'm not even going to being to explain what I know. You stick to the books.
Tell us what you know then, and how you are better informed than the likes of Ed Moloney or the numerous people he talked with while writing his books.0 -
Bigdeadlydave wrote: »Why bother posting on a HISTORY forum if your only contribution is a self satisfied smug remark like that? It's obvious it's just a cover for your ignorance - however that is the very thing which discussions like this are supposed to help with - if you'll let them.
Tell us what you know then, and how you are better informed than the likes of Ed Moloney or the numerous people he talked with while writing his books.
Back seat moderation can warrant an infraction. Take heed of this tolerant warning or an infraction will be applied. Also note that in general the posts in this thread need to relate to the op.
moderator0 -
Well, let's start with the fact that regardless of his military credentials, he was an outstanding organiser - his role as Minister of Finance is hugely overlooked along with his role in organising the logistics of the War of Independence. All while on the run and managing a first class intelligence gathering operation.
He was also astute enough to realise that while the British were war weary, the Republican forces were spent - they were effectively out of ammunition and a lot of units were, in modern parlance, 'combat ineffective' for the want of replacements. In the circumstances he did as well as anyone could have.
I never claimed he didn't do any good/remarkable deeds.However,he turned on his former comrades and sold out,that is unforgivable.0 -
To say the Real IRA's campaign is in anyway comparable. To the Provos is ridiculous,there's a lot of propaganda against them,they DO have large support,finance,membership and capability,the reason their campaign is so minor compared to the Provos is because the conditions for war aren't strong enough,yet.Bigdeadlydave wrote: »Why shift the goalposts like that? So you don't believe any of the multitude of books about the topic? Ed Moloneys book about the IRA is very good and I would say the most accurate in dealing with the period of time we are talking about. But you obviously must know better? Bit odd to see books so easily dismissed in a history forum.
As for the Real IRA and whatnot, their "war" is hardly comparable to that of the provisionals is it? They have nowhere near the same support, capability, activity, membership etc, in fact I'd say there are more British agents or touts in it than republicans. But yes, I think they should be talked with, SF have offered many times but they have refused.
As for Sinn Féin and the wider provisional movement, I think they were right to stop fighting, and should have done so sooner, but I think the GFA will only lead to more tears because it doesn't solve the root issue and even worse it institutionalizes sectarianism. I don't see how any of this is at all relevant, it seems to me you are going on a fishing expedition in order to find a red herring.0 -
Head in the sand stuff, there's no point fooling yourself, doesnt do anyone any good.To say the Real IRA's campaign is in anyway comparable. To the Provos is ridiculous,there's a lot of propaganda against them,they DO have large support,finance,membership and capability,the reason their campaign is so minor compared to the Provos is because the conditions for war aren't strong enough,yet.0 -
Bigdeadlydave wrote: »Head in the sand stuff, there's no point fooling yourself, doesnt do anyone any good.
I made an edgucated guess based on history and common sense,you make your judgement based on what,something you read in a newspaper?0 -
In what way was Michael Collins the greatest Irish leader ever?He accepted the Treaty which was a blatant sell-out and gave us nothing
He was one of the reasons why we were able to get as far as we did in the War of Independence. His intelligence network was vital, and he was a great administrator who worked endlessly at his job. His work as Minister of Finance was a bonus too, and was charismatic. That's what make him a great leader.
As for the treaty. I've said it time and time again. The whole thing was f*cked from the start. Dev should have went over as well, and brought a better negotiation team with him. I wouldn't consider what he did as selling out either. But more to do with he had no choice. What would you have him do, refuse and then possibly continue a war that we would have lost? He accepted the treaty under the belief that it was at least progress to getting an Irish Republic. If he had lived, he might have taken steps to a United Ireland but we will never know. But obviously Collins became the scapegoat for the anti-treaty side, and everyone pinned it on him. Let's not forget then when they put it to a vote, the pro treaty side won and Dev didn't do any better either by fanning the flames of hatred. A civil war could have easily been avoided but people chose to fight instead. That's not Collins's fault, that was the nature of politics back then.a war where we lost so much young men and civillians and not to mention the regular,working class English soldiers who also died for nothing.
That's war for you, what do you expect? But how is that Collins problem? Those men were killed by both sides.One things for sure,he was neither a Republican,a man of principle or a great leader.
That's opinion not fact. So it's not for sure.0 -
Sorry but it's too complicated to quote your post so I'm just going to reply to you here.
You didn't read my first post,I agree Collins was a military genius,his tactics were highly influential and ingenuis,I'm not disputing that one bit.He was,up until the Treaty and the shelling of the fourts a great leader.But to sign a treaty whoch essentially said everything we fought was fpr nothing and to preach it as a victory by using the people's disdain for war is disgraceful.Add to that the fact he ordered the shelling against the Republican troops in the four courts and you have a very shameful man who previously had been a great man.The treaty far from gave us the Republic we desired,ot partitioned our country and created conflict that still continues and will still continue.
As for your post about war always being like that.Obviously it is but when it's done for a cause or ideal that is then brushed aside,then it is despicable and everyone who died,died for nothing.0 -
Oh,and regarding your final comment.
Of course it is my opinion,that goes withput saying.
And let's look at it objectively now.
Was he a Republican?No.Why?Well a Republican is someone who owes their allegiance to the Irish Republic,proclaimed in 1916,ratified by the people in 1918 and defended by force of arms in 1919-1921 and driven underground by it's former adherents in 1922.Michael Collins abandoned this proclamation,he surrendered to the occupation forces the Republic by signing the treaty,partitioned the nation and went to war with the Republic's soldiers,he was not a Republican.
As for a man of principle,he proclaimed himself a Republican,I just said how that isn't true,if he wasn't a Republican he should have said so,he was a Nationalist,nothing more.Atleast people like Arthur Griffith never said they were Republican.
And I've already pointed out the "great leader" bit.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry but it's too complicated to quote your post so I'm just going to reply to you here.
You didn't read my first post,I agree Collins was a military genius,his tactics were highly influential and ingenuis,I'm not disputing that one bit.He was,up until the Treaty and the shelling of the fourts a great leader.But to sign a treaty whoch essentially said everything we fought was fpr nothing and to preach it as a victory by using the people's disdain for war is disgraceful.Add to that the fact he ordered the shelling against the Republican troops in the four courts and you have a very shameful man who previously had been a great man.The treaty far from gave us the Republic we desired,ot partitioned our country and created conflict that still continues and will still continue.
He bombed the four courts after the anti-treaty side captured it themselves. They provoked it. Would they have left the Four Courts willingly? I doubt it. As I said before, had things been dealt with better they could have avoided a civil war. But I believe it was the stubbornness of both sides and nearsightedness that caused it.
Also like I also said before. When Collins accepted the treaty, we do not know what his long term plans were. At the time he accepted it, he was being pressured by the British to accept their terms. But he accepted it, maybe as a stepping stone. He also believed that Northern Ireland would be able to vote to either stay with the Free State or with Britain, with the idea being that it would have resulted in Northern Ireland becoming a part of the free state anyway. But it never came to be. But with Collins death we will never know what would have happened.Was he a Republican?No.Why?Well a Republican is someone who owes their allegiance to the Irish Republic,proclaimed in 1916,ratified by the people in 1918 and defended by force of arms in 1919-1921 and driven underground by it's former adherents in 1922.Michael Collins abandoned this proclamation,he surrendered to the occupation forces the Republic by signing the treaty,partitioned the nation and went to war with the Republic's soldiers,he was not a Republican.
His allegiance was always to the Irish Republic. He made some tough decisions that weighed heavily on him. But his contributions during the war speak for themselves. Would anyone else had done any better then him in his position? I doubt it. The Irish Republic wasn't up to continuing a fight with Britain he accepted the treaty because he had no choice. I would consider that better, as it did prove to be a stepping stone for Irish independence. The civil war was the fault of both sides, not just Collins.0 -
Ah yes,blame the Republicans for occying the Four Courts,don't believe everything they tell you in school.And what would you expect them to do when they've been sold out?They had to witness comrades die and lose years of their lives for a war that they ended up losing,there is no shame in surrendering and gathering your resources but there is shame in surrendering and claiming it as a victory.The 32 County Worker's Republic had ben usurped by the Free State and used to claim a victory,as soldiers of the Republic they had a duty to defend it,unfortunately they lost and almost 100 years later we still haven't achieved the Republic.
Your secnd post is one of great ignorance and uneducation likely fostered by the 26 County media and school system.He was not a Republican,I've already explained what a Republican is,Tom Barry,Liam Lynch,Liam Mellows,Dan Breen etc. were Republicans,they stuck with their pri ciples,evem when they weren't popular.It is the duty of al soldiers to defend the Revolution which they did,and did so admirably.He had a choice just like all these men did,he chose not to defend the Republic.Stepping stone for Irish independence?Considering Ireland is not an independent nation then that didn't work out so well,our country is partitioned,conflict still ragesand we have a corrupt,sociopThic "government" that is controlled by bankers.That is NOT the Irish Republic the seven signatories died for.
The Civil war was the fault of one side and one side only,the pro-treatyites.The Republican soldiers were defending the Republic,the free staters were destroying it,they were right to oppose them by force of arms.0 -
Ah yes,blame the Republicans for occying the Four Courts,don't believe everything they tell you in school.And what would you expect them to do when they've been sold out?
You were the one who brought up the Four Courts. It's true they did occupy the Four Courts. Nothing to do with school, it's fact. You talk about being sold out, yet when they voted on it in the Daíl, the pro treaty side won and the anti-treaty side walked out. So much for diplomacy. I would have expected a more peaceful way of dealing with the issue myself. I'm not happy that it led to violence and I do think it was wrong to shell the Four Court, but it happened. But it was both sides fault for the civil war.They had to witness comrades die and lose years of their lives for a war that they ended up losing,there is no shame in surrendering and gathering your resources but there is shame in surrendering and claiming it as a victory.
When you surrender you accept the terms imposed upon you by the people you surrender to. You don't gather resources when you surrender. In fact it's the other way around. The victors are the ones who gather resources. We fought the British to the negotiation tables, that was a victory in itself. We also managed to get an Irish Free State, and the British out of Ireland, at least for the South anyway. They can be considered victories because we could have ended up with nothing. They could have crushed us and we would still be apart of Britain right now.The 32 County Worker's Republic had ben usurped by the Free State and used to claim a victory,as soldiers of the Republic they had a duty to defend it,unfortunately they lost and almost 100 years later we still haven't achieved the Republic.
B*ll****. We are an independent nation right now. A sovereign nation, with our own constitution, a government and recognized as a nation. We eventually did achieve what we set out for, that is a victory because we gained our independence. If you are referring to Northern Ireland still being apart of Britain, then i'm afraid that's just the way things are. But to say that they lost would be a disservice to the guys who fought in the war. Guys who were against the treaty, eventually did accept the Free State and were a big part of it too.Your secnd post is one of great ignorance and uneducation likely fostered by the 26 County media and school system.He was not a Republican,I've already explained what a Republican is,Tom Barry,Liam Lynch,Liam Mellows,Dan Breen etc. were Republicans,they stuck with their pri ciples,evem when they weren't popular.
Collins was as republican as the guys you mentioned. Don't mar his name just because you have a grudge. You already admitted he was a great leader up until the civil war, he fought for an Irish Republic too and did a lot during the war too.It is the duty of al soldiers to defend the Revolution which they did,and did so admirably.He had a choice just like all these men did,he chose not to defend the Republic.
He played a pivotal role in the war, I would consider that defending the republic, not to mention he fought in the 1916 rising when the Republic was first formed. The so called republic that you are referring to, could not be gotten at the time. Even if we did get a 32 country Ireland, we would still be a Free State, still under British rule since we didn't' gain a Republic until years later. That wouldn't be a republic, but I bet the republicans you quoted above would have accepted it. So if that was the case, would they have been republicans for accepting a 32 county Free State instead of a Republic? I would consider them republican regardless just like I consider Collins one.Stepping stone for Irish independence?Considering Ireland is not an independent nation then that didn't work out so well,our country is partitioned,conflict still ragesand we have a corrupt,sociopThic "government" that is controlled by bankers.
:rolleyes: Oh right so you blame Collins for something that happened 100 years later. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.That is NOT the Irish Republic the seven signatories died for.
The Civil war was the fault of one side and one side only,the pro-treatyites.The Republican soldiers were defending the Republic,the free staters were destroying it,they were right to oppose them by force of arms.[
See what I said above. But just to add to that. The civil war was the fault of both sides. I already explained that to you. If you can't accept that the i'm afraid it's you who's showing ignorance. You're clearly biased and don't want to admit that both sides were at fault.0 -
[QUOTE=Che16;85819208]Was he a Republican?No.Why?Well a Republican is someone who owes their allegiance to the Irish Republic,proclaimed in 1916,ratified by the people in 1918 and defended by force of arms in 1919-1921 and driven underground by it's former adherents in 1922.Michael Collins abandoned this proclamation,he surrendered to the occupation forces the Republic by signing the treaty,partitioned the nation and went to war with the Republic's soldiers,he was not a Republican.[/QUOTE]
So by your logic; Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmett, O Donovan Rossa were not Republicans.To say the Real IRA's campaign is in anyway comparable. To the Provos is ridiculous,there's a lot of propaganda against them,they DO have large support,finance,membership and capability,the reason their campaign is so minor compared to the Provos is because the conditions for war aren't strong enough,yet.
Where was this war after the GFA when the Real IRA bombed Omagh? :rolleyes:
How old are you I bet you did not even live through the Troubles or were old enough to remember when the Real IRA bombed Omagh.0 -
Ah yes,play the age card,you're wrong actually,I was alive back then.As for Omagh,yes it was a horrible atrocity but you must remember,there would be no Omagh,no armed struggle if there was no foreign troops on our national territory,occupation breeds resistance.The Real IRA are comparable to the IRA when the Free State sold out,when the men who set up Fianna Fail sold out,when the Official IRA sold out,it's yhe same practice.there will always be an IRA until The Republic is estabilished.OCorcrainn wrote: »So by your logic; Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmett, O Donovan Rossa were not Republicans.
The Irish Republic was founded on their principles,they were the fathers of Irish Republicanism.
Where was this war after the GFA when the Real IRA bombed Omagh? :rolleyes:
How old are you I bet you did not even live through the Troubles or were old enough to remember when the Real IRA bombed Omagh.
"Ireland unfree will never be at peace" - Padraig Pearse
As for Omagh specifically,it was not intended to turn into the tragedy it was.Faulty planning,poor organising,poor communication and incompetence by the RUC led to the high death toll.The RIRA didn't intend to kill civillians that day,it was an unfortunate byproduct of British rule in Ireland.0 -
Riddle101.
I never claimed Republicans didn't occupy the Four Courts.I said they shouldn't be criticised for it.Of course the Treaty was passed,it furthered the cause of those who passed it,unprincipled men,unprincipled treaty,they told the Irish people it was a treaty for peace,maybe in the short-term but you can't seriously say Ireland has been at peace since then.It was not both sides fault,it was the pro-treaty side,when you destroy the ideal you have fought for for years you will meet opposition,it was nt the IRA's fault for resisting the Free State,it was their duty.
Regarding surrender,we surrendered in 1916 but just a few years later we had enough momentum and resources to begin a revolution.
You are correct,he most definately did defend the Republic but when he signed the treaty he destroyed it.The men I reffered to were undisputable Republicans,they defended the Republic proclaimed in 1916 and its principles,Collins went against it,he was a Republican but ceased to be one when he did that.
No,I do not blame Collins as he could not see this coming,however,he destroyed the Republic and caused it.0 -
We are not an independent nation Riddle101,our country is partitioned,the north is under military occupation and has the backing of a people that shoupdn't be here supporting it.The south is run by a government proclaiming itself as the sucessors of 1916 which is a logical contradiction.It is run by a right-wing anti-working class "government" and the bankers amd landowners run everything.That is not independence,that is not what the leaders of '16 died for.The constition,military,police force,parliament in the 26 counties is the property of the sucessors of the Free State,not the property of the Irish Republic,if they even admitted that they are not the Irish Republic,I would commend its honesty,not that I would agree with them of course.Its the hypocrisy and opportunism that gets at me.Those who fought against the Free State did of course enter Leinster House,that is factual,but by doing this they forfeited their right to be declared Republicans,a lot of anti-treaty forces did staytrue to the Republic however.
It's you who is showing ignorance my friend,I'm very well versed in the history of the Republic and its institutions.Obviously I am biased,so are you,both our posts are hardly objective,however,yours are more biased,I base a lot of mine on my own convictions,yes,but I also use history and logic,you use the history put forward by Leinster House.0 -
I never claimed he didn't do any good/remarkable deeds.However,he turned on his former comrades and sold out,that is unforgivable.
Or saved them - the papers from the time make it fairly clear that if hostilities were to resume the British were going to go all out to impose a solution, that included introducing the RAF.0 -
.Faulty planning,poor organising,poor communication and incompetence by the RUC led to the high death toll.
Nope nothing to do with the stupidity and ameteurism of the bombers who could not find a parking space (because they waited until rush hour to do it) near the intended target of the courthouse, and instead left the car 400 metres away in a packed pedestrian area?0 -
Advertisement
-
We are not an independent nation Riddle101,our country is partitioned,the north is under military occupation and has the backing of a people that shoupdn't be here supporting it.The south is run by a government proclaiming itself as the sucessors of 1916 which is a logical contradiction.It is run by a right-wing anti-working class "government" and the bankers amd landowners run everything.That is not independence,that is not what the leaders of '16 died for.The constition,military,police force,parliament in the 26 counties is the property of the sucessors of the Free State,not the property of the Irish Republic,if they even admitted that they are not the Irish Republic,I would commend its honesty,not that I would agree with them of course.Its the hypocrisy and opportunism that gets at me.Those who fought against the Free State did of course enter Leinster House,that is factual,but by doing this they forfeited their right to be declared Republicans,a lot of anti-treaty forces did staytrue to the Republic however.
It's you who is showing ignorance my friend,I'm very well versed in the history of the Republic and its institutions.Obviously I am biased,so are you,both our posts are hardly objective,however,yours are more biased,I base a lot of mine on my own convictions,yes,but I also use history and logic,you use the history put forward by Leinster House.
Wed still be flying the Union Jack if somebody put you in charge.0
Advertisement