Celebrating 1916 in 2016

It wasn't me!

TOMASJ wrote: »

the 1916 fighters were classed as terriosts by the same type of client that would have called those who carried on the fight the PIRA terrorists,

As I said on post 4,the job they started is only half done, we should celebrate when it is finished.

Eh, the PIRA were terrorists in the most absolute sense, and to say anything else is to lie, blatantly. It's not a matter of opinion, they were terrorists.

José Alaninho

One man's terrorist = another man's freedom fighter. All a matter of perspective and opinion. In your opinion the PIRA were terrorists. In my opinion they were a guerrilla army defending the nationalist people of the 6 counties from Loyalist / State violence who sought to end the injustice of the failed Northern statelet by reunifying the country. Were their methods at times questionable, at times condemnable? Yes. Were they justified in using armed force against the foreign army present on their soil? Also yes. The PIRA are not the issue here however; we are discussing 1916 I believe.

It wasn't me!

José Alaninho wrote: »

One man's terrorist = another man's freedom fighter. All a matter of perspective and opinion. In your opinion the PIRA were terrorists. In my opinion they were a guerrilla army defending the nationalist people of the 6 counties from Loyalist / State violence who sought to end the injustice of the failed Northern statelet by reunifying the country. Were their methods at times questionable, at times condemnable? Yes. Were they justified in using armed force against the foreign army present on their soil? Also yes.

Their tactics make them terrorists. Nobody can legitimately deny that the PIRA were a terrorist force, bu virtue of the methods they employed.

José Alaninho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Their tactics make them terrorists. Nobody can legitimately deny that the PIRA were a terrorist force, bu virtue of the methods they employed.

If you want to play semantics than yes, they were 'terrorists' in that they sought to end British rule by 'terrorising' the British government into leaving. My point was more about their justification doing so.

But, again, in discussing the Provos we're way off topic here.

ejmaztec

It would be better to just visit the cemetery and listen to them all turning in their graves.

CCCP^

It will be interesting to see the contrast, though it won't be apparent and definetly won't be commented on by the media, of the differences between the ideals of the young Republic against the reality of modern post-celtic tiger Ireland. Biiiiiig difference boys and girls.

FTA69

The army is apolitical.

What's that got to do with anything? He's the one calling for "massive parades" in the city to commemorate people whose ideals he is completely misrepresenting by calling for a fifth of the national territory to be "cut off with a saw". It's just a plainly thick position to be honest.

Their tactics make them terrorists. Nobody can legitimately deny that the PIRA were a terrorist force, bu virtue of the methods they employed.

Sure a terrorist defined by the dictionary is someone who uses violence to achieve a political aim, which would therefore mean everyone who ever picked up a gun is a terrorist. It's a perjorative and loaded term which can be twisted any way.

TOMASJ

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Eh, the PIRA were terrorists in the most absolute sense, and to say anything else is to lie, blatantly. It's not a matter of opinion, they were terrorists.

A question for, It wasn't me!
do you think the IRA men who fought against the british in 1916 were terriosts,
would you refer to the british Army's Parachute regiment and the SAS and their surrogates in the various loyalist groups as terrorist,
as the methods they employed were not dissimilar to what the IRA used,

A lot of people would call the Israel Army and the US Army not to mention there political masters terrorists,

others like yourself think otherwise

hideous ape

murphaph wrote: »

Yes we got our republic and look how well we run it

I'd rather live in a backward, piss-poor, badly run, corrupt third world but free nation than live in a rich enslaved nation to the British Empire. Better to die on my field than on a field I'm renting from some foreign government. People who go on about the EU been no different...well the difference is we can leave the EU if the people ever want to. To get out of the British Empire required 1916!

Most people supported the British because that was the order of society at the time. Just as the Scottish and Welsh had also accepted their lot. The ordinary person on the street could not comprehend that "we" the "simple paddies", could actually run our own country. The people had to be lead...hence 1916!

I for one celebrate Easter 1916 every year and to me 2016 should be a huge celebration. It's embarassing that we don't even have a National Day of Independence...most other countries do. The French celebrate Bastille Day, an event that led to the murder of an estimated 18,000 people or more. Our independence was not achieved at Easter 1916, it took centuries before 1916 and is still been achieved to this day. It is however a date to hold up in recognition of everything that led to us been a *partly* free nation.

I'm glad that none of us today have to make the same decisions as the men and woman of 1916. So the greatest celebration we can do for them is to finish what they started by unifying this country but using peaceful, democratic means. The gun has finally been taken out of Irish politics, it's time the British made some long term decisions about the Six counties.

It wasn't me!

TOMASJ wrote: »

A question for, It wasn't me!
do you think the IRA men who fought against the british in 1916 were terriosts,
would you refer to the british Army's Parachute regiment and the SAS and their surrogates in the various loyalist groups as terrorist,
as the methods they employed were not dissimilar to what the IRA used,

A lot of people would call the Israel Army and the US Army not to mention there political masters terrorists,

others like yourself think otherwise

Rebels in 1916: Not terrorists. Militarily useless insurgents who ended up costing several hundred civilians their lives, but not deliberately. Wrong, not terrorists in any real sense.

Paras: Again, not really. One tragic incident, about which the truth still hasn't entirely come out, and may never do, in which civilians were shot, but without further clarification on what happened and why, it would be unfair to call them terrorists. (Much more fair to question why the British installed the Paras, a hardened combat unit, in such a situation, and their motives.)

SAS: No, surgical strikes on the IRA are absolutely fair game. Probably the best move in British dealings in Northern Ireland was to deploy their special forces. If the IRA wanted to claim it was a legitimate war, they had to accept that they then became legitimate tactical targets, and couldn't revert to civilians when confronted by armed men.

Loyalist paramilitaries in the north? Absolutely terrorists, every bit as bad as the IRA. Collusion (which definitely occurred, but on nothing like the scale some people seem to think) was despicable. Ultimately, when there's no means to an end but violence, I'll support that violence. If there's an alternative, and people just want to jump to violence, then I've no time for them and utterly condemn that violence and those people.

And for the record, a lot of people would be absolutely wrong about the Israeli and US Armies.

norrie_1001

I think 1916 should not be celebrated.

What we should be celebrating is the 6th of December 1922, the day this country became officially independent.

That date has never been celebrated and in 2022, the country will be independent for 100 years, surely this has to be noted.

Grudaire

norrie_1001 wrote: »

What we should be celebrating is the 6th of December 1922, the day this country became officially independent.

The obvious answer is what about the North, but i think a better question is 'what about the ports?' they stayed far from independent right up to just before the Second World War...

sceptre

Cliste wrote: »

The obvious answer is what about the North, but i think a better question is 'what about the ports?' they stayed far from independent right up to just before the Second World War...

I'm sure we could have a special mass on the edges of Cobh, Lough Swilly and Castletownbere on 19 May 2038.

Other countries don't tend to regard the continued presence of a military base held by their former masters as a sovereign exception on their territory as a reason to defer their independence day celebrations.

gurramok

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I strongly disagree. The Home Rule Act was already on the statute books and was to be enforced at the close of the war in Europe. Physical force nationalism was not necessary. The war of independence was equally unnecessary as without the ramifications of the violence of 1916, a peaceful path would have been pursued in the aftermath of the war. As regards not being a republic now? Firstly, escalating violence prompted the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which caused the partition of the north, meaning when the negotiations took place in London, it was absolutely out of the question that the north would be conceded, because it would not be legally possible without the acquiescence of their parliament at Stormont; therefore the war of independence, leading from the rising in 1916, is responsible for partition as we know it now. Then of course, the British empire crumbled in the aftermath of the two wars. There was never any question that it could remain as it was financially destitute and morale was low, an easy time for countries to leave the empire with the minimum of fuss. Had a peaceful political path been followed at this point, it would have been economically a good time to propose a secession from the empire and would have been far more acceptable to the British administration than at any other stage, and we could have easily avoided the problem of partition as without an arms race and escalation of forces, hostilities wouldn't have mounted to such an extent as they did. So, if you ask me, it would have been far more expedient to pursue a course of peaceful political action, which would have avoided partition and led to probably a unified free state in the twenties and a completely separate republic in much the same timeframe as the the southern parts of the island declared a republic. Violence, in this case, was only a hindrance to the aims of those who practised it.

I strongly disagree with you

Home rule was on the cards if i remember correctly from history for 44 years before 1916 occurred. It was promised by successful British govts through generations.
At each election, the nationalists won and had a mandate for home rule but this was ignored.
What it boiled down to was the trust of the British govt was lost through their own fault. Patience ran out for the nationalists and they saw an opportunity.
There was no guarantee that Home Rule be implemented after WW1 as the Unionists vehemently opposed it as well as the trust issue. So there would of been a civil war anyway with the Unionists if it went through.

roadwars wrote:

1916 should not be celebrated as it was an act of terrorism. At the time the majority of Dubliners would have agreed with this, don’t forget only years before they were waving the union jack during the visit of the king, and the mocked the prisoners as they were paraded down the street.
All that you will be celebrating is that the British army over reacted by shooting the rebels.
Save the celebrations for a more worth while event.

You are twisting history with that post. It was not terrorism.

Successive Dublin elections before 1916 showed a vast majority of Dubliners supported Nationalism a breakaway state in whatever form.
Those Dubliners waving Union flags were the minority of English stock that once lived mostly in southern suburbs like Ballsbridge/Rathmines/Booterstown/Dun Laoghaire and hence left the country after independence. (you can check the national archives for this)

sink

What should we really be celebrating? Those brave souls who died in 1916 helped replace the tyranny of an oligarchical minority with a theocratic majority! There was very little in the way of increased quality of life or freedom for the original free state was an isolationist socialist theocracy where the will of church and state being one and the same were absolute and dissension was not tolerated. Frankly the 1916 rising and proceeding war of independence left a lot to be desired.

It wasn't me!

gurramok wrote: »

I strongly disagree with you

Home rule was on the cards if i remember correctly from history for 44 years before 1916 occurred. It was promised by successful British govts through generations.

The all-important difference, of course, is that the legislation was in fact passed in 1914.

gurramok

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The all-important difference, of course, is that the legislation was in fact passed in 1914.

Do you honestly think that would have been implemented without conditions?

They attempted to give Home Rule on one condition in 1918, extend conscription to Ireland.

It wasn't me!

gurramok wrote: »

Do you honestly think that would have been implemented without conditions?

They attempted to give Home Rule on one condition in 1918, extend conscription to Ireland.

Do you honestly think hundreds of dead civilian non-combatants to achieve a partitioned state in much the same timeline is better? Serious answer please. Do you think hundreds dead for a lesser achievement is the more desirable path?

José Alaninho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Do you honestly think hundreds of dead civilian non-combatants to achieve a partitioned state in much the same timeline is better? Serious answer please. Do you think hundreds dead for a lesser achievement is the more desirable path?

Do you honestly think that a 32 county Republic was possible through Home Rule, not forgetting the little problem of UNIONISM and its entrenched anti-Irish, anti-freedom, bigotry? Partition was inevitable, it was always going to happen, armed force was the only option left to try and end it, and even that did not succeed. Home Rule was merely giving the natives the allowance of a puppet parliament so they could be seen to be managing their own affairs, while at the same time making no difference to Ireland's part in the empire. And, by the time the empire collapsed in the early 60's British rule would have been so entrenched here as to leave us in the same position as Scotland and Wales, with the added millstone of significant loyalist numbers which would have made partition, if not even actual separation, impossible.

monosharp

Celebrate what exactly ?

If its celebrating the last time some Irish people stood up for themselves against the foreign ruler then OK.

It its celebrating our "independence" and our "country" then I'd rather spend the time watching re-runs of glenroe.

We got our country, at least most of it, and what did we do with it ? Look at the country, the culture and the government we have today. If any of the people who actually fought and died for that cause were around today they'd be so ashamed they'd wish they never bothered.

Honestly, look at our "politicians", you need to go to the deepest darkest swamp in Africa to find diseased scum like them and I mean every single solitary one of them.

Look at our "culture", 90% of it an exact copy of British culture. Tracksuit knackers walking the streets doing what they please to who they please. Fat drunks walking around with Man Utd jerseys.

Look at our "police", the most useless crowd of eejits in uniform the world has ever seen. Honestly, anyone even remotely familiar with police forces in REAL country's know that they actually DO serve and protect the public. I presently live in the middle of a city in the middle of a metropolitan area, population 23 million. You can walk anywhere any time of the day or night and NEVER get harrassed, theres no knackers standing on street corners asking you for a "light bud".

Look at our economy. Needs no explanation.

Look at our mindset. Greedy, grabbing, selfish bastards the lot of us and the worst thing is, when one of us gets into power or money by been a greedy, grabbing selfish bastard he is now above us. Average Joe gets **** on but Average Joe wants to become the guy taking the ****, he doesn't want to change the system, he wants to get higher up the food chain.

pepsicokeacola

It wasn't me! wrote: »

And for the record, a lot of people would be absolutely wrong about the Israeli and US Armies.

:rolleyes:

José Alaninho

sink wrote: »

What should we really be celebrating? Those brave souls who died in 1916 helped replace the tyranny of an oligarchical minority with a theocratic majority! There was very little in the way of increased quality of life or freedom for the original free state was an isolationist socialist theocracy where the will of church and state being one and the same were absolute and dissension was not tolerated. Frankly the 1916 rising and proceeding war of independence left a lot to be desired.

Which is the crux of the problem, and the reason Sinn Fein as an independent party refused to vanish after 1922: the social and economic programme envisioned in the proclamation and the subsequent Democratic Programme of the First Dail was never even glanced at once the Free Stateers got into power. We effectively replaced the British elite with the Irish elite (backed by the Catholic church elite) and continued under a different flag, but essentially the same flawed system as under the British. We even kept most of their legislation up until the 70's / 80's.

An old James Connolly quote comes to mind...:rolleyes:

Edit: beat me to it monosharp

FTA69

sink wrote: »

There was very little in the way of increased quality of life or freedom for the original free state was an isolationist socialist theocracy.

Socialist theocracy??? What an oxymoron! The Free State was a right-wing, capitalistic and uber-conservative society; socialist my hole.

It wasn't me!

José Alaninho wrote: »

Do you honestly think that a 32 county Republic was possible through Home Rule, not forgetting the little problem of UNIONISM and its entrenched anti-Irish, anti-freedom, bigotry?

Yes, and far more likely to have occurred than not, in my opinion. The entrenchment of the loyalist unionist community was coincident with the escalation of the arms race between PUL paramilitary forces and republican/nationalist forces. Without the arms race and associated violent intent, the entrenchment would have been of an insignificant minority and would not have been so popularly accepted. A parallel can be drawn between the arms race entrenching the PUL community and the executions of the volunteers in 1916 increasing Irish support for their cause. Without those executions, there would have been no Irish ill-feeling, popular support would have been for British actions, and the cascading result of the 1918 elections would not have happened. As a result, the war of independence would either not have happened, or would have been a damp squib. Similarly, if there had been no arms race, there would not have been the entrenchment of the wider PUL community (and nationalist/republican community for that matter), political cooperation would have been facilitated and the fringe elements on both sides would have been largely ignored, partition would almost certainly not have happened, a free state and consequent republic would have been achieved via home rule due to the crumbling state of the British economy through two world wars, and we'd be in a far better position now.

Partition was inevitable, it was always going to happen, armed force was the only option left to try and end it, and even that did not succeed.

I think you are wrong. Partition was no more inevitable than the arms race that caused it. It came about as a result of a series of bad decisions from those with agendas of violence.

Home Rule was merely giving the natives the allowance of a puppet parliament so they could be seen to be managing their own affairs, while at the same time making no difference to Ireland's part in the empire. And, by the time the empire collapsed in the early 60's British rule would have been so entrenched here as to leave us in the same position as Scotland and Wales, with the added millstone of significant loyalist numbers which would have made partition, if not even actual separation, impossible.

I think you're wrong and I see no supporting evidence for your conclusions here. Home Rule was of course a stepping stone, but an important and functional one. To skip straight ahead, through violent insurrection, to the free state cost the republicans Northern Ireland, and they lament and bemoan it to this day, but I've yet to see any of the people who complain about British "occupation" in the north acknowledge that it came about as a result of republican paramilitary violence and the arms race.

FTA69

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Rebels in 1916: Not terrorists. Militarily useless insurgents who ended up costing several hundred civilians their lives, but not deliberately. Wrong, not terrorists in any real sense.

So what is a terrorist then?

Paras: Again, not really. One tragic incident, about which the truth still hasn't entirely come out, and may never do, in which civilians were shot,

The truth is plainly available for all to see. A battle-hardened unit of the British Army opened up on unarmed demonstrators and killed 14 people.

(Much more fair to question why the British installed the Paras, a hardened combat unit, in such a situation, and their motives.)

The motive behind the Brits coming here in the first place were to act "in aid of the civil power" and to shore up the RUC were getting exhausted because of te continuous rioting.

SAS: No, surgical strikes on the IRA are absolutely fair game. Probably the best move in British dealings in Northern Ireland was to deploy their special forces. If the IRA wanted to claim it was a legitimate war, they had to accept that they then became legitimate tactical targets, and couldn't revert to civilians when confronted by armed men.

IRA Volunteers were well aware of what the conflict entailed, and were fully conscious of the fact that if you go out to shoot the Brits they're going to shoot you back, that wasn't the issue though. The point is that the Brits were shouting from the rooftop about how there was no war here at all and that the IRA were akin to rapists and handbag snatchers. However, you don't send illegal combat units out to execute common criminals.

Loyalist paramilitaries in the north? Absolutely terrorists, every bit as bad as the IRA.

There was and is no moral equivalence between Republicans and Loyalists.

Collusion (which definitely occurred, but on nothing like the scale some people seem to think) was despicable.

Like Brian Nelson and the FRU (answering directly to the British government) aiding Loyalists in importing arms from South Africa? Or supplying them with intelligence files. It would be a naieve man who'd believe it was simply a case of Sammy from the UDR having a chat with Billy from the UDA in the pub.

José Alaninho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

but I've yet to see any of the people who complain about British "occupation" in the north acknowledge that it came about as a result of republican paramilitary violence and the arms race.

In case your selective memory has failed to notice, the Loyalist UVF was founded BEFORE the Irish Volunteers as a direct response to the passing of the Home Rule Bill. It's membership was over a hundred thousand, with many more in support roles. Hardly a 'fringe element'. A Churchill quote comes to mind: "Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right". One has only to look at the racist and sectarian comments and editorials coming out of Ulster as far back as 1913 to understand the deep-rooted 'us-against-them' attitude of Ulster loyalism, groomed by successive Conservative leaders for their own ends, as a valuable ally in their battle against the Liberals in Westminster.

Eoin MacNeill founded the Irish Volunteers in 1914 to defend Home Rule from the perceived threat of armed insurrection against it in Ulster. I find it quite ironic to think that the Loyalists were responsible for the foundation of what was to become the IRA, and I find your take on these events to be naive in the extreme.

gurramok

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Do you honestly think hundreds of dead civilian non-combatants to achieve a partitioned state in much the same timeline is better? Serious answer please. Do you think hundreds dead for a lesser achievement is the more desirable path?

Do you honestly think Redmond by proxy killing thousands of Irish soldiers to defend another Empire called Belgium from another Empire called Germany was better?

Irish rebels did not kill the majority of the civilians, a certain Helga boat with random shelling comes to mind.
A total of 318 Irish dead were counted which was not split between rebels and civilians so you're 'hundreds of dead civilian non-combatants' is wrong.

And you're forgetting the countless who were oppressed under Imperial rule for years so yes, the Rising was worth it for freedom.

And here, there was widespread civilian support for the Rising:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Rising
According to Peter Berresford Ellis it has become firmly set in people’s minds that the Dublin people jeered the prisoners as they were led off to imprisonment, and that this description of how Dublin viewed the insurrection has almost become written in stone. He suggests that it was certainly a view that the imperial propaganda of the time wanted to impress on everyone,[45] and that newspapers were unlikely to publish anything to the contrary. [46]

Examples cited [47] by Berresford Ellis include, Dorothy Macardle, writing in her The Irish Republic, "The people had not risen. Some had cursed the insurgents."[48] Thomas M. Coffey in Agony at Easter: The 1916 Irish Uprising writes, "The defeated insurgents quickly learnt how most Dubliners still felt about their rebellion when a raucous crowd came pouring out of the side streets to accost them ... The flood of insults was so fierce and vitriolic it hit the marching prisoners with an almost physical impact."[49]

According to Berresford Ellis this perspective became less tenable when a long obscure eyewitness account of the period resurfaced in 1991. Canadian journalist and writer, Frederick Arthur McKenzie, [50] was one of the best-known and reputable war correspondents of his day according to Berresford Ellis. He was one of two Canadian journalists who arrived in Dublin with the English reinforcements sent to put down the insurrection. McKenzie had no sympathy for the Irish ‘rebels’ and German sympathizers, as he perceived them, and was no anti-imperialist. [51]

McKenzie published The Irish Rebellion: What happened and Why, with C. Arthur Pearson in London in 1916, he notes, "I have read many accounts of public feeling in Dublin in these days. They are all agreed that the open and strong sympathy of the mass of the population was with the British troops. That this was in the better parts of the city, I have no doubt, but certainly what I myself saw in the poorer districts did not confirm this. It rather indicated that there was a vast amount of sympathy with the rebels, particularly after the rebels were defeated." Berresford Ellis then cites a passage by McKenzie describing how he watched as people were waving and cheering as a regiment approached, and that he commented to his companion they were cheering the soldiers. Noticing then that they were escorting Irish prisoners, he realised that they were actually cheering the rebels. The rebels he says were walking in military formation and were loudly and triumphantly singing a rebel song. McKenzie reports speaking to a group of men and women at street corners, "shure, we cheer them" said a woman, "why wouldn’t we? Aren't they our own flesh and blood." Dressed in khaki McKenzie was mistaken for a British soldier as he went about Dublin back streets were people cursed him openly, and "cursed all like me strangers in their city." J.W Rowath, a British officer had a comparable experience to McKenzie and observed that "crowds of men and women greeted us with raised fists and curses."[52]

Brian Barton & Micheal Foy cite Frank Robbins of the Irish Citizen Army who records seeing a group of Dubliners gathered to cheer the prisoners while being marched into Richmond barracks.[53] They also report de Valera’s surrendered Boland’s mill, were crowds lined the pavement in Grand Canal Street and Hogan Place and pleaded with the insurgents to take shelter in their houses rather than surrender. Foy and Barton concluded "Public attitudes locally were not uniformly hostile in an area which the police had come to regard as increasingly militant in the months before the Rising. Some of the British soldiers who fought there noted a strong antipathy towards them." At the South Dublin Union, Major de Courcy Wheeler noted that there was no hostility from the people towards the insurgents: "It was perfectly plain that all their admiration was for the heroes who had surrendered." [54]

This account flatly contradicts most of the contemporary accounts, says Berresford Ellis. [55] This is a view shared by Michael Foy and Brian Barton [56] also highlighting expressions of sympathy from the people who watched the prisoners being marched away. Quoting the diary of John Clarke a shopkeeper who writes "Thus ends the last attempt for poor old Ireland. What noble fellows. The cream of the land. None of your corner-boy class." [57]

Foy and Barton felt the contradictions could be modified by other factors. They examined the routes which the British soldiers took the prisoners. Michael Mallin’s column of prisoners they say were marched two miles to Richmond barracks through a "strongly loyalist and Protestant artisan class district." It was from this district that the Royal Dublin Fusiliers and other Irish regiments of the British army drew their recruits. It was around Richmond barracks they say, lived people who were economically dependent on the military. Another aspect they raise was the degree of hostility from Dublin women whose sons were serving in the army in France. They note that some priests at Church Street rebuked the insurgent prisoners and wounded. However the generally accepted account of the population of Dublin being uniformly hostile to the surrendered insurgents is one of the myths repeated so often as to become 'history.' [58]

Berresford Ellis concludes that it has becomes clear that the insurrection of 1916 needs more considered research and analysis before we can be certain that it is "assessed in its rightful historical context." The assertion that it was an unpopular rising by a small band who were jeered and insulted on their defeat as they were led off into captivity is just one of "the myths that have been propagated." [59]

This tallies with my earlier post that it was mostly those of Unionist stock living in Dublin that 'jeered' the rebels.
And it concurs that any civilian deaths as a result of the Rising were forgiven by the general population as it was an important event for their freedom .

It wasn't me!

FTA69 wrote: »

So what is a terrorist then?

One who uses terror tactics in support of his aims. Bombing shopping centres and economic centres in Britain comes to mind...

The truth is plainly available for all to see. A battle-hardened unit of the British Army opened up on unarmed demonstrators and killed 14 people.

So ask yourself why? Posit a suggestion, because soldiers don't open fire for no reason as a rule, so unless you've got information that conclusively indicates that they did, or are prepared to accept that there may have been provocation somewhere, you're not facing reality and are no better than HAMAS showing photos of dead Palestinians without context.

The motive behind the Brits coming here in the first place were to act "in aid of the civil power" and to shore up the RUC were getting exhausted because of te continuous rioting.

Or was it initially to protect the nationalist community in acknowledgement of the problems of collusion?

IRA Volunteers were well aware of what the conflict entailed, and were fully conscious of the fact that if you go out to shoot the Brits they're going to shoot you back, that wasn't the issue though. The point is that the Brits were shouting from the rooftop about how there was no war here at all and that the IRA were akin to rapists and handbag snatchers. However, you don't send illegal combat units out to execute common criminals.

Illegal combat units? I'd like you to quote that law please. So, which is right? Was it a war, in which case the British were wrong to say it wasn't, but completely entitled to send their troops in? Or were the British right that the IRA were just on the level of rapists and handbag snatchers and wrong to use the SAS? Which was it?

There was and is no moral equivalence between Republicans and Loyalists.

How do you figure?

Like Brian Nelson and the FRU (answering directly to the British government) aiding Loyalists in importing arms from South Africa? Or supplying them with intelligence files. It would be a naieve man who'd believe it was simply a case of Sammy from the UDR having a chat with Billy from the UDA in the pub.

Like I said, it happened, but it's not as though every police officer and soldier in the province was in League with unionist paramilitaries, which you'd think, the way people go on.

sink

FTA69 wrote: »

Socialist theocracy??? What an oxymoron! The Free State was a right-wing, capitalistic and uber-conservative society; socialist my hole.

Socialist in the sense of state control and intervention over the means of production not the egalitarian sense of true socialism. It certainly did not follow anything close to liberal capitalism with private and state monopolies being the norm with the establishment actively working against competition.

José Alaninho

sink wrote: »

Socialist in the sense of state control and intervention over the means of production not the egalitarian sense of true socialism.

Bang on IMO. Proper egalitarian socialism completely ignored in favour of a holier-than-thou, church-backed (and controlled) autocracy. A State that was the very embodiment of hypocrisy and reason to be ashamed of what we did with our independence for the first sixty years of it.