Irish National War Memorial vandalised.

Stabshauptmann

The Corinthian wrote:

Support which was, of course, reflected in the rebellions themselves - except it wasn’t. Sounds like the type of support that the SWP frequently claims to enjoy on a grassroots level.

And due to a mix-up with the invites too, I wager.


A mass suicide pact was the point?

I discussed the rebellions, not the various political movements and campaigns.

Or that public opinion did not support it.

French and American revolutions; they both got their act together without the Internet.

Who’s discussing death tolls as a meter of political gravity? I thought we were discussing popular support?

Having read your posts in other threads I don’t believe you are either ignorant of the facts like you try to appear or deliberately picking a fight, you clearly have a personal bias on the subject whereas I’m only trying to have political debate - this isn’t personal to me; please don’t take s much offence.

The Americans had the benefit during their revolution of being well armed and financed and being very far away from their enemies. Besides, the revolution would not have even been successful without French help.
The circumstances of the French revolution were quite different. A huge country with economic unrest. It was the perceived inequity amongst the middle class and not the meager existence amongst the poverty stricken that pushed them to revolt.

The reference to death tolls is such: you left off your list risings that were small in scale but which benefited from much popular support. I simply tried to show that size of the risings is irrelevant and should not detract from the fact that they enjoyed so much support.

A mass suicide pact was the point?

I'm fairly confident that you are well versed in history so I feel I must say that that is a very obnoxious and hypocritical thing to say.
You talked about how terrible it was that the Irish ppl aren’t patriotic yet you scorn those you gave their lives for the cause of Irish liberty. Now you may disagree with there aim or their means but they did what they felt was the best way to secure that independence just like the volunteers in WW1, they may or may not have brought the goal of independence any closer than those who died fighting in WW1 but isn’t this whole thread about how those who died should be left in peace and honoured for there intent if not their result?

A Dub in Glasgo

magpie wrote:

Yes

:rolleyes:

Still the same

Mighty_Mouse

How does Sinn Fein even get dragged into this discussion?

First off I wouldnt think the poeple that did this were even of voting age!

Hairy Homer

magpie wrote:

HairyHomer, where were you on the night of the 11 November?

That's a foul insinuation, Magpie. If you checked out my first post on this topic you will see that I do not sanction boorishness of this nature.

magpie

How does Sinn Fein even get dragged into this discussion?

First off I wouldnt think the poeple that did this were even of voting age!

a) Who else do you think was behind it?
b) You don't even have to be alive to vote for Sinn Fein, let alone over 18. I'm sure they have a Hitler Youth equivalent anyway.

I do not sanction boorishness of this nature

Neither do Messrs McGuinness and Adams, yet strangely enough it continues to happen.

The Corinthian

Necromancer wrote:

Having read your posts in other threads I don’t believe you are either ignorant of the facts like you try to appear or deliberately picking a fight, you clearly have a personal bias on the subject whereas I’m only trying to have political debate - this isn’t personal to me; please don’t take s much offence.

We all have a personal bias on the subject - that’s what makes this a Politics forum. And I’m not in the least offended.

The Americans had the benefit during their revolution of being well armed and financed and being very far away from their enemies. Besides, the revolution would not have even been successful without French help.

First of all, I was responding to your point that it was a question of telecommunications and technology, which it clearly was not. Secondly, I seem to remember that we got some French help too with one or two of those attempts at rebellion.

The circumstances of the French revolution were quite different. A huge country with economic unrest. It was the perceived inequity amongst the middle class and not the meager existence amongst the poverty stricken that pushed them to revolt.

And Wolfe Tone was a salt-of-the-Earth peasant, I suppose?

The reference to death tolls is such: you left off your list risings that were small in scale but which benefited from much popular support.

They didn’t benefit from much popular support. If they had they would not have been small local risings, they would have been national rebellions or revolutions.

I simply tried to show that size of the risings is relevant and should not detract from the fact that they enjoyed so much support.

Except they didn’t enjoy that much support. The risings that did enjoy much support were those that concerned themselves with the English succession rather than the question of Irish nationalism.

These, later rebellions were limited in size and got little support on a national level - the last and most famous, in 1916, had practically no support outside Dublin and was not exactly viewed kindly by most of the Dubliners either (as Sean O’Casey reminded us). To this, your primary rebuttal has been that the public were fickle.

I'm fairly confident that you are well versed in history so I feel I must say that that is a very obnoxious and hypocritical thing to say.

Hiding behind sanctimonious indignation isn’t going to make you right.

You talked about how terrible it was that the Irish ppl aren’t patriotic yet you scorn those you gave their lives for the cause of Irish liberty.

Not at all. I was questioning your assertion that the 1803 was designed to fail.

All I’ve done is picked holes in your argument. To which you’ve changed your argument or simply feigned offence.

I would not criticize either patriotism or lack thereof; however I would scorn that brand of armchair patriotism which is blind to the realities of history and will seek to become their apologist rather than their student. Such black and white romanticism is precisely what brands the men who fell at the GPO as patriots while simultaneously branding those who fell at the Somme as traitors.

Hairy Homer

Necromancer wrote:

The way I see our involvement in WW1:
The home rule bill was passed, unionists hoped that their support in the war effort would gain them political sway and that the bill would somehow be scrapped, to counter act this Redmond said the Irish Volunteers would also fight.
But the Irish contribution went largely unnoticed. Unionist regiments got special treatment, there own emblems and stayed mostly intact, the same wasn’t done for the nationalist ones.
The facts are as they stand anyway, that we didn’t get the expected rewards for our efforts. Home rule was never enacted and Unionists to this day don’t acknowledge our contribution - bridge building was one of the aims of Redmond’s decision.

A couple of points. In 1914 there were basically two volunteer forces on this island prepared to fight each other (and the government) for their respective corners. The Irish Volunteers (supported by Redmond's parliamentary party) and the UVF (Carson's boys).

When the war started both rushed to ingratiate themselves with the Government: the former to demonstrate Ireland's continuing loyalty to the empire and commitment to the 'roadmap for devolution' that had been promised in the Home Rule bill; the latter to show its loyalty to the crown and that its allegiance could be depended upon whatever the circumstances unlike those unreliable Papist peasants down south who would probably stab Britain in the back first chance they could get.

Kitchener reckoned he could raise three divisions of volunteers from Ireland: one to be based in Belfast, another in Dublin and a third in Cork. Originally there was to be no regional bias to the recruitment of these divisions. The location of the headquarters was purely administrative; the volunteers for each division would come from all over the country.

What happened though was that the UVF basically switched flags and became the 36th Ulster Division. Same rank structure, same units, just different regimental names. They went off to the Somme in 1916 and got slaughtered in droves.

The first tranche of southern Irishmen to enlist became the 10th Irish Division. Immediately political wrangling started. Redmond's idea was that (like in Napoleonic times) they would stay at home and garrison Ireland thereby freeing up the existing British garrison troops to go to France.

The British said: 'Nice try Johnny. But we're not that stupid.' They thought, probably correctly, that Redmond was grooming an Irish army to be the army of the newly autonomous dominion due to be delivered at the end of the war, and that he might be encouraged to improve the terms of that settlement in his favour. They were having none of that.

There was also a problem with the officer corps. It was quite all right for Fenians to be cannon fodder from the lower ranks -- up to NCO level, but another matter altogether to form the officer corps. All sorts of arguments were put forward to limit the inclusion of Catholics in the officer ranks, especially senior ranks. 'Well they hadn't been to the officer training corps because they hadn't been to the big public schools' was one of the popular ones.

Redmond's own son had difficulty getting a commission. In the army his father was risking his political life to try and raise.

Check this out for yourselves. Those of you who had grandfathers/great uncles/great grandfathers in the first world war. How many of them were officers? Certainly none of my forebears who served were. Privates and NCOS the lot of them.

Look up Tom Kettle, for example, a 30-something university professor, barrister and nationalist MP (Conor Cruise O'Brien's uncle). One of the most distinguished Irishmen of his day as even the Commonwealth War Graves Commission describes him. A lieutenant. The most junior officer rank. He got blown to bits on the Somme and has no known grave.

The 10th Irish division got shipped out to Gallipoli in the middle of the battle and was badly messed around there. They were split up and used as replacements in various sectors and didn't fight as a divisional unit themselves. Then they were deposited over in Salonika whence some of them were dispatched to Serbia to fight against Bulgarians in the depths of winter with their Gallipoli issue short pants.

The third division to be raised in Ireland never really got off the ground. Recruitment had slackened off a bit after the first heady days. Why was that, do you think?

Those that were raised got sent off to the Somme. Most of them are still there.

Do you really think their story is comparable with the British people who were joining their own army for their own country's ends? Did they get messed around for the same reasons and treated with the same callous cynicism? Is it any wonder that Irish people may have been slightly uncomfortable about interpreting the history of their soldiers in the First World War a little bit differently, especially in the light of what happened in 1919-1921 when so many first world war soldiers who had been demobilised were recruited into the Auxiliaries and Black and Tans?

Go back and research the history of the times and the history of Irish men who fought in the British Army. It's fascinating, horrifying and sometimes very moving. And it deserves to be interpreted in a more considered way than a bland 'they were fighting for freedom just like the British (Empire) French (Empire) and Russian (Empire) all were.'

I'm all for getting on with our former enemies but let's not write the Irishmen who served in the First World War out of a new accepted and no more truthful version of history to do so.

Stabshauptmann

The Corinthian wrote:

We all have a personal bias on the subject - that’s what makes this a Politics forum. And I’m not in the least offended.

I suppose it all depends on what one hopes to gain from the experience and to what degree one is willing to be led by logic and what degree by emotion.

First of all, I was responding to your point that it was a question of telecommunications and technology, which it clearly was not.

Communication is not limited to telecommunications, literacy, roads, etc must be considered. The technology of war is very relevant, more relevant than popular support. Armies completely out manned operating in hostile environments can and do achieve military victory.

Secondly, I seem to remember that we got some French help too with one or two of those attempts at rebellion.

This is what you deem a whole in my argument - an inconsistency in a post about being unable to compare apples and oranges. It is not reasonable to compare 1798 to the rebellions in France or America. Not because that would be inconvenient but because they are too different.

And Wolfe Tone was a salt-of-the-Earth peasant, I suppose?

Wolfe tone wasn’t angry at perceived inequality, he was reasonably well off but felt compassion for his fellow man, regardless of creed. He was a protestant concerned with the suffering of his catholic neighbors. Nobel thoughts IMO.

They didn’t benefit from much popular support. If they had they would not have been small local risings, they would have been national rebellions or revolutions.

But they did lead to revolutions - every rising, every campaign was a stepping stone. 1916 would not have happened were it not for Emmets example. The fenian movement and rising in particular did directly lead to a cultural revolution. Revolutions don’t have to be violent.

Except they didn’t enjoy that much support. The risings that did enjoy much support were those that concerned themselves with the English succession rather than the question of Irish nationalism.

A) Cogadh an Dá Rí was relevant to nationalism. The degree of independence of the Irish parliament and the rights of the population at large were at stake. Who could hold office and what offices existed hung in the balance.
The Confederacy of Kilkenny and the 9 years war saw greater numbers in terms of popular support and fighting
C) That’s an example you keep using not me - picking holes in it doesn’t damage me, I was limiting myself to the last 250 years because that’s what I believe to be the life of Irish republicanism

These, later rebellions were limited in size and got little support on a national level - the last and most famous, in 1916, had practically no support outside Dublin and was not exactly viewed kindly by most of the Dubliners either (as Sean O’Casey reminded us). To this, your primary rebuttal has been that the public were fickle.

The public voted overwhelmingly for SF at the next general election-a clear show of support for those they thought were responsible. National support. Before the rising the volunteers had national support, immediately afterwards ppl looked for someone to blame, anger died down and ppl came to understand and evaluate what had happened and that translated into quite measurable support.

Hiding behind sanctimonious indignation isn’t going to make you right.

Inconsistency, disrespect and fined ignorance are doing you no favors.

Not at all. I was questioning your assertion that the 1803 was designed to fail.

It was designed to keep the spirit of rebellion and opposition to British rule which Emmet felt was dying alive. It had not to succeed but to inspire others to arms or what ever means were at there disposal. Likewise the 1916 rising was a "blood sacrifice" designed to rekindle the desire for armed resistance which it duly did when the leaders met their grisly demise.

All I’ve done is picked holes in your argument. To which you’ve changed your argument or simply feigned offence.

My arguments have become clearer perhaps but they haven’t changed nor have you done anything to inspire them.
I work on 2 assumptions most times, that others understand what I am trying to say (which I admit can be difficult, I am very hurried with my thoughts and typing - if I didn’t do a spell check my posts would be utterly illegible) and that they are properly versed in what they are talking about.
To say that I feign offence is to imply that I have no reason to take offence.

You insulted those who died in 1803 because in your opinion they died without point. That’s your opinion, one ignorant to the subtle realities of history, that all actions have consequences and impact on others either immediately or can have a lasting effect over time.

I would not criticize either patriotism or lack thereof; however I would scorn that brand of armchair patriotism which is blind to the realities of history and will seek to become their apologist rather than their student. Such black and white romanticism is precisely what brands the men who fell at the GPO as patriots while simultaneously branding those who fell at the Somme as traitors.

or those who fell in 1803 as pathetic idiots?
those who fell during the boarder campaign as irrelevant?

Your version of history is by your own admission tainted, you deliberately distort the truth time and time again and are in no position to condemn others for their grasp of history although I will agree with you on this: that the desecration of the war memorial was a vile and disgusting act.

The Corinthian

Necromancer wrote:

I suppose it all depends on what one hopes to gain from the experience and to what degree one is willing to be led by logic and what degree by emotion.

You would do well to follow your own advice there.

Communication is not limited to telecommunications, literacy, roads, etc must be considered. The technology of war is very relevant, more relevant than popular support. Armies completely out manned operating in hostile environments can and do achieve military victory.

Yet during the same period numerous other rebellions did succeed with exactly the same technology and communications network.

This is what you deem a whole in my argument - an inconsistency in a post about being unable to compare apples and oranges. It is not reasonable to compare 1798 to the rebellions in France or America. Not because that would be inconvenient but because they are too different.

All three are certainly different, but too different only on the basis of support. The principle reason they differed to those in Ireland is they had far higher popular support. It is after all the one thing they had in common with each other.

Wolfe tone wasn’t angry at perceived inequality, he was reasonably well off but felt compassion for his fellow man, regardless of creed. He was a protestant concerned with the suffering of his catholic neighbors.

Not unlike the “perceived inequity amongst the middle class” in France you spoke of earlier?

But they did lead to revolutions - every rising, every campaign was a stepping stone.

I’m not disputing there is truth there, but it certainly is arguable.

Inconsistency, disrespect and fined ignorance are doing you no favors.

Except I’m consistent and quite aware of the facts. I’ve not been changing my arguments, all I’ve done is responded to yours.

You insulted those who died in 1803 because in your opinion they died without point.

I said “I was questioning your assertion that the 1803 was designed to fail”, I never said they died without point.

That’s your opinion, one ignorant to the subtle realities of history, that all actions have consequences and impact on others either immediately or can have a lasting effect over time.

Don’t confuse intended with accidental consequences. The 1916 rising, for example, was not designed to be a military failure, yet it’s true success - in turning public opinion (it was the fate of the rebel leaders in British custody and not the rising itself that did this) was ultimately an accident of fate - well handled by nationalists as it was poorly handled by the British, but an accident nonetheless.

Your version of history is by your own admission tainted, you deliberately distort the truth time and time again and are in no position to condemn others for their grasp of history

My opinion of history is simply that I don’t trust it. More correctly I don’t trust the romantic or sometimes politically correct interpretation that we are asked to accept. I would think that would make me a little more balanced in my cynicism than you in your romanticism.

although I will agree with you on this: that the desecration of the war memorial was a vile and disgusting act.

Indeed.

Stabshauptmann

The Corinthian wrote:

Yet during the same period numerous other rebellions did succeed with exactly the same technology and communications network.

Illustrate a case in point and perhaps we will get somewhere.

All three are certainly different, but too different only on the basis of support. The principle reason they differed to those in Ireland is they had far higher popular support. It is after all the one thing they had in common with each other.

I totally disagree. the Americans had more: resources, weaponry, significant foreign aid, military experience, and the significant advantage of being separated by the atlantic.

Not unlike the “perceived inequity amongst the middle class” in France you spoke of earlier?

That’s twice, are you seriously not getting this?
In France the middle class were upset because they were being highly taxed, unrepresented and unappreciated.
Wolf tone was well off, had all the avenues of society open to him and he felt for those around him who didn’t have these things solely because of there religion.

I’m not disputing there is truth there, but it certainly is arguable.

Ok

Except I’m consistent and quite aware of the facts. I’ve not been changing my arguments, all I’ve done is responded to yours.

That the dead should not have there memories desecrated.

That distorting history is a vile act.
Two statements you seem to hold true only when they can be used to your advantage.

I said “I was questioning your assertion that the 1803 was designed to fail”, I never said they died without point.

Don’t confuse intended with accidental consequences. The 1916 rising, for example, was not designed to be a military failure, yet it’s true success - in turning public opinion (it was the fate of the rebel leaders in British custody and not the rising itself that did this) was ultimately an accident of fate - well handled by nationalists as it was poorly handled by the British, but an accident nonetheless.

Your history is actually (and I believe genuinely) a little hazy on that point.
1803 and 1916 were "blood sacrifices" - that the spilling of martyr’s blood would bring new life into Ireland and the republican movement. They were designed to change public opinion, to stop ppl become lethargic. The 1916 took place in the knowledge that it would fail (after it was cancelled), Pearse decided to go ahead any way because in the long run it would free Ireland.
If you don’t believe me read any history book.

My opinion of history is simply that I don’t trust it. More correctly I don’t trust the romantic or sometimes politically correct interpretation that we are asked to accept. I would think that would make me a little more balanced in my cynicism than you in your romanticism.

Cynicism is healthy, could I hazard a guess hat you are much older than me and had the benefit [sic] of the "dancing at the cross roads" philosophy in school. If that’s the case you could try reading some of the newer publications, anything post 1980 should do, and get a picture of history you can trust.

Im not a romantic, but the intention is an incredible important aspect when evaluating an action and the consequences of a deed, no matter how small, cannot be underestimated.

A Dub in Glasgo

The 1916 rising was always going to fail with regards to the military campaign. How anyone can argue anything else is beyond me. It is akin to the fact that the insurgents/defenders/terrorists (delete as appropriate) Falluja were going to fail (militarily) if they stood and fought the Americans.

monument

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Politics Forum - not the rant 'n' rave forum

Is 'rant 'n' rave' not just another name for politics?

magpie wrote:

Yes

EDIT/

Mycroft, thanks for the negative rep. In answer to your question "based on?"

who else do you think would daub "traitors" on a WW1 memorial? The Women's Institute?

Disrespectful, immature, ill-informed children/teenagers/adults.

What political party they support isn’t reverent unless the party also supports such actions, or if such people are involved with the party in any kind of meaningful way. It pretty much amounts to a cheap shot at name-calling.

ionapaul

Necromancer wrote:

The public voted overwhelmingly for SF at the next general election-a clear show of support for those they thought were responsible. National support. Before the rising the volunteers had national support, immediately afterwards ppl looked for someone to blame, anger died down and ppl came to understand and evaluate what had happened and that translated into quite measurable support.

The Irish public did not vote 'overwhelmingly' for SF at the 1918 election. They received a little over 50% of the vote throughout the island of Ireland.
http://www.dkit.ie/download/Fortnight%20Article%20on%201918%20Election.pdf
They won ten times the seats that Redmond's nationalists won because of the 'first-past-the-post' system (bet Sinn Fein are VERY happy that we don't have this nowadays!) and because the nationalists did not contest many seats for a variety of reasons.
I often wonder at people who desecrate graves or monuments - how could they think what they are doing is a good thing in any way? Even if you hated something or someone, what a stupid thing to do!

A Dub in Glasgo

ionapaul wrote:

The Irish public did not vote 'overwhelmingly' for SF at the 1918 election. They received a little over 50% of the vote throughout the island of Ireland.
http://www.dkit.ie/download/Fortnight%20Article%20on%201918%20Election.pdf
They won ten times the seats that Redmond's nationalists won because of the 'first-past-the-post' system (bet Sinn Fein are VERY happy that we don't have this nowadays!) and because the nationalists did not contest many seats for a variety of reasons.

They contested what electoral system was in place at the time (and still is in place in the UK) and they won the vast majority of the seats contested in Ireland... That FACT was ignored by the the UK and they went to war with the newly created Irish Parliament. These are the facts and no amount of stating if and buts will change them. They got the majority of the vote as well.

ionapaul

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

They contested what electoral system was in place at the time (and still is in place in the UK) and they won the vast majority of the seats contested in Ireland... That FACT was ignored by the the UK and they went to war with the newly created Irish Parliament. These are the facts and no amount of stating if and buts will change them. They got the majority of the vote as well.

Hey, I don't have much a problem with the first past the post system, despite my sympathies lying with the PDs on occasion. Just wanted to correct the oft-repeated claim that Sinn Fein had the overwhelming support of Irish voters in 1918. They didn't, they had a very slight majority (like George Bush) - I'm not claiming they cheated or anything!

Victor

Necromancer wrote:

We were in no danger from Germany and we might have had better success in 1916 had we had the entire body of the volunteers at our disposal.

Who's to say this? Many would have joined up for patriotic, economic or personal reasons anyway.

Necromancer wrote:

If they had they would not have been small local risings, they would have been national rebellions or revolutions.

rebellion = failure
revolution = success

Such black and white romanticism is precisely what brands the men who fell at the GPO as patriots

Of course, they could more rightly be described as Pearse's victims, for he wanted them dead.

ionapaul wrote:

The Irish public did not vote 'overwhelmingly' for SF at the 1918 election. They received a little over 50% of the vote throughout the island of Ireland.

The 50% is artificially low. In those constituencies which were uncontested they would have received more than 50% anyway, bringing that percentage up.

Mighty_Mouse

a) Who else do you think was behind it?

If the gardai haven’t anybody by now...................but I would guess at kids with no facilities/community centres somewhere

b) You don't even have to be alive to vote for Sinn Fein, let alone over 18.

So what do you mean by vote? .

I'm sure they have a Hitler Youth equivalent anyway.[/

Let me get this straight. Your saying Sinn Fein has a Hitler youth equivalent which it uses for desecrating war memorials (helping the party increase its public support and get into power in the south no doubt).

Sorry I think I'll be sticking with the kids/vandals theory.

mycroft

magpie wrote:

Mycroft, thanks for the negative rep. In answer to your question "based on?" who else do you think would daub "traitors" on a WW1 memorial? The Women's Institute?

Well to use the sherlock holmes esque powers of deductive reason that one of us was blessed with; I'd think that because the tomb was attacked probably by the same group that attacked the jewish memorial (two attacks to two memorials in such a short space of time) I would not look at a group with left wing credentials (whether these are valid is another debate) but rather look at the more extremist groups like the NRUS or at stormfront IP logs. But then your reasoning and logic is the same that the British used to bring in the birmingham six.

bonkey

magpie wrote:

b) You don't even have to be alive to vote for Sinn Fein, let alone over 18.

The graveyard vote is Fianna Fail's specialty, not Sinn Fein's, isn't it?

I'm sure they have a Hitler Youth equivalent anyway.

Which is it: you know that they do, or you're just assuming that they must?

magpie

Your saying Sinn Fein has a Hitler youth equivalent which it uses for desecrating war memorials (helping the party increase its public support and get into power in the south no doubt).

Yes, they're the same ones who go around stencilling "Join Oglaigh na hEireann" on walls all over the place.

I'd think that because the tomb was attacked probably by the same group that attacked the jewish memorial (two attacks to two memorials in such a short space of time) I would not look at a group with left wing credentials

That's why I think Sinn Fein is behind it, not the Labour Party. I realise Sinn Fein like to label themselves Marxist-Leninist, but given their attitudes on immigration I would place them in generally the same ball park as the BNP.

Also, is it my imagination or did Sinn Fein not support the Limerick Pogrom?

EDIT/ Nope, not my imagination:

The Limerick pogrom - From 1902 to 1904, Fr. John Creagh of the Redemptorist Order in Limerick led Ireland's only pogrom against the Jews. In his sermons he made the usual claims about "Jewish ritual murder" - which he claimed was rampant in Ireland: "they would kidnap and slay Christian children". He instructed his congregation "not to deal with the Jews". The founder of Sinn Fein, Arthur Griffith, strongly supported Fr. Creagh in the newspaper the United Irishman. (While Michael Davitt, founder of the Land League, strongly opposed the bigotry.) The ensuing boycott against Jews and sporadic violence against them drove most of the small community out of Limerick. Limerick has been ashamed of it almost ever since.

A Dub in Glasgo

Magpie - what are SFs view on immigration?


You are throwing plenty of accusations around about SF members, please back them up and provide evidence.

A Dub in Glasgo

magpie wrote:

Also, is it my imagination or did Sinn Fein not support the Limerick Pogrom?

EDIT/ Nope, not my imagination:

Oh dear

You are claiming that AG supported this action. SF were not even around then and SF then split into various political factions which later became Fianna Fail - Fine Gael - PDs. With your warped logic, those parties are just as guilty as supporting this action as SF.

magpie

I think for the sake of clarity Adubinglasgow, if you are a paid-up Sinn Fein member you should state it openly.

I realise that Sinn Fein's stated policy is that they are pro-immigration. But their stated policy is also that they have nothing to do with the IRA.

A Dub in Glasgo

lol

I am not a member of SF

For the sake of clarity, what are your associations/affiliations? You seem to have an agenda in linking all of the bad in the world to SF.

magpie

<edit by=bonkey>
Magpie...

this is not a "lets bash Sinn Fein" thread. If thats what you want, go start one yourself rather than trying to hijack someone else's thread. Otherwise, please show some evidence linking the desecration to Sinn Fein.

I've left the text of your original post here, in case you're emotionally attached to it or something....not because its in any way relevant.
</edit>



I'm not a member of any political party or organisation, nor do I support any sectarian organisation. Like Celtic FC for instance

As you're not a member of Sinn Fein I'm sure you won't remember this little embarrasment regarding Mary Lou 'Himmler' McDonald: http://www.unison.ie/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1038743&issue_id=9732

SINN FEIN'S Dublin candidate in next year's European elections spoke alongside a leading IRA figure and convicted bomber at a republican commemoration last week for the Nazi collaborator and IRA Chief of Staff, Sean Russell.

Russell died of a perforated ulcer while being transported back to Ireland on a German U Boat in 1940.

He was notorious for his expression during the war that: "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity."

At the time Russell was in Germany, the Nazis were fully engaged in their efforts to ensure the extermination of the Jewish people and had established the death camps in which six million Jews were murdered. Russell had gone to Germany to encourage a Nazi invasion of Ireland and seek support for the IRA's wartime bombing campaign in Ireland and Britain. The IRA was pro-Nazi and Russell was planning to prepare the way for a Nazi invasion of Ireland prior to the conquest of Britain.

Sinn Fein held a commemoration for Russell last Saturday in Fairview Park in Dublin where there is a controversial statue of the IRA man with his right arm raised in what opponents in Dublin at the time of its erection in 1950 said resembled a Nazi salute.

Speaking at the commemoration were the IRA figure, Brian Keenan, from Belfast who was involved in the bloody IRA bombing campaign in Britain in 1974 and the Sinn Fein candidate for next year's European election, Mary Lou McDonald.

The commemoration, according to Sinn Fein newspaper An Phoblacht, was to "pay tribute to a native of Dublin who played so important a role in the IRA in the first half of the last century".

The report stated that McDonald, "spoke articulately about the importance of the party's election strategy over the coming year".

Sean Russell made contact with the German intelligence while on a fund-raising mission in the United States and was brought to Germany in May 1940 - at the height of the invasion of the rest of Europe.

German intelligence was keen to encourage the IRA's campaign which, at that stage had involved over 300 bomb attacks in Britain and Northern Ireland and several deaths. The worst atrocity was the killing of five people in a bomb left in shops in Coventry. The IRA also killed a garda and three RUC officers and stole more than a million rounds of ammunition from McKee Army Barracks in the Phoenix Park in December 1939. Internment was eventually introduced on both sides of the Border and the campaign wound down.

The IRA campaign was deeply unpopular outside republican circles and 43,000 men and women from the Republic joined the Allied forces along with a further 38,000 from Northern Ireland.

A Dub in Glasgo

magpie wrote:

I'm not a member of any political party or organisation, nor do I support any sectarian organisation. Like Celtic FC for instance

As you're not a member of Sinn Fein I'm sure you won't remember this little embarrasment regarding Mary Lou 'Himmler' McDonald: http://www.unison.ie/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1038743&issue_id=9732

Celtic FC are a club for anyone regardless of how you look or what fanciful beliefs you believe in. Again you are confusing some of the supporters opinions and equating that to the organisation.

I am aware who Sean Russell is although that article is written with so much spin, I am surprised it stopped revolving to read it!

I seem to recall that the President of Ireland sent condolences for the main man himself (Hitler) by signing the book of condolences in Dublin. Strange days indeed.

magpie

Strange days indeed.

Most peculiar Mama.

PaulHughesWH

I notice the press made much more of a hooley about the swastika painted on the Jewish museum than they did about this attack on their own people.

bonkey

PaulHughesWH wrote:

I notice the press made much more of a hooley about the swastika painted on the Jewish museum than they did about this attack on their own people.

Well, thats presumably because one was "clearly" anti-Semitic, the other was "just" vandalism....

jc

Redleslie2

PaulHughesWH wrote:

I notice the press made much more of a hooley about the swastika painted on the Jewish museum than they did about this attack on their own people.

Irish jews are our own people.