No danger of the 'Ra taking power.

Betsy Og

Registered User
Messages
447
He was a member of a government recognised by the Irish people as legitimate is the point.

Never said he wasn't. Donald Trump (God help us) is the President of the USA, Nicola Sturgeon is the First Minister of Scotland, both recognised by the Irish people as legimate. I could go on. McGuinness was never a member of government of Ireland/the State/Eire. I see you are having difficulty accepting this fact, its not really a big deal one way or the other which is why I wondering why you're chosing this hill to ....argue. In terms of pictures on walls in government buildings, most people think of Collins and Dev, both were in government in Ireland/the State/Eire, so whether we agree with them or not it is hardly incongruous that they are there.

The leaders of 1916 had no mandate from the Irish people to act as they did.

Agreed, but Collins and Dev get a pass due to being in government (voted for by the people guv).


Again, factually incorrect. The 1918 election was not a vote to go to war,.... - war is not explicitly referred, albeit it is implied.

Kevin Myers levels of revisionism here. In all the books I've read, which is a few over the years, I've never heard it argued that the War of Independence was the abuse of the 1918 mandate.

If it had no mandate, it was illegal? That is my point. People in government who commemorate illegal suicide missions leading to the deaths of hundreds of Irish civilians are in no position to lecture others on their illegal violent insurrections.
The baddies rarely make it legal to overthrow them, so legality or otherwise is a moot point. Was it morally justifiable? - a matter of opinion of course, but 1916 was a suicide mission, given meaning by British bungling. The War of Indepence was morally justifiable as the will of the great majority of the people, as expressed in 1918, was being denied by an imperialist power, and there was the prospect of some measure of success.

Unless of course, they retrospectively legitimise the actions of 1916?
This i believe, is a concern of yours and others with regard to SF today?
That if they get into power that they will retrospectively legitimise the Provos just as the rest of our political class has retrospectively legitimised 1916 and WoI for their own political expediency.

Well if we're dumb enough it buy it then absolutely they will, but sure a few of us at least will argue the points. You seems to think that if there's civilian casualties on both sides then all bets are all, they're both as bad as the other, end of story. So the Brits in WWII, not my favourite bunch mind, were they as bad as the Nazis?, I mean they both killed civilians so lets just leave it there then shall we.......



The Home Rule Parliament of 1914, as passed by Houses of Parliament has never been delivered. It was usurped by the threat of Unionist violence.

I think the outbreak of WWI was the main reason it wasn't enacted. Anyway, yes, the Ulster Volunteers had formed.... quite a sticky wicket you might say for the 32 county venture. These people were there for 300+ years at the time, so if they didn't want to join a United Ireland, with their fears of Rome Rule (possibly irrational at the time, but later borne out when CC had free rein), wasn't that a legitimate position? Unless you wanted a Rwandan style ethnic cleansing there was no getting away from this inconvenience. Of course they might have, and hopefully might yet be accomodated in a secular united Ireland, maybe in our lifetime we'll see it.

No, they didn't. But innocent people they did kill. Without no authority other than their own self-imposed authority to murder innocent unarmed people as they went about their livelihoods. If you can legitimise that, and not recognise the crimes committed you have no moral authority over those who try to legitimise the atrocities you outline.

See above re Brits and Nazis in WWII.


(Sunningdale was indeed for slow learners, even the Loyalists saw through the politics of exclusion inherent in it)

Eh??, the RA were boming the **** out of everything that moved (this was not a 32 county socialist republic after all), Paisley was in his pomp, SF did not exist electorally. But go on, tell us how powersharing was the "politics of exclusion"? This will be good.....


[QUOTE="WolfeTone, post: 1670002, member: 108000"Reckless bombing, reckless shooting, is there an order of merit in how one should die in a conflict? [/QUOTE]
Well if you bomb civilians areas relentless you know what you are going to get....asssuming you think bombing civilians is a bad thing...

[QUOTE="WolfeTone, post: 1670002, member: 108000" Do you think perhaps had the IRB got access to explosives they would have used it? [/QUOTE]

I think perhaps if my Aunt had different anatomy she might be uncle.....although nowadays who knows..... Point is they did not embark on a 30 years bombing campaign, because in the WOI they were in a conflict with popular support and an achievable outcome.

So maybe we should take down all the portraits, wouldn't bother me, that of course would be wholly unsatisfactory for SF because they absolutely need to see those portraits there in an effort to whitewash decades of pointless death and misery.
 

Purple

Registered User
Messages
13,102
*it's a new day, I'm refreshed again!



He was a member of a government recognised by the Irish people as legitimate is the point.
The leaders of 1916 had no mandate from the Irish people to act as they did.
The portraits of these people who triggered an insurrection in which hundreds of Irish civilians would die violently, adorn the walls of the highest offices of this State. I'm suggesting, given that the political class is now opposed to such type of unsanctioned, unauthorised military actions, it is time to take down the portraits and stop commemorating them in gallant form?



Again, factually incorrect. The 1918 election was not a vote to go to war, it was a Westminster election in which the SF proposed to use 'any means necessary' to establish an independent Ireland. 'Any means necessary' could mean anything. It could mean war, or it could mean agitating for international recognition, as De Valera sought to do in US, as is actually in the SF manifesto - war is not explicitly referred, albeit it is implied.
Nevertheless there was no vote, no authorisation given to go to war as a means to attaining Irish independence by the First Dáil. The war commenced when rebels, acting on their own authority (and presumably interpretation of the SF manifesto) took up arms by themselves.



If it had no mandate, it was illegal? That is my point. People in government who commemorate illegal suicide missions leading to the deaths of hundreds of Irish civilians are in no position to lecture others on their illegal violent insurrections.
Unless of course, they retrospectively legitimise the actions of 1916?
This i believe, is a concern of yours and others with regard to SF today?
That if they get into power that they will retrospectively legitimise the Provos just as the rest of our political class has retrospectively legitimised 1916 and WoI for their own political expediency.



The Home Rule Parliament of 1914, as passed by Houses of Parliament has never been delivered. It was usurped by the threat of Unionist violence.
Until 1998, this State never recognised the authority of British rule in any part of Ireland. This State deemed it an illegal occupation.
Relative to previous insurrections, the justification to wage war against Britain has always been there, until 1998.



I know, you don't have to remind me of their atrocities. It's the atrocities of our own side that I don't gloss over.



No, they didn't. But innocent people they did kill. Without no authority other than their own self-imposed authority to murder innocent unarmed people as they went about their livelihoods. If you can legitimise that, and not recognise the crimes committed you have no moral authority over those who try to legitimise the atrocities you outline.



This atrocity has been referenced earlier. It was a despicable criminal act. I took sometime to remind myself of events. This massacre followed a massacre of six Catholics the night before. The perpetrators were made up of British army and security personnel. The same British army which this State recognised as an illegal occupation, just as they did in 1916 and 1918.

We could spend all day selectively point scoring atrocities. It is futile.

In 1998 the people of Ireland, collectively,(Sunningdale was indeed for slow learners, even the Loyalists saw through the politics of exclusion inherent in it) expressed their will to take a different path in the interests of resolving our difficulties in a peaceful path.
There are many unpalatable aspects of this agreement. The release of murderers of Gerry McCabe for instance and SF waiting at the gates. But it wasn't SF who authorised their release in the first place. You have to thank Irish and British governments for that, as mandated by the people of Ireland.
Equally unpalatable is the continued cover-up by the PSNI of information relating to Miami Showband massacre. The implications of law & order authorities engaging in the cover up of murder is undoubtedly unpalatable to most . I know this because I know the how unpalatable the continued cover up of Robert McCartney murder by members of SF is.
The cover up of information pertaining to a murder investigation is unpalatable in one instance, it surely is in all instances? Yet, unpalatable as it is, I have to accept that PSNI are a lawful authority in this country.

PSNI files delay



In the interests of common sense, it wrong to describe the IRA campaign as a 30yr sectarian campaign. Yes, undoubtedly there were far more sectarian atrocities, but it wasn't waged by one side over another. The British State also participated and colluded in sectarian murders throughout the period.
It is the tragedy of the whole affair.
But for a sectarian campaign, the Provos were woeful as I think they actually killed more Catholics than Protestants.



Reckless bombing, reckless shooting, is there an order of merit in how one should die in a conflict?
Do you think perhaps had the IRB got access to explosives they would have used it? Considering their abject disregard for the ordinary citizens of Dublin that week I think it highly likely. Not to mention, Tomás Clarke who had previously participated in an bombing campaign in Britain that included indiscriminate targets such as public bridges, train stations and London underground.
Clarke is revered amongst our political class. There are bridges, monuments named after him. His portrait adorns the walls of public institutions such as the National Library of Ireland.
By any measure today, he was surely a terrorist?
The actions of our political class in commemorating Clarke would suggest they think otherwise.



Indeed it is not, it is only speculation.
MLM attended the funeral of Bobby Storey, he too was not a paedophile nor an apologist for paedophilia.
I always thought Pearce was a weirdo and Connolly's brand of extremist socialism would have ruined the country (another brit coming over here to wreck the place :)). I have no doubt that Pearse being executed was 100% the best result for Ireland as his death was a catalyst for our freedom and if he'd lived and ended up in power there's no telling what kind of strange things he would have done.
We, like most countries, make heroes of those who were active around the time of the foundation of our State. Especially if they died. If Dev had died and Collins lived then Collins would probably be the bad guy.
 

Peanuts20

Registered User
Messages
725
I see SF are still selling t shirts and posters on their online site "remembering" the actions of former Provo's and in one case, an ex INLA guy. For me to even countenance them ever getting into a Govt in the Republic, I'd expect them to at least stop fund raising on the blood of the many people the Provos killed.

I
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,084
@Betsy Og I specifically referenced Pearse and Connolly, who were never in government, save their own self-proclaimed government (sure we could all do that, couldn't we? - the Provos did)

Pearse portrait

But if portraits are no longer an issue, as you suggest, then I assume your concern over the prospect of Tomás Begley hanging in Taoiseachs office has abated?

I'm not disputing the legitimacy of 1916 or WoI, I'm simply not prepared to take the high moral ground and point fingers at Bobby Storey and those who commemorate him whilst simultaneously holding aloft the memory of others, who also perpetrated atrocities or defened the atrocities of their comrades, and commemorate their "gallant bravery".

War is a dirty business I'm sure you would agree. It is the ultimate degenerative outcome of failed politics. That Irish people over many generations, felt compelled to use force, often against each other, in order to pursue their political aims is a mark of that failure.
That such failure should degenerate into savage acts of brutality against civilians is not untypical in war, and Ireland in 1916-23 was certainly no exception.

You seems to think that if there's civilian casualties on both sides then all bets are all, they're both as bad as the other, end of story. So the Brits in WWII, not my favourite bunch mind, were they as bad as the Nazis?,

I'm not going to entertain these glib comparisons, suffice to say that the indiscriminate deliberate targeting of civilians by both German and Allied bombing raids were despicable.
That the Nazi's undertook a deliberate program of mass ethnic cleansing is something, thankfully, is not attributable to the British in that period.

Point is they did not embark on a 30 years bombing campaign,

Tomás Clarke activities of bombing and shooting span a period greater than 30yrs. He bombed bridges and train stations. Our political class have, perversely, named bridges and train stations after him.
I'm not sure what the timeframe qualification has to do with anything? The Proclamation itself references six periods of armed insurrection over a period of 300yrs. The Proclamation did not offer a time limit on when independence was to be achieved through arms - "Until our arms have brought the opportune moment for the establishment of a permanent National Government representative of the whole people of Ireland and elected by the suffrages of all her men and women, the Provisional Government, hereby constituted, will administer the civil and military affairs of the Republic in trust for the people".

It is clear to my mind that this was a proclamation for the entire country and the period to attain it indefinite. One that the offices of An Taoiseach and An Uachtaráin commemorate annually. There is no mention of a partitioned island.

The Anglo Irish Treaty, Sunningdale, Anglo-Irish Agreement, were all subversions of the Proclamation, insofar as they were either unauthorised by the Dáil (Anglo-Irish Treaty) or politically contrived between governments without the support of significant portions of the population (Sunningdale and AIA - both invoked the ire Ulster loyalism).

Not until 1998, did the people of Ireland, collectively, endorse agreement amongst themselves that establishes new political frameworks and institutions and clearly sets out the principle of consent through peaceful and democractic means.
This is the first time, in hundreds of years, that the right to use physical force to obtain Irish freedom has been consigned to the past (officially).
 

Peanuts20

Registered User
Messages
725
And now it seems the Storey family got a "special" dispensation to hold a service at the crematorium when 8 other families on that day were not able to. One law for some.................

I can smell the hypocrisy from here
 

Betsy Og

Registered User
Messages
447
@Betsy Og I specifically referenced Pearse and Connolly, who were never in government, save their own self-proclaimed government (sure we could all do that, couldn't we? - the Provos did)

I referenced Dev & Collins, the only ones I've seen hung up in recent times.

But if portraits are no longer an issue, as you suggest, then I assume your concern over the prospect of Tomás Begley hanging in Taoiseachs office has abated?

No, I said we should outlaw them if we must, but that would not be to SF's satisfaction, or do you disagree?

I'm not going to entertain these glib comparisons, suffice to say that the indiscriminate deliberate targeting of civilians by both German and Allied bombing raids were despicable. That the Nazi's undertook a deliberate program of mass ethnic cleansing is something, thankfully, is not attributable to the British in that period.

Its not glib, your notion is that all war is equal, "let him who is without sin.....". My point is that it is demonstrably not all equal. Doesn't mean that the 'good' side has to be angelic, but there can be those on the wrong side of a conflict.

I'm not sure what the timeframe qualification has to do with anything?

I'll put you right so. The point is that the RA undertook a "Long War" with no prospect of success. It put generations through unnecessary conflict. There was justification from 1969-1974 but after that they just kept the problem going. As Duke says it ended when they stopped.

The Proclamation itself references six periods of armed insurrection over a period of 300yrs. The Proclamation did not offer a time limit on when independence was to be achieved through arms - "Until our arms have brought the opportune moment for the establishment of a permanent National Government representative of the whole people of Ireland and elected by the suffrages of all her men and women, the Provisional Government, hereby constituted, will administer the civil and military affairs of the Republic in trust for the people".

It is clear to my mind that this was a proclamation for the entire country and the period to attain it indefinite. One that the offices of An Taoiseach and An Uachtaráin commemorate annually. There is no mention of a partitioned island.

TBH I couldn't give a flying proverbial what the proclomation says or doesn't say. I don't believe any generation should be enslaved to past generations.

The Anglo Irish Treaty, Sunningdale, Anglo-Irish Agreement, were all subversions of the Proclamation, insofar as they were either unauthorised by the Dáil (Anglo-Irish Treaty) or politically contrived between governments without the support of significant portions of the population (Sunningdale and AIA - both invoked the ire Ulster loyalism).

Not until 1998, did the people of Ireland, collectively, endorse agreement amongst themselves that establishes new political frameworks and institutions and clearly sets out the principle of consent through peaceful and democractic means.
This is the first time, in hundreds of years, that the right to use physical force to obtain Irish freedom has been consigned to the past (officially).

Unless your telling me Moses had the proclomation in his This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language pocket when he can down with the tablets of stone I don't give it any more authority than words on a page. The DUP opposed the GFA, I suppose you'd have left it at that? Sunningdale offered power sharing, that's what you eventually got, that's all there could ever be, its just that by 1998 the RA were either so riddled with informers or battle weary, or the penny had eventually dropped that they went for it. It's a pity they hadn't come to "the light" in 1974, that's my central point. I'm still waiting about how Sunningdale was "the politics of exclusion" btw, I'm thinking you've imbibed more of the Coolaid than you're letting on (pragmatic floating voter that you are)......
 
Last edited:

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,084
I referenced Dev & Collins, the only ones I've seen hung up in recent times.

I referenced Pearse and Connolly. The earlier reference to Tomás Begley is not to be found.

No, I said we should outlaw them if we must, but that would not be to SF's satisfaction, or do you disagree?

??? I have no issue with the portraits. I'm just curious would those with an issue over a Tomás Begley portrait in government buildings have the same issue with Pearse and Connolly?

your notion is that all war is equal

Never said that. But abducting, torturing, murdering and disappearing in 1972 didn't change much from abducting, torturing, murdering and disappearing in 1920.
Not for me anyway.

I don't give it any more authority than words on a page.

Neither do I, but seeing as our Parliament, the office of our Taoiseach and our President do (representing the people of Ireland) then I do feel we should take its contents on board in trying to understand all our particular perspectives.

Sunningdale offered power sharing, that's what you eventually got,

I don't give it any more authority than words on a page. Ulster loyalism thought so too I'd say.
 

Betsy Og

Registered User
Messages
447
I don't give it any more authority than words on a page. Ulster loyalism thought so too I'd say.
You do know that it actually sat don't you? You'd have to be fairly blind not to see that that was the missed opportunity, and that the long war was all for nought, or if not what extra did it achieve and did it justify the cost?
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,084
You do know that it actually sat don't you? You'd have to be fairly blind not to see that that was the missed opportunity, and that the long war was all for nought, or if not what extra did it achieve and did it justify the cost?

Who brought it down? Anyone can sit wherever they want, if the people they intend to govern don't abide by it, it had no more authority than the paper it was written on.
 
Last edited:

Betsy Og

Registered User
Messages
447
Because the solutions were there in 1974. Why would loyalists agree to it when the RA was ragin?? The RA could have auctioned their ceasefire then if they'd any sense.

Yep, finished a book on Dublin Monaghan only a week ago. A disgrace on many levels.

Anyway, post Sunningdale gains versus costs..... Was the post '74 Long War justified?, is the charge that SF & the RA need to answer in my book.
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,084
Because the solutions were there in 1974. Why would loyalists agree to it when the RA was ragin??

?? You make it sound like the violence came from one side.
The collapse of Sunningdale was brought about through loyalist violence and the workers strike, and ultimately the rejection of UUP citing a 'Council of Ireland' as being unacceptable.
The Provos called ceasefire in 1972 and 1975, neither of which the political establishment were able to capitalise on.
The Provos position for a British declaration to withdraw was obviously flawed, in hindsight, nevertheless, given the levels of violence inflicted on the nationalist community in Ireland the Provos were as likely to end their campaign as the British were to announcing a withdrawal.
It may not suit your narrative, but internment, Ballymurphy, Derry, Dublin, Monaghan et al were open wounds, just as Bloody Friday was for loyalism that could not be glossed over for sake of hindsight some 40yrs later.

Yep, finished a book on Dublin Monaghan only a week ago. A disgrace on many levels.

It might not suit your narrative, but such atrocities may have the effect of prolonging conflicts rather than ending them.
But nevermind, let's move along now...

Anyway, post Sunningdale gains versus costs..... Was the post '74 Long War justified?, is the charge that SF & the RA need to answer in my book.

Ergo the whole conundrum, was any of it justified? 1798, 1803, 1848, 1916, 1919-23, 1969-1998

Each to their own, you have chosen 1974 as a cut off point, albeit it is peculiarity to me, and without any apparent reasoning other than an agreement which few outside British and Irish governments supported, collapsed.

I choose 1998 for reasons outlined before, that is, no justification for physical force against British military and its proxies, as distinct to any deliberate savagery against civilians which has always been unjustified throughout the ages but nevertheless such savagery is deeply associated and embedded in the campaigns of all the main protagonists throughout history.

I don't think there is going to be any change of mind, so I'm offering a truce :)
 

Betsy Og

Registered User
Messages
447
A debate is no harm, I consider a truce unnecesary but value the sentiment. :) The reasoning for 1974 is that that's where we ended up in 1998. The "open wounds" thing is obv relevant, sure Bernadette Sands McKevitt had her open wounds to keep going even after the GFA, doesn't make it right. Of course it's easy talk from a place of safety. Anyway, Repubicans can have their narrative, doesn't mean we need to accept it, but I'm afraid with SF's outlook on life it can't be left as a private matter and, depending on future elections, we may have to return to this fight to ensure we (currently the 75%) are not being signed up to that which we did not sign up for at the time and do not want to sign up for in the future.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,849
I see Arlene is drawing parallels between the Twelfth night bonfires and the IRA funeral, which is fair comment. But it is a strange form of tit-for-tat that says "if your crowd can endanger their health then so can we" :rolleyes:
 

Purple

Registered User
Messages
13,102
I see Arlene is drawing parallels between the Twelfth night bonfires and the IRA funeral, which is fair comment. But it is a strange form of tit-for-tat that says "if your crowd can endanger their health then so can we" :rolleyes:
When the border of the 6 counties is the edge of the world that that Covid bother (to paraphrase Paddy Kavanagh) is of little importance.
 

Betsy Og

Registered User
Messages
447
Could she at least try to tackle the raw sectarian KAT, tricolour & election posters type stuff. That is an annual problem. In fairness it is hard to social distance after a few bottles of Bucky. #nosurrender5daybender
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,084
Could she at least try to tackle the raw sectarian KAT, tricolour & election posters type stuff.

Agreed. Is this flag-burning, sectarian sloganeering tolerated anywhere else in Europe?

And with regard to KAT, I've just been reminded of the murder of the three Quinn brothers, Richard 11, Mark 9, and Jason 7, 22yrs ago yesterday. Simply because they were Catholic.
 
Last edited:

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,849
Agreed. Is this flag-burning, sectarian sloganeering tolerated anywhere else in Europe?
25 year anniversary of the Srevenica sectarian massacre of muslims. Nearly 3 times as many killed in 2 weeks as died in 30 years of the Troubles. But maybe everything is sweetness and light in those parts these days.
 

Purple

Registered User
Messages
13,102
25 year anniversary of the Srevenica sectarian massacre of muslims. Nearly 3 times as many killed in 2 weeks as died in 30 years of the Troubles. But maybe everything is sweetness and light in those parts these days.
Yes, worst mass murder in Europe since the Second World War. Most of the world signed the UN Genocide Convention in late 1948 ("Never Again") but look at how many times it has happened again since then. In 2005 the member States committed to a doctrine of "the responsibility to protect”. The only thing all member states have done in the 74 years since it was signed is to consistently fail to live up to their commitments. A few months before Bill Clinton was using his office (literally and metaphorically) to have a grossly inappropriate sexual relationship with a very young intern he was finding a way to avoid stopping the worst genocide since the Second World War; the rate of killing in Rwanda exceeded the speed of killing at the height of the Nazi genocide.
In the context of what has happened around the world since the Troubles started in the late 60's Northern Ireland is a minor issue which should have been sorted out decades ago. It's a testament to the resilience of the tribalism which is so deep seated in both tribes in the North that they can manage to keep hating each other.
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,084
25 year anniversary of the Srevenica sectarian massacre of muslims. Nearly 3 times as many killed in 2 weeks as died in 30 years of the Troubles. But maybe everything is sweetness and light in those parts these days.

I wouldn't think so. Not after such atrocities.

Is there flag-burning and slogan threats of sectarian genocide against the neighbouring population, or was NATO successful in wiping out the bigots?
 
Top