"One man's terrorist" meets "History is written by the winners"

Manic Moran

Sortof skirting around the issue of the locked Northern Ireland thread, I have a related observation.

The general impression I'm getting is that a fair majority of the posters (and I believe the Irish population as a whole) believe that the killing of the soldiers and constable were not justified by any sort of 'killing the occupying forces" argument. Yet, there also seems to be a fair bit of support for the concept of "shooting Coalition forces in Iraq or Afghanistan is fair game, they're occupying forces." Despite the fact that the British were in N.I for 800 years, and the Coalition has only been in Afghanistan for 8, there are, I think, a lot more similarities than differences right now.

You can make the argument about 'popular support', and maybe say that there is a lot more popular support in Iraq for shooting Americans than there is in Ireland for shooting Brits right now. Yet, unless my memory is failing me, there was very little popular support for the independence movement in Ireland at the turn of the 20th century, or in America in the late 18th. Even the Russian Revolution didn't have very much by way of popular support. Yet with hindsight, they were great liberators and national heroes. Particularly fickle for the Russian Revolution, where suddenly they seem to have fallen out of favour again with the collapse of the Communist apparatus.

So at what point is an act carried out with little popular support actually justified? Can it ever be justified at the time, or can it only be retrospectively been given validity? We don't have to focus purely on insurgencies either, I'm sure it's not too hard to come up with conventional military events which in hindsight were better carried out than not, but were still subject to flak at the time. Can be anything from the sinking of the Belgrano through the destruction of the Osirak reactor.

NTM

cyrusdvirus

Manic Moran wrote: »

So at what point is an act carried out with little popular support actually justified? Can it ever be justified at the time, or can it only be retrospectively been given validity? We don't have to focus purely on insurgencies either, I'm sure it's not too hard to come up with conventional military events which in hindsight were better carried out than not, but were still subject to flak at the time. Can be anything from the sinking of the Belgrano through the destruction of the Osirak reactor.

NTM

I was out to dinner with a couple that i know on Saturday night, and my girlfriend, at the end of the night asked a very similar question. At this stage none of the 4 of us were aware of the "incident" (and i use that term in a VERY general way) in Antrim. The easiest way i could answer it was the age old response, as you said....History is Written by the Victors.

The men who are hailed as Freedom Fighters and Patriots in Ireland (and I would think the US, and any other country that gained it's independence by either conventional or guerrilla warfare) will have been regarded by the "occupying" powers at the time as traitors. A lot of it is to do with the passage of time, and whether or not the incident in question was part of a recognized conflict

The Sinking of the Belgrano was a legitimate act of war in a recognized conflict.
Operation Opera, I have to confess to not knowing enough about it to make a call one way or another.
Conversely, the world accepted the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as a good thing at the time. Now days, in a lot of quarters, it is viewed as a terror attack.

In my opinion it is only the passage of time that will bring a level of acceptance and validity, and cooler heads, to acts carried out with, as you said, little popular support

Hookey

Manic Moran wrote: »

The general impression I'm getting is that a fair majority of the posters (and I believe the Irish population as a whole) believe that the killing of the soldiers and constable were not justified by any sort of 'killing the occupying forces" argument. Yet, there also seems to be a fair bit of support for the concept of "shooting Coalition forces in Iraq or Afghanistan is fair game, they're occupying forces." Despite the fact that the British were in N.I for 800 years, and the Coalition has only been in Afghanistan for 8, there are, I think, a lot more similarities than differences right now.

I don't see how you get to that conclusion at all. The soldiers killed in Antrim could hardly be considered "occupying forces"; they were a couple of squaddies getting ready to ship out to Afghanistan and there haven't been British soldiers on the streets of Ulster for quite some time. Add in the fact the Good Friday Agreement was put together by the legitimate governments of Ireland and the UK, and the elected representatives on the ground, then what mandate do the Real/Continuity IRA have from anyone? There's a difference between some popular support and next to none. Plus, whilst history is indeed written by the winners, how exactly could these jokers succeed in their aims? The Republic body politic may pay lip service to the idea of a united Ireland but the reality would be terrifying, both economically and militarily.

I'm also a bit dubious about your assertion that coalition forces are seen as "fair game". Apart from the fact that most people differentiate between Iraq and Afghanistan (with little support for the former but rather more for the latter), a lot of people in Ireland have relatives who've worn/are wearing blue helmets right now, and wouldn't see those lads as "fair game" either, after all, Afghanistan does have a UN mandate.

Manic Moran

I think you're looking at it from the wrong point of view. It doesn't matter to the fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq what the UN thinks. They see armed foreigners controlling their country. End of story. How can it be wrong, from their point of view, to engage in armed struggle to remove said foreigners?

NTM

Hookey

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think you're looking at it from the wrong point of view. It doesn't matter to the fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq what the UN thinks. They see armed foreigners controlling their country. End of story. How can it be wrong, from their point of view, to engage in armed struggle to remove said foreigners?

NTM

That wasn't what you were talking about though. You said the view in Ireland was that coalition troops were fair game, and that the situation in NI is similar to the middle east and I disagree with either assessment

DublinDes

Hookey wrote: »

I don't see how you get to that conclusion at all. The soldiers killed in Antrim could hardly be considered "occupying forces"; they were a couple of squaddies getting ready to ship out to Afghanistan and there haven't been British soldiers on the streets of Ulster for quite some time. Add in the fact the Good Friday Agreement was put together by the legitimate governments of Ireland and the UK, and the elected representatives on the ground, then what mandate do the Real/Continuity IRA have from anyone? There's a difference between some popular support and next to none. Plus, whilst history is indeed written by the winners, how exactly could these jokers succeed in their aims? The Republic body politic may pay lip service to the idea of a united Ireland but the reality would be terrifying, both economically and militarily.

I'm also a bit dubious about your assertion that coalition forces are seen as "fair game". Apart from the fact that most people differentiate between Iraq and Afghanistan (with little support for the former but rather more for the latter), a lot of people in Ireland have relatives who've worn/are wearing blue helmets right now, and wouldn't see those lads as "fair game" either, after all, Afghanistan does have a UN mandate.

You've got some neck coming on and labeling people as " Terrorists " when British army have possibly been the worst terrorist organisation in history. It is clear to any person that the British army have a terrible and brutal history. They have ransacked the world. They have destroyed races, cultures and languages. Within Britain this is seen as a proud history. It is a shamefull history.

" The soldiers killed in Antrim could hardly be considered "occupying forces"; they were a couple of squaddies getting ready to ship out to Afghanistan and there haven't been British soldiers on the streets of Ulster for quite some time. " The British Army ( and their loyalists puppets ) did their fair share of killing and maiming in the six counties fro 25 years. They are far from been seen as the nice happy go lucky " squaddies " as you call them.

" then what mandate do the Real/Continuity IRA have from anyone? "And what mandate does Britain have to be in Ireland ? And don't insult us with the " rights of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland bullsh!t ". It's a falisfied majority and damn well everyone knows it.

And as for the GFA, it was a document on how British rule should be implemented in Ireland, not on whether Britian should be in any part of Ireland or not.

kmick

Yeah those pizza boys really got what was coming to them :rolleyes:

Local-womanizer

Its a tough one to call tbh.I suppose using the example of Ireland,the IRA had enough support to be able to rely on communities to take them is a such.But with the country and its people moving forward economically I suppose people where happy to just work at things politically while they go about making a living.They then dont want anything upsetting the status quo of that set up,ie violence.

I suppose people will support those who try to make a situation better but once the improvements have come about they will accept them and move on peacefully in sorting their problems out.Its then that a group will be frowned upon so much,that being having little public support behind them.

Then again that is just what I think;)

DublinDes

It's not that long ago the taliban were been referred to as the Mudjahadeen and been portrayed as honest and brave freedom fighters with the west supplying all the weapons and explosives they wanted - but that ofcourse was when they were fighting the Soviets.

And when you look at people such as Micheal Collins, Menachem Begin etc, these in their day were referred to as terrorists.

Hookey

DublinDes wrote: »

You've got some neck coming on and labeling people as " Terrorists " when British army have possibly been the worst terrorist organisation in history. It is clear to any person that the British army have a terrible and brutal history. They have ransacked the world. They have destroyed races, cultures and languages. Within Britain this is seen as a proud history. It is a shamefull history.

And that has what to do with anything here and now? Other than having you foaming at the mouth?

DublinDes wrote: »

" The soldiers killed in Antrim could hardly be considered "occupying forces"; they were a couple of squaddies getting ready to ship out to Afghanistan and there haven't been British soldiers on the streets of Ulster for quite some time. " The British Army ( and their loyalists puppets ) did their fair share of killing and maiming in the six counties fro 25 years. They are far from been seen as the nice happy go lucky " squaddies " as you call them.

Yeah, those two 22 year olds did loads of killing and maiming. And as I said, the point of the last 10 years is that they haven't been on the streets "killing and maiming" and everyone other than a few xenophobic eejits seems to prefer it that way.

DublinDes wrote: »

" then what mandate do the Real/Continuity IRA have from anyone? "And what mandate does Britain have to be in Ireland ? And don't insult us with the " rights of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland bullsh!t ". It's a falisfied majority and damn well everyone knows it.

Yeah, everyone knows it. Right.

DublinDes wrote: »

And as for the GFA, it was a document on how British rule should be implemented in Ireland, not on whether Britian should be in any part of Ireland or not.

Did the legitimate Irish government sign up to the GFA? Did Sinn Fein? Thought so.

Seriously, get over yourself, that bile is going to f*ck you up man.

DeVore

In Ireland there is a democratic process which both sides have agreed to work within and both sides have access to the electorate, therefore the nationalists have an alternative to murder/country-defence (whichever way you want to see it).

In Afghanistan, the people who oppose "invasion" have no effective voice and so that is different to here.

Personal note: I dont think killing is justified in either case but I DO see a difference and the OP seemed to be asking what difference there is.

DeV.

DublinDes

Hookey wrote: »

And that has what to do with anything here and now? Other than having you foaming at the mouth?



Yeah, those two 22 year olds did loads of killing and maiming. And as I said, the point of the last 10 years is that they haven't been on the streets "killing and maiming" and everyone other than a few xenophobic eejits seems to prefer it that way.



Yeah, everyone knows it. Right.



Did the legitimate Irish government sign up to the GFA? Did Sinn Fein? Thought so.

Seriously, get over yourself, that bile is going to f*ck you up man.

Plenty of 22 year old British soldiers have done their share of killing and maiming in Ireland - and will do so again without hesitantion if the British govt deem them to do so. Those two 22 year olds would indeed do plenty of killing and maiming if they got half a chance, they were not going off to Afghanistan to help old ladies across the road. The RIRA did to them what they were hoping to do to people in Afghanistan.
Whether you like it or not, as long as their are British soldiers in Ireland, someone sooner or later will take a pop at them, simple as that.

Fratton Fred

As Des demonstrates only too well, we could be under attack from aliens, our very planet at risk but if the only people defending us were the British and Americans, a lot of people would support the aliens.

DublinDes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As Des demonstrates only too well, we could be under attack from aliens, our very planet at risk but if the only people defending us were the British and Americans, a lot of people would support the aliens.

As Fred demonstrates only too well, todays brits still like to kid themselves that they are still a world power in some possible way and in the shadow of America that going to the other side of the world and killing and maiming is somehow good - until they do it back to them ofcourse.

Fratton Fred

How do I do that? I support the war in Afghanistan, simple as that. I put it to you that the only reason you do not is your own blind prejudice. Some people are so blinkered that they cannot ever support something the west does, even though it is done with the full support of the UN. All this "one man's terrorist" stuff is nothing more than excuse for murder.

Hookey

DublinDes wrote: »

Plenty of 22 year old British soldiers have done their share of killing and maiming in Ireland - and will do so again without hesitantion if the British govt deem them to do so. Those two 22 year olds would indeed do plenty of killing and maiming if they got half a chance, they were not going off to Afghanistan to help old ladies across the road. The RIRA did to them what they were hoping to do to people in Afghanistan.
Whether you like it or not, as long as their are British soldiers in Ireland, someone sooner or later will take a pop at them, simple as that.

Ah so the RIRA are "fraternal brothers of the Afghan people". Of course they are. What they were about to do in Afghanistan has feck all to do with the agenda of these xenophobic knackers (who I notice weren't averse to mowing down a couple of Polish pizza delivery guys as a nice bonus), and you're completely missing my point about thier age; the last time bullets were flying about in Belfast they were playing with Pokemon; for 12 years everyone has managed to live their lives and improve their lot without resorting to blowing each other up, so what's the fecking point of all this? To punish the British army for the sins of the last 300 years? Because it sure as hell isn't going to deliver a united Ireland, so that can be the only agenda, which is ridiculous.

Manic Moran

That wasn't what you were talking about though. You said the view in Ireland was that coalition troops were fair game, and that the situation in NI is similar to the middle east and I disagree with either assessment

Given the whole brouhaha over "It was an illegal invasion of Iraq" etc, which is, I believe, the predominant opinion in Ireland, the implication is that the Coalition forces there deserved no immunity from attack given that they had no legal right to be there. Granted, since then UN approval has been forthcoming (mainly as the occupation was a fait accomplit), but as has been pointed out before, does the opposition really care if they're Americans with UN approval or Americans without UN approval? Do the Iraqis who are not taking up arms care?

Assuming that in 1920 most Irish people seemed quite happy with the state of affairs they were in, those gunmen causing all the trouble were rabble-rousers and trouble-makers. In 2009, most Irish people still seem quite happy with the current state of affairs, so those two shooting up the barracks were rabble-rousers and trouble-makers. (I guess that as a population, people prefer the devil they know.) Presumably in both 1920 and 2009, these troublemakers both saw their targets as an occupying military force. I believe there is a difference, but I'm really at a loss as to how to quantify 'why.'

NTM

Fratton Fred

There is no difference, other than a taste of reality I suppose. It is easy to have sympathy for Collins and co, even more the 1916 leaders because that is acceptable and it happened a long time ago. It is also easy to condemn the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan because that is easy and also it is, generally speaking, not the sons and daughters of Ireland going off to war. However when something like the recent murders happens on your doorstep there is a rude awakening and reality kicks in that yes, those people that brought murder and mayhem to this island are all out there walking the streets.

Lets face it as well, people usually have double standards when it comes to war.

diverdriver

MM, I think your original post is probably based on a misapprehension. Perhaps you've been out of the country too long now. I don't think there is a majority viewpoint in this country that Coalition forces are legitimate targets in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course the usual suspects do, but particularly lately with Obama in power they have been discommoded and really don't know what to do with themselves. Naturally of course there are the usual chattering classes with their half baked opinions who mouth off about this and that. But most people, I think see it for what it is. The Taliban are evil and Saddam and his cronies are better off dead.

On another point, despite the likes of Dublin des with their cartoon fantasy version of Irish history. To assume that Collins and co. had widespread support back then would not be completely accurate. The 1916 rising was widely unpopular and largely fought out be Irishmen on both sides. The 1918 election was essentially stolen by Sinn Fein because other candidates were 'encouraged' not to stand. That's not to say that there wasn't support. It just wasn't as great as years of subsequent propaganda makes out. Bluntly the old IRA used terrorism to achieve their goals. Guerrilla warfare too. They were blessed with Collins, when DeValera back he almost brought the IRA to it's knees with the farcical Custom house attack. The history of any country is anything but black and white, good guys against bad guys. It's always grey.

A more apt comparsion could be between the now ended PIRA troubles. They at least had some form of support. The current crowd are simply die hards, psychos and gullible young men who never knew what is was like to live through that insane period who probably mouth the same kind of crap as Dublin Des.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges there.

DublinDes

Hookey wrote: »

Ah so the RIRA are "fraternal brothers of the Afghan people". Of course they are. What they were about to do in Afghanistan has feck all to do with the agenda of these xenophobic knackers (who I notice weren't averse to mowing down a couple of Polish pizza delivery guys as a nice bonus), and you're completely missing my point about thier age; the last time bullets were flying about in Belfast they were playing with Pokemon; for 12 years everyone has managed to live their lives and improve their lot without resorting to blowing each other up, so what's the fecking point of all this? To punish the British army for the sins of the last 300 years? Because it sure as hell isn't going to deliver a united Ireland, so that can be the only agenda, which is ridiculous.

Ahhh, according to you, those two peace loving, tree hugging brits were playing Pokemon the last time bullets were flying around Belfast, gee maybe we'll play Rolf Harris's Two little boys had two little toys. aahhhhhhhhh
I don't see what a soldier's age has to do with it, an occupying soldier is an occupying soldier regardles of his age. Pointless comment.
As I said - " Those two 22 year olds would indeed do plenty of killing and maiming if they got half a chance, they were not going off to Afghanistan to help old ladies across the road. The RIRA did to them what they were hoping to do to people in Afghanistan. "

cyrusdvirus

DublinDes wrote: »

Ahhh, according to you, those two peace loving, tree hugging brits were playing Pokemon the last time bullets were flying around Belfast, gee maybe we'll play Rolf Harris's Two little boys had two little toys. aahhhhhhhhh
I don't see what a soldier's age has to do with it, an occupying soldier is an occupying soldier regardles of his age. Pointless comment.
As I said - " Those two 22 year olds would indeed do plenty of killing and maiming if they got half a chance, they were not going off to Afghanistan to help old ladies across the road. The RIRA did to them what they were hoping to do to people in Afghanistan. "

OK Des, what was your opinion on the murder of PSNI Constable Carroll? Is he a member of your so called occupying forces too??

DublinDes

diverdriver wrote: »

MM, I think your original post is probably based on a misapprehension. Perhaps you've been out of the country too long now. I don't think there is a majority viewpoint in this country that Coalition forces are legitimate targets in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course the usual suspects do, but particularly lately with Obama in power they have been discommoded and really don't know what to do with themselves. Naturally of course there are the usual chattering classes with their half baked opinions who mouth off about this and that. But most people, I think see it for what it is. The Taliban are evil and Saddam and his cronies are better off dead.

On another point, despite the likes of Dublin des with their cartoon fantasy version of Irish history. To assume that Collins and co. had widespread support back then would not be completely accurate. The 1916 rising was widely unpopular and largely fought out be Irishmen on both sides. The 1918 election was essentially stolen by Sinn Fein because other candidates were 'encouraged' not to stand. That's not to say that there wasn't support. It just wasn't as great as years of subsequent propaganda makes out. Bluntly the old IRA used terrorism to achieve their goals. Guerrilla warfare too. They were blessed with Collins, when DeValera back he almost brought the IRA to it's knees with the farcical Custom house attack. The history of any country is anything but black and white, good guys against bad guys. It's always grey.

A more apt comparsion could be between the now ended PIRA troubles. They at least had some form of support. The current crowd are simply die hards, psychos and gullible young men who never knew what is was like to live through that insane period who probably mouth the same kind of crap as Dublin Des.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges there.

A " cartoon fantasy version of Irish history. " AND THIS COMING FROM AN OBVIOUS FAN OF THE LIKES OF KEVIN MEYERS, EOIN HARRIS ETC

To assume that Collins and co. had widespread support back then would not be completely accurate. The 1916 rising was widely unpopular and largely fought out be Irishmen on both sides.

And the brits shelling Dublin and tying up James Connolly in a chair and shooting him and the others etc was very populiar was well. Yes it was largely fought by Irishmen ( and some women ), because you see it was Irishmen fighting for the freedom of their country.

The 1918 election was essentially stolen by Sinn Fein because other candidates were 'encouraged' not to stand. That's not to say that there wasn't support. It just wasn't as great as years of subsequent propaganda makes out.

More Kevin Meyers/ Eoin harris bullsh*t. As was recently posted on a discussion over on the history forum, there was indeed intimadation in the 1918 election. It was the British so called German plot where the leadership of Sinn Fein were imprisioned on their alleged planning with the Germans. A total fabrician. The reason why the Redmondites didn't stand in many constituencies was because they knew they were in for a routing and didn't want the ridiculling of it all.
And he calls winning an election with 73 seats out of 105 ( 6 went to the IPP ) " wasn't as great as years of subsequent propaganda makes out. " Kevin would be very proud of him

Bluntly the old IRA used terrorism to achieve their goals. Guerrilla warfare too. They were blessed with Collins, when DeValera back he almost brought the IRA to it's knees with the farcical Custom house attack.

So Collins was a terrorist AND a guerilla As for the Custom House attack, Dev indeed issued farcial orders such as " not to fire on the approaching Britsh lorries unless fired first ", but it was a long, long way form the huge body blow that west Brits and such have portrayed. Only 6 IRA were killed and 70 captured who included many inexperienced fighters. Not one of Collins squad or agents were caught, men like Dan Breen etc were not invovled. Now how this could bring the IRA thoughtout the country to it's knees is beyond me, though naturally our Eoin Harris fan will come up with some convoulted theory.

You should drop over to the History forum where Snickersman, MarchDub etc could teach you something about Irish history and loose your " cartoon fantasy version of Irish history "

DublinDes

gatecrash wrote: »

OK Des, what was your opinion on the murder of PSNI Constable Carroll? Is he a member of your so called occupying forces too??

Good question. Ok, the jury's out on this one. Technically he was supporting British rule there, but to be honest, the PSNI is not the RUC. I suppose on this one I'm going to be called a hypocrite by the Brits and Republicans, and yes your both right.

cyrusdvirus

DublinDes wrote: »

Good question. Ok, the jury's out on this one. Technically he was supporting British rule there, but to be honest, the PSNI is not the RUC. I suppose on this one I'm going to be called a hypocrite by the Brits and Republicans, and yes your both right.

That's about the most reasonable thing you've said here

Hookey

DublinDes wrote: »

Ahhh, according to you, those two peace loving, tree hugging brits were playing Pokemon the last time bullets were flying around Belfast, gee maybe we'll play Rolf Harris's Two little boys had two little toys. aahhhhhhhhh
I don't see what a soldier's age has to do with it, an occupying soldier is an occupying soldier regardles of his age. Pointless comment.
As I said - " Those two 22 year olds would indeed do plenty of killing and maiming if they got half a chance, they were not going off to Afghanistan to help old ladies across the road. The RIRA did to them what they were hoping to do to people in Afghanistan. "

Way to miss the point. Again.

cyrusdvirus

gatecrash wrote: »

That's about the most reasonable thing you've said here

You know what? I'm wrong. It's not at all reasonable. You either condone or condemn what happened, you can't have both. the only way in which your comment was reasonable was that it wasn't a one sided response.

diverdriver

A " cartoon fantasy version of Irish history. " AND THIS COMING FROM AN OBVIOUS FAN OF THE LIKES OF KEVIN MEYERS, EOIN HARRIS ETC

I'm aware of these gentlemen but don't read their articles much. So can't really comment. But probably like me they actually read books about Irish history published by people other than Sinn Fein and are probably more interested in the truth of Irish history than propaganda.

And the brits shelling Dublin and tying up James Connolly in a chair and shooting him and the others etc was very populiar was well.

The 'Brits' shelled the GPO not Dublin, get your facts right. It wasn't popular and the people blamed for it were not the 'Brit's but the men and women inside the GPO. They were very unpopular at the time. Connolly wasn't popular until he was shot. The killing of the leaders of the rising was a strategic mistake by one General Maxwell. He had to ordered to stop by the British government.

Yes it was largely fought by Irishmen ( and some women ), because you see it was Irishmen fighting for the freedom of their country.

That just exposes your lack of knowledge and glibness. Most of the British army in Dublin that day were Irishmen, the Royal Irish Regiment, Dublin Fusiliers etc. Local men, Dubliners. Many had joined to help copperfasten home rule and resist German domination of Europe. There were precious few English or Scottish soldiers in Dublin that day. Only later did English troops arrive.

More Kevin Meyers/ Eoin harris bullsh*t. As was recently posted on a discussion over on the history forum, there was indeed intimadation in the 1918 election. It was the British so called German plot where the leadership of Sinn Fein were imprisioned on their alleged planning with the Germans. A total fabrician. The reason why the Redmondites didn't stand in many constituencies was because they knew they were in for a routing and didn't want the ridiculling of it all.
And he calls winning an election with 73 seats out of 105 ( 6 went to the IPP ) " wasn't as great as years of subsequent propaganda makes out. " Kevin would be very proud of him

Again with the Kevin Myers/Eoin Harris thing. Maybe I should be reading these guys. I'm glad you admit there was intimidation in the 1918 election, but of course you watered it down and no doubt privately you think it was 'neccessary'. The margin of victory was only so great because of the lack of oppostion. Without the choice, of course people voted Sinn Fein.:rolleyes: As for the German plot thing, that was hardly going to stop people voting for Sinn Fein, if anything it would help their cause. Something you would realise if every bothered to study any history at all.

So Collins was a terrorist AND a guerilla

I didn't say that, this is typical of distortion and straw man tactics you use. He used terrorism as required and he was a guerrilla fighter and extremely effective he was too. Because conventional tactics as used by Dev at the Custom house was dangerous and wasteful. Losing 76 men in a single attack is a defeat whatever way you look at it. A few more like that and it would have been the end of the IRA.

As for Snickersman and MarchDub, if they are much of a pushover as you. It should be easy. Meanwhile, I'm off to read something by Eoin Harris.

DublinDes

diverdriver wrote: »

I'm aware of these gentlemen but don't read their articles much. So can't really comment. But probably like me they actually read books about Irish history published by people other than Sinn Fein and are probably more interested in the truth of Irish history than propaganda.

Yeah, and I never read An Phoblacht :rolleyes:

The 'Brits' shelled the GPO not Dublin, get your facts right. It wasn't popular and the people blamed for it were not the 'Brit's but the men and women inside the GPO. They were very unpopular at the time. Connolly wasn't popular until he was shot. The killing of the leaders of the rising was a strategic mistake by one General Maxwell. He had to ordered to stop by the British government.

They also shelled the Four Courts, Liberty Hall and Bolands Mills. Irish people killed was put at 318, the Volunteers and ICA recorded 64 killed in action, the rest been civilians due mainly to the shelling. I'm sure that made the british very populiar indeed.

As for the alleged unpopularity of the rising, sure their were some unionists and west brits in Dublin who barracked the IRA prisioners as they were led away, but this was the spin the imperial propaganda machine of the time wanted to impress on everyone that it was very unpopuliar and that newspapers ofcourse were unlikely to publish anything oppostite. Read Ernie O'Malley's On Another Man's Wound for instance or The Easter Rising by Brian Barton & Micheal Foy, - "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." It was the richer, genteel citizens of Dublin that where on the side of the British ( that has not changed much either ), the ordinary people were sympathic to the rebels. " 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." The Irish Rebellion: What happened and Why, F McKenzie.

That just exposes your lack of knowledge and glibness. Most of the British army in Dublin that day were Irishmen, the Royal Irish Regiment, Dublin Fusiliers etc. Local men, Dubliners. Many had joined to help copperfasten home rule and resist German domination of Europe. There were precious few English or Scottish soldiers in Dublin that day. Only later did English troops arrive.

From what I know the Sherwood Foresters had the highest losses, around 240 at Mount St bridge. But since you seem to know so much about the different regiments invovled and their numbers, could you give us a breakdown in the figures - and not just hearsay ??

Again with the Kevin Myers/Eoin Harris thing. Maybe I should be reading these guys.

Undoubtably you are

I'm glad you admit there was intimidation in the 1918 election, but of course you watered it down and no doubt privately you think it was 'neccessary'. The margin of victory was only so great because of the lack of oppostion. Without the choice, of course people voted Sinn Fein.:rolleyes: As for the German plot thing, that was hardly going to stop people voting for Sinn Fein, if anything it would help their cause. Something you would realise if every bothered to study any history at all.

I did not water down anything, yes, there was intimadation, but only from the British. Since you know so much about the alleged intimadation from SF, I'm sure there must be many quotes from various Remondite candidates, witnesses, police records etc that you can supply. But doubtless it's just west brit bullsh*t swallowed by you without a single shred of evidence.

I didn't say that, this is typical of distortion and straw man tactics you use. He used terrorism as required and he was a guerrilla fighter and extremely effective he was too. Because conventional tactics as used by Dev at the Custom house was dangerous and wasteful. Losing 76 men in a single attack is a defeat whatever way you look at it. A few more like that and it would have been the end of the IRA.

He accuses me of misrepresentting him when I directly quoted what he said" So Collins was a terrorist AND a guerilla " and then states " He used terrorism as required and he was a guerrilla fighter " What a fool.

As for Snickersman and MarchDub, if they are much of a pushover as you. It should be easy. Meanwhile, I'm off to read something by Eoin Harris.

Well anyone who would admit that he reads Harris and would be influenced by him - says it all :rolleyes:

diverdriver

DD, you know, I'm all for debate but it's pointless when the other person deliberately tell untruths, misquotes and misrepresents what you said.

I'm not sure what you fascination with Harris and Myers is but I don't read these gentlemen's contributions very much if at all. Please give me the credit of forming my own opinion based on my own reading. You're the one with the fixation on these two.
Here is an example of your kind of inaccuracy. IRA? There were no IRA prisoners. IRB, Irish Citizen Army, Irish Volunteers. No IRA. Get you facts right. As for it being only 'unionists and west brits' against the rising, again the facts don't back your assertion. The fact that you want to believe something doesn't make it true.

sure their were some unionists and west brits in Dublin who barracked the IRA prisioners

Go and read something other than An Phoblacht the truth is out there.

You asked for it here it is. The breakdown of British army in Dublin the day of the rising: 35 Officers and 851 OR of the 6th Lancers, 18 Officers and 385 OR of the 3rd Royal Irish Regiment, 21 Officers and 650 OR of the Royal Irish Rifles, 37 Officers and 430 OR of the 10th Royal Dublin Fusililers. Other were brought in later from the Curragh. It's up to you to prove they were all Englishmen, west Brits and Unionists in those regiments. I howeve suspect that most of them were as Irish as you and me and the rebels. As for the Sherwood Foresters, even you must have realised that they were shipped in from England later, many believing they were going to France. Their casualties were suffered when they ran into the famous ambush at Mount Street. I'm surprised you don't know this? It's well documented even An Phobacht must have a reference to is somewhere. :rolleyes:

There was Sinn Fein intimidation. As I said before just because you want to believe something ir or isn't true doesn't make is so.

I said

Bluntly the old IRA used terrorism to achieve their goals. Guerrilla warfare too.

But it was you who said:

" So Collins was a terrorist AND a guerilla "

And you call ME a fool! Read your own posts for crying out loud.:rolleyes: I later said in reply

He used terrorism as required and he was a guerrilla fighter and extremely effective he was too.

He used terrorism, that doesn't make him a terrorist. A distinction you should understand because apparently in your eyes there is no such thing as an Irish terrorist only 'freedom fighters'.

As for this:

Well anyone who would admit that he reads Harris and would be influenced by him - says it all

Let me explain the concept of the irony or is it sarcasm. You see, I was making fun of you by saying that I was off to read Harris. I wasn't really. It was a joke. But I saw him on telly today if that counts. Perhaps his evil influence corrupted me. :P

Incidently I came across stuff by MarchDub, well if that's your hero. Hahahahahahaha!

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Can it ever be justified at the time

It would seem that the two major reasons for launching the Second Persian War (Iraq II) argued by the GW Bush administration (before the US Congress and American public) were originally based upon the threat posed by (non-existent*) weapons of mass destruction and (false*) links between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?

Manic Moran wrote: »

or can it only be retrospectively been given validity?

*Once it became clear to the US Congress and the American public that there were no weapons of mass destruction or Osama bin Laden links, the Bush administration spin-masters began to revise recent history and substitute the liberation of the Iraqi people and the spread of democracy as justification for Iraq II?

Another example... "Remember the Maine?" Part of the justification for the USA to go to war against Spain at the time?

"On February 15, 1898, an explosion ripped through the American battleship Maine, anchored in Havana Harbor, sinking the ship and killing 260 sailors. Americans responded with outrage, assuming that Spain, which controlled Cuba as a colony, had sunk the ship. Many newspapers presented Spanish culpability as fact, with headlines such as 'The War Ship Maine was Split in Two by an Enemy’s Secret Infernal Machine.' Two months later, the slogan 'Remember the Maine' carried the U.S. into war with Spain."

Which is now used as an example of yellow journalism?

"In the midst of the hysteria, few Americans paid much attention to the report issued two weeks before the U.S. entry into the war by a Court of Inquiry appointed by President McKinley. The report stated that the committee could not definitively assign blame to Spain for the sinking of the Maine."

"In 1911, the Maine was raised in Havana harbor and a new board of inquiry again avoided a definite conclusion. In 1976, however, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, Admiral Hyman Rickover conducted a new investigation. Rickover, something of a maverick in the Navy, came to the conclusion that the explosion was caused by spontaneous combustion in the ship’s coal bins, a problem that afflicted other ships of the period."

But there have been many challenges to Adm Rickover's conclusions, which tend to put the USA in a more favourable light historically regarding their justification for entry into the war with Spain?

Max Weber has contended that no one is value free (including historians, you, me, and all posters to this thread). Revisionist history seems to be the standard, depending upon the time, context, and political interests/perspectives from which we reflect upon past military justifications?

Source: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5470/

Manic Moran

Problem with those analogies is that the cause was changed retroactively. When it comes to 'freedom fighters' and such like, the stated goal, such as 'Liberated Ireland' or 'Independent America' tends not to change before and after.

NTM