Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Thread Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
16-02-2020, 12:56   #46
Boredstiff666
Registered User
 
Boredstiff666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by sid waddell View Post
I'm not defending it. All I'm saying is that there is a common line circulated in discourse that the majority of the people the Provos killed were Catholics. It's not true or even close to being true.

Why did the IRA in the War of Independence kill so many Irish people? That is not a line we ever hear.

Nor do we hear much about the ordinary Irish people killed by the rebels during the 1916 Rising.
One man told me they would march the prisoners out of a morning. Every 10th man was shot in war of independance. Dont know if true.
Boredstiff666 is offline  
Advertisement
16-02-2020, 13:06   #47
gormdubhgorm
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm08 View Post
You are killing your own argument here by saying that Sinn Fein/PIRA would not agree to Sungindale! They were not asked. John Hume / SDLP were the nationalist involved in that peace attempt. It was the unionists / loyalists who wouldn't agree and they threatened violence. There was also the general strike called by the Ulster Workers Council (rabble roused by Paisley).



So, in short, it was unionists/loyalists who collapsed Sunningdale. They were the 'slow learners'.
So why then did SF eventually agree to a rebranded Sunningdale called the GFA 25 years later. Was it just because it was politically expedient?

Last edited by gormdubhgorm; 16-02-2020 at 13:21.
gormdubhgorm is offline  
16-02-2020, 13:20   #48
gormdubhgorm
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,240
If people truly believe that the IRA of the WOI were equivalent to the provisional IRA of the troubles - people should have no problem with the Real IRA and Saoradh.

All of these strands of republicanism came from a place with no mandate from the 1916 rising.

Yet, if you look at the words of Michelle O'Neill she very carefully referred to 'mandate', 'strategy' and the 'Irish Republican project'.




Because the hypocrisy is obvious given her family history, and with Maze escapee Gerry Kelly standing beside her.

Billy McKee former founder of the provos gave saoradh his blessing

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-38211953.html

Also back in 1994 SF had just 12.5% of the vote in NI (@6.05)



@6.30 in this clip Gerry Adams said recognise the mandate was 'a small one but a significant one'. Then proceeded to give his context for claiming it would be bigger but for the difficulties in which they labour.

But exactly the same could be claimed for saoradh.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/iris...kenna-14447650

I am not seeing much difference between different strands of republicanism, saoradh v NI soaradh v ROI.
Provos v NI provos v ROI. All that happens is some mellow out and others continue the military struggle mandate or not.

Last edited by gormdubhgorm; 16-02-2020 at 13:36.
gormdubhgorm is offline  
16-02-2020, 13:25   #49
jm08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesM View Post
The British army moved in and restored order after the attacks on the civil rights marches etc. John Hume, Seamus Mallon etc would have achieved peace and probably a united Ireland within 10 years - but the IRA had to go on killing, mainly Catholics, for 30 years. And some people want their apologists to run our Country. 30 years of murder and mayhem killing innocent men, women and children. It was never a war - it was murder by terrorists and gangsters.

The British Army killed 13 people on a civil rights march in Derry. They caused the 'disorder'. They tried to restore order by introducing Internment, then there were the hunger strikes, but every peaceful solution proposed was 'Out, Out, Out' from the British Government. Meanwhile, it was 'Never, Never, Never' from Paisley's lot.

Talk about rewriting history.

One thing the last couple of years has shown is that John Hume and Seamus Mallon would not have achieved peace by dialogue when you look at the intrangience of the DUP/loyalists over everything.
jm08 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
16-02-2020, 13:34   #50
LoughNeagh2017
Registered User
 
LoughNeagh2017's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,064
The English lit the fuse with the plantations, in a local history book i have it said that the English originally planned to remove our ancestors from the land but they realised the locals were better for farming the land. I wonder did they plan on killing our ancestors or forcing them down south. As in most cases of human discrimination the people eventually fought back. I can understand why some would hate the modern IRA but always remember that the English lit the fuse, 350 years of mistreatment post plantations.
The British Army soldiers weren't always good men either, for example in my area in the 90s they poisoned dogs to stop them from barking, it takes a special kind of scumbag to poison a dog.
LoughNeagh2017 is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
16-02-2020, 13:40   #51
jm08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by gormdubhgorm View Post
So why then did SF eventually agree to a rebranded Sunningdale called the GFA 25 years later. Was it just because it was politically expedient?

The GFA provided a route to a United Ireland, unlike Sunningdale (referendum for unity). The Irish Government also has a lot more say in the GFA.


However, the major objectors to Sunnindale were loyalists. They are the ones who blocked that and which lead to the rise of the DUP.
jm08 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
16-02-2020, 13:43   #52
gormdubhgorm
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoughNeagh2017 View Post
The English lit the fuse with the plantations, in a local history book i have it said that the English originally planned to remove our ancestors from the land but they realised the locals were better for farming the land. I wonder did they plan on killing our ancestors or forcing them down south. As in most cases of human discrimination the people eventually fought back. I can understand why some would hate the modern IRA but always remember that the English lit the fuse, 350 years of mistreatment post plantations.
The British Army soldiers weren't always good men either, for example in my area in the 90s they poisoned dogs to stop them from barking, it takes a special kind of scumbag to poison a dog.
But 'our' ancestors are also the anglo irish -I rememeber Martin McGuinness referenced the similarities to his name to that of Ken Maginnis! @5.15



https://www.houseofnames.com/maginnis-family-crest

http://www.irishsurnames.com/cgi-bin...nness&letter=g

Also this talk of nationhood of shared 'Irishness' is somewhat of a falsehood. How many of those in Ireland have ancestors from Norman or Viking times?
Wexford, Waterford, Dublin etc would not have any GAA teams left!
How far back do you want to go? Just when it suits you?

Last edited by gormdubhgorm; 16-02-2020 at 13:53.
gormdubhgorm is offline  
16-02-2020, 13:46   #53
gormdubhgorm
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm08 View Post
The GFA provided a route to a United Ireland, unlike Sunningdale (referendum for unity). The Irish Government also has a lot more say in the GFA.


However, the major objectors to Sunnindale were loyalists. They are the ones who blocked that and which lead to the rise of the DUP.
But I thought that the GFA was largely based on Sunningdale?
Line by line is there much difference in content, or does context supersede it?

Since after all I assume context will be many people's argument in this thread.

Last edited by gormdubhgorm; 16-02-2020 at 13:54.
gormdubhgorm is offline  
16-02-2020, 14:02   #54
Boredstiff666
Registered User
 
Boredstiff666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoughNeagh2017 View Post
The English lit the fuse with the plantations, in a local history book i have it said that the English originally planned to remove our ancestors from the land but they realised the locals were better for farming the land. I wonder did they plan on killing our ancestors or forcing them down south. As in most cases of human discrimination the people eventually fought back. I can understand why some would hate the modern IRA but always remember that the English lit the fuse, 350 years of mistreatment post plantations.
The British Army soldiers weren't always good men either, for example in my area in the 90s they poisoned dogs to stop them from barking, it takes a special kind of scumbag to poison a dog.
I agree and that scumbag should be met with same fate and I am English.

But to correct you. Ireland wasnt invaded by the English to enslave you as peasant farmers. Ireland was only invaded and taken over to stop the French and Spanish doing same and launching attacks against England for which they spent hundreds of years doing.

No consolation but you actually got the best of a bad bunch considering the others record of same.

You were going to be invaded anyway.
Boredstiff666 is offline  
Advertisement
16-02-2020, 14:05   #55
jm08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by gormdubhgorm View Post
But I thought that the GFA was largely based on Sunningdale?
Line by line is there much difference in content, or does context supersede it?

Since after all I assume context will be many people's argument in this thread.

Here is a summary of the differences from wiki. They have a tick list if you look at the differences which are:
In GFA and not in Sunningdale


1. Self-determination
2. Recognition of both identities
3. Inter-Ireland co-operation


Quote:
The main issues omitted by Sunningdale and addressed by the Belfast Agreement are the principle of self-determination, the recognition of both national identities, British-Irish intergovernmental cooperation and the legal procedures to make power-sharing mandatory, such as the cross-community vote and the D'Hondt system to appoint ministers to the executive.[23][24] Former IRA member and journalist Tommy McKearney says that the main difference is the intention of the British government to broker a comprehensive deal by including the IRA and the most uncompromising unionists.[25] Regarding the right to self-determination, two qualifications are noted by the legal writer Austen Morgan. Firstly, the cession of territory from one state to another state has to be by international agreement between the UK and Irish governments. Secondly, the people of Northern Ireland can no longer bring about a united Ireland on their own; they need not only the Irish government but the people of their neighbouring state, Ireland, to also endorse unity. Morgan also pointed out that, unlike the Ireland Act 1949 and the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, devised under Sunningdale, the 1998 agreement and the consequent British legislation did expressly foresee the possibility of a united Ireland.[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
jm08 is offline  
Thanks from:
16-02-2020, 14:13   #56
gormdubhgorm
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm08 View Post
Here is a summary of the differences from wiki. They have a tick list if you look at the differences which are:
In GFA and not in Sunningdale


1. Self-determination
2. Recognition of both identities
3. Inter-Ireland co-operation



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
Right thanks.

I found a text listing the GFA details

https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfaw...-agreement.pdf

Sunningdale full text

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/events/sun.../agreement.htm

I will have a read of them at some stage to see for myself if I think they correlate to he wiki list of differences. There does not seem to be much in it at first glance, a lot of semantics.

I suppose then it us up to any individual to decide whether approx 3000 lives, were worth any differences in these agreements.

Last edited by gormdubhgorm; 16-02-2020 at 14:18.
gormdubhgorm is offline  
16-02-2020, 14:25   #57
jm08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boredstiff666 View Post
I agree and that scumbag should be met with same fate and I am English.

But to correct you. Ireland wasnt invaded by the English to enslave you as peasant farmers. Ireland was only invaded and taken over to stop the French and Spanish doing same and launching attacks against England for which they spent hundreds of years doing.

No consolation but you actually got the best of a bad bunch considering the others record of same.

You were going to be invaded anyway.

The Plantation of Ulster solved two problems for the Crown. Both the people of Ulster and those of the Scotland lowland border area loved nothing better than a fight. It solved two problems for the Crown. Put them together and let them fight it out between them.


Here is a description from an old Irish poem about the Province of Ulster.


''Ulster in the north is the seat of battle valour, of haughtiness, strife, boasting; the men of Ulster are the fiercest warriors of all Ireland, and the queens and goddesses of Ulster are associated with battle and death''.


You can see the description of the rest of the provinces here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Ireland
jm08 is offline  
Thanks from:
16-02-2020, 14:36   #58
jm08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by gormdubhgorm View Post
Right thanks.

I found a text listing the GFA details

https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfaw...-agreement.pdf

Sunningdale full text

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/events/sun.../agreement.htm

I will have a read of them at some stage to see for myself if I think they correlate to he wiki list of differences. There does not seem to be much in it at first glance, a lot of semantics.

I suppose then it us up to any individual to decide whether approx 3000 lives, were worth any differences in these agreements.

Well, when apportioning blame, bear in mind it is unionists who pulled the plug on Sunningdale, not republicans.
jm08 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
16-02-2020, 14:52   #59
ancapailldorcha
Order! Order!
 
ancapailldorcha's Avatar
Mod: Ok, I've decided to move this to History & Heritage. Please read the forum charter before posting.
ancapailldorcha is online now  
(2) thanks from:
16-02-2020, 14:56   #60
gormdubhgorm
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm08 View Post
Well, when apportioning blame, bear in mind it is unionists who pulled the plug on Sunningdale, not republicans.
Fair point but there is also the point that SF were not even there to have any practical say or influence.

Anyway in my view republicanism is just on a cycle of rinse and repeat. Militancy, mellowing and splintering and militancy again.

SF 1918 > CnaG/FG 1921 > FF 1927 > FF 1932 > SF 1982 > SF 1998 > Saoradh 2016 > SF 2020

But most recent incarnations of republicanism are always gentler critics of the new militant strands.

But the major difference between the WOI (in my view) is that it had popular support on the island of Ireland but the provos did not have popular support on the island of ireland.

Morality is a complete irrelevance when death is used as vindication of part of 'the struggle' to make the British take notice, and ultimately 'get out'.

Last edited by gormdubhgorm; 16-02-2020 at 15:12.
gormdubhgorm is offline  
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search