Muppets

Jackie laughlin

Erin,
The mystery is encapsulated in your quotation. Pearse could have said that.

man1

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Anyway, With that out of the way why do you look on the PIRA as being any different to the 'Old' IRA or the United Irishmen in 1798? How can you wholly support one and not the other?

By the way, yeah mindless Up the 'Ra heads are annoying, republicans I know dislike them as much as you seem to.

I'd say because the majority of the "old IRA" didn't kill or torture people because of their religion. They mainly went after the military and not civilians!! Nuff said!!

Jackie laughlin

"They mainly went after the military and not civilians!! Nuff said!!"

They MAINLY went after the military and not civilians!! Nuff said!!

Dyr

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I've also said in another posting that I've spent a bit of time trying to figure out what James Connolly thought he was up to in 1916. It doesn't make sense. He was in a different tradition and a different league as a thinker and as a person to the others. I see his actions as a betrayal and a waste.

Where are you, by the way?

So when you cant fathom why someone that you think came from the same tradition that you claim to come from didnt act in a manner that you approve of , you come to the conclusion that he must have "betrayed" your ideaolgy? Are you SURE you're not a stickie? .


But given that the Labour party is now run by former sticks the argument is academic.

Jackie laughlin

Bambi,
That's a complete distortion.

I'm interested, I put some work into the matter and formed a view.

What is the particular problem here with ex-Shinners, i.e. stickies? They murdered cleaners and I think that might be a category that the provos didn't get round to. They admitted defeat before the provos. Provo jealousy?

Shutuplaura

Jackie, spare me your ****e - his naive comments are one thing but your phoney disgust is another. What war doesn't involve horrific killing or the deaths of disinterested parties? Surely as a grown man you have enough sense to see that.

Jackie laughlin

Laura,
God forbid I should upset you but the disgust is not at all phoney. You choose to apply the word "war" and then say that in war terrible things happen. Is that the best defence you can muster?

The OIRA's (I think) final or perhaps penultimate bomb in Britain did murder cleaners. Their equally disgusting provo fellow travellers also murdered "civilians". I'm reminded by yesterday's paper that the anniversary of the Enniskillen Remembrance Day murders is coming up next week.

More than a quarter of a century of "war" was waged for a united Ireland until SF/IRA decided that it was unwinnable and settled into govt. in N.I. Now, there is no significant difference between seeing something as unwinnable and admitting defeat. The killings - the "war", if you choose to call it so - was pointless. Disgusting!

Shutuplaura

He was talking about the War of Independance as you well know.

Now as I said before, I believe your 'disgust' about events that occurred almost 90 years ago, a time before 99% of the people on the planet were even born is as phoney as your 'outrage' at the destruction of the urban landscape by the 1916 rebels. I believe its fake and insincere and prompted by a political bias based on more recent, not wholly connected events.

Jackie laughlin

Laura,
There are two posts. Firstly, I replied to Man1 and of course I'm aware that he was talking about the war of independence; that's perfectly plain. Secondly, I replied to Bambi who in disagreement with me thought he would have another bite at the "stickie" apple. There seems to be a strange preoccupation here with Stickies.

No one can look at anything without having a perspective. Certainly one must try and being as dispassionate as possible is essential.

Yes, I do see a line running through the entire SF/IRA history. Moreover, I find their account of earlier history implausible in that it tries to impose modern concepts on events which cannot possibly bear them, e.g. Britishness, imperialism, nationalism. I can find little or no moral reason to distinguish significantly between 1916, the war of independence, OIRA, and present day Shinners. I know you prefer history purged of everyday terms - plain speaking - but I don't and I find these actions and their perpetrators disgusting.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Laura,
There are two posts. Firstly, I replied to Man1 and of course I'm aware that he was talking about the war of independence; that's perfectly plain. Secondly, I replied to Bambi who in disagreement with me thought he would have another bite at the "stickie" apple. There seems to be a strange preoccupation here with Stickies.

No one can look at anything without having a perspective. Certainly one must try and being as dispassionate as possible is essential.

Yes, I do see a line running through the entire SF/IRA history. Moreover, I find their account of earlier history implausible in that it tries to impose modern concepts on events which cannot possibly bear them, e.g. Britishness, imperialism, nationalism. I can find little or no moral reason to distinguish significantly between 1916, the war of independence, OIRA, and present day Shinners. I know you prefer history purged of everyday terms - plain speaking - but I don't and I find these actions and their perpetrators disgusting.

Right Jackie, I'll admit that I read - or didn't read as the case may be your post incorrectly. My point still stands though. You are saying not that you must be as dispassionate as possible but you don't really try do you - call Collins a murderer - load of ****e. Question his reasons and methods is fair enough. Wonder if the war was in vain, I really don't mind. Shooting your mouth off constantly is a bore. Your indignation about all IRA actions also strikes me as insincere and wholly politically motivated.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

God forbid I should upset you but the disgust is not at all phoney. You choose to apply the word "war" and then say that in war terrible things happen. Is that the best defence you can muster?

It is a perfectly valid response. What side has ever fought a clean war? Its a load of nonesense to suggest such a thing can occur.

Jackie laughlin

Laura,
I would have thought that the purpose of coming to this site was to argue. When I do so, you feel that it is a response to say that "I'm shooting my mouth off" and that what I say is ... well, add various insults. You then accuse ME of failing to be dispassionate!

I presume that by "politically motivated" you mean that I bring my background and ideology with me when I read history. Yes, of course I do; everyone does! That's precisely what everyone must try to deal with in an effort to be dispassionate. Being aware of it is half the battle.

It's not possible to defend oneself from accusations of insincerety.

I have indeed looked at the reasoning, methods and legitimacy of Collins and I can come to no other conclusion. He is part of the violent line of Irish nationalism which endures.

Every time someone expresses disgust at a nationalist terrorist attack, the defence is of one of three kinds. Firstly, it is often claimed that a particular attack was somehow a mistake. Secondly, the point is frequently made that terrible things happen in war. Thirdly, there is the refusal to "get into the politics of condemnation." In short no condemnation can ever be applied to anything. A total whitewash!

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Laura,
I would have thought that the purpose of coming to this site was to argue. When I do so, you feel that it is a response to say that "I'm shooting my mouth off" and that what I say is ... well, add various insults. You then accuse ME of failing to be dispassionate!

I presume that by "politically motivated" you mean that I bring my background and ideology with me when I read history. Yes, of course I do; everyone does! That's precisely what everyone must try to deal with in an effort to be dispassionate. Being aware of it is half the battle.

It's not possible to defend oneself from accusations of insincerety.

I have indeed looked at the reasoning, methods and legitimacy of Collins and I can come to no other conclusion. He is part of the violent line of Irish nationalism which endures.

Every time someone expresses disgust at a nationalist terrorist attack, the defence is of one of three kinds. Firstly, it is often claimed that a particular attack was somehow a mistake. Secondly, the point is frequently made that terrible things happen in war. Thirdly, there is the refusal to "get into the politics of condemnation." In short no condemnation can ever be applied to anything. A total whitewash!

Of course the purpose of coming on this site is to discuss the past. How is making ill informed judgement calls about people's morality discussing the past? It is a load of nonsense. You can disagree with Collins or the first Dail til the cows come home and I really wouldn't object. Calling them murderers, like calling them a pack of saints, is bull, especially when as you freely admit your criticism is based on the Provisionals and their actions years later. Therefore, you, I conclude are a phoney. You criticise others for doing what you do which also makes you a hypocrite.

marco murphy

eroo wrote: »

no,not the popular tv show.i used this title because its the cleanest way of describing the people out there on bebo/myspace who have pics of IRA/CIRA/RIRA/INLA on their profiles or who become 'fans' of these 'bands' supporting terrorist scumbags.now i wouldnt mind if they knew a bit about the 'Ra' and had come to the conclusion that they supported their ideals but they only do it because of the whole 'bash the brits and blow them to bits' and 'english grrrrr..' sort of ****e.basically,because they think its cool.id just love to slap 'em!!they know nothing.
now i am very proud of the Old IRA(war of independence)and all of the men+women who took part in the fight for our freedom throughout the centuries.i am a peace loving patriotic guy and am delighted with the peace process.ive read a lot about the PIRA etc,and i cant stand them.bunch of money laundering,fuel smuggling,murderin' gangsters!!anyway,it jusy annoys me to see 14/15 year olds who have IRA albums etc on their profiles,yet ask them about 'Narrow Water' and you'll get the reply,'i dont do chemistry'

rant over:o
eroo

Kids - simple as that. You should'nt get worked up over a load of bebo mouths.

Ignoring Poblachtach and moving back to Laura and Jackie's discussion:

J.J Lee, while professor in UCC, once told me that while the lens of history is the present our focus must not be blurred by it. I could not agree more. The legacy of Collins was brutal and undeniable but to accuse the man of foresight for what came to follow would be fascetious in the extreme. His methods were brutal and barbaric but ultimately successful. No Irish person is glad we had a Collins and not a Gandhi, but for those who see no refuge in hope, desperation drives them.

Collins was bred in a violent nationalist mindset. Pearse's poetry, prose and speeches (the works of a man more enamoured with the "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" elements of war and death than the realities one might contend) were indicative of the feelings of the minority in Ireland pre-1916. A soon to become majority one might do well to remember. This majority, and it's blood-stained past, is that which endures. Not a legacy of violence among nationalists.

To place all those who would wish to see the island of Ireland united under Irish rule for the first time in history (please no Tara loving apocryphal stories of high kings it makes my eyes hurt from rolling them when I hear them) in with the absolute minority who felt this could be achieved in the modern era by violent methods is to do unjust wrongs upon those of us who believe in the idea of a peaceful, united Ireland.

marco murphy

Ignoring Poblachtach and moving back to Laura and Jackie's discussion:

Why the need to make a point of it?
Mupp.

I agree with your post it's just not relevant to where the thread went. Calling me a Muppet? Ha, ok so.

Jackie laughlin

Kayroo,
I outrank a mere Muppet. I'm insincere, a phoney, a hypocrite and a few more - I think.

Laura,
I may not be completely researched but I did put considerable effort into reading broadly and I'm certainly not ill-informed. On the basis of that reading I weighed virtues and vices, reached a judgement and then spoke plainly.

I most certainly did not say that my impression of Collins was coloured by my attitude to today's shinners. I said that I could see no reason to distinguish between violent nationalists of the early 20th century and those of the late 20th century. I also said that when a state celebrates violence and turns such people into heroes, it can hardly be outraged if a new generation behaves in a similar way.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Kayroo,
I outrank a mere Muppet. I'm insincere, a phoney, a hypocrite and a few more - I think.

Or just a fool.



No I'm only joking, sorry I couldn't resist!