Easter lily

VO

I would have no problem wearing an Easter Lily to commerorate the heroes of 1916 , however if it adds to the coffers of Sinn Fein/IRA murderers I will not purchase one.

I do buy and wear a poppy to remember all of people who died in WW1 , soldiers and civilians.

CSC

VO wrote: »

I would have no problem wearing an Easter Lily to commerorate the heroes of 1916 , however if it adds to the coffers of Sinn Fein/IRA murderers I will not purchase one.

I do buy and wear a poppy to remember all of people who died in WW1 , soldiers and civilians.

This is a debate that happens on a regular basis but I can't see the difference between the rebels of 1916 who launched a rising resulting in hundreds dead and with virtually no support and the "rebels" of the PIRA. To call one set of rebels "heroes" and the others "murderers" doesn't make any sense.

i71jskz5xu42pb

CSC wrote: »

This is a debate that happens on a regular basis but I can't see the difference between the rebels of 1916 who launched a rising resulting in hundreds dead and with virtually no support and the "rebels" of the PIRA. To call one set of rebels "heroes" and the others "murderers" doesn't make any sense.

Somewhat valid point but the 1916 guys:

• Didn't target civilians
• Were not involved in organised crime
• Didn't murder British army forces in cold blood i.e. they took their stand at various points and fought openly rather than the tactic of putting a bomb under a car or shooting a sentry outside a barracks. Open to correction on that though

I guess that is why the are viewed as being more noble.

I'm sure the way we were all educated has an influence as well.

Sand

So you think wearing a lilly is to do with the innocent people who were killed?

Nope - if it was, Id wear one. But its not about that. Its about celebrating the killers of innocent Dubliners.

My god you have it in one.

Actually I'm on that forum and it's a good forum for anyone who wants to join it.

Yeah, I already assumed your ability to engage with views different to your own was honed in some forum like that. It must be a great forum with a wonderful, stimulating exchange of ideas between 40 shades of green....

I wonder why the Provos ever had to start shooting people who disagreed with them when they are so fond of vigorous debate?

Disproven? You're clearly a troll every bloody thread you come into you're always trolling.

No really, I do honestly disagree with you. You've probably not encountered a different viewpoint on provo.net or those other great forums you frequent, but it will get easier with time. Or you can just stop opening threads in case people on them disagree with you.

By the way wearing a lilly has nothing to do with the provos, once again you're trolling

Another poster has already made the point:

This is a debate that happens on a regular basis but I can't see the difference between the rebels of 1916 who launched a rising resulting in hundreds dead and with virtually no support and the "rebels" of the PIRA. To call one set of rebels "heroes" and the others "murderers" doesn't make any sense.

I agree it doesnt make any sense to support one tiny, militant vaguard faction and not support another when they are both using the same logic to justify their actions, for the same cause, against the same enemy.

Provo sympathisers and apologists agree with me on this, and often note that people who criticise the Provos as terrorists are hypocrites if they support the 1916 rising - I am not a hypocrite: I dont celebrate the Provos, and I dont celebrate the killers of ordinary, innocent Dubliners. I am fairly consistent with regard to tiny, unsupported, militant vanguard groups inflicting their views on a democratic, representitive political process.

In fairness SAND you just cant help yourself sometimes. Its easy to criticize then to stand for something.

If someone wants to wear a lily or a poppy or rabbit $hit then they are free do to so IMO

I havent made it illegal for them to do so. Yet.

gurramok

Sand wrote: »

Nope - if it was, Id wear one. But its not about that. Its about celebrating the killers of innocent Dubliners.

Will you be remembering Dublin citizens murdered by British forces?

Sand wrote: »

Provo sympathisers and apologists agree with me on this, and often note that people who criticise the Provos as terrorists are hypocrites if they support the 1916 rising - I am not a hypocrite: I dont celebrate the Provos, and I dont celebrate the killers of ordinary, innocent Dubliners. I am fairly consistent with regard to tiny, unsupported, militant vanguard groups inflicting their views on a democratic, representitive political process.

The Provos have nothing to do with 1916, they didnt exist then. I find your post insulting to the memory of those who founded this nation state and that is subversive.

jank

I havent made it illegal for them to do so. Yet.

Eh?

Can'tseeme

Sinn Fein go around the doors in west Belfast selling them. Which is handy enough.

futurehope

I'll be taking time out to remember all those murdered by SF/IRA in the name of Irish Unity, including those innocent men slaughtered at Kingsmill:

http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/kingsmill.htm

Lest We Forget...

FTA69

Olive Steep Cafe wrote: »

Somewhat valid point but the 1916 guys:

[*]Didn't target civilians

Neither did the IRA in any of its incarnations, however there is no doubting that civilians often died as a result of their actions, the IRA in Cork once threw a Mills bomb into a crowded pub which contained British soldiers.

[*]Were not involved in organised crime

Nonsense, they were robbing anything they could get their hands on, i.e trains. Similarly, when that whole "moving statue" lark started up the IRA were first on the scene to charge people admission.

[*]Didn't murder British army forces in cold blood i.e. they took their stand at various points and fought openly rather than the tactic of putting a bomb under a car or shooting a sentry outside a barracks. Open to correction on that though

What about Bloody Sunday, when Michael Collins had 12 odd people shot dead in their beds and in front of their wives? Or when they shot octogenarian Alan Bell in the face on a tram because he was investigating accounts in which IRA finances were held? The IRA killed their targets when and where they found them, they had no qualms in shooting people in their underpants or in their sleep.

The war they fought was just as bloody and vicious as the one the Provos fought, there's no point in romanticising the past.

Here's an interesting link for your enjoyment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgn15X5qroM

Grudaire

futurehope wrote: »

I'll be taking time out to remember all those murdered by SF/IRA in the name of Irish Unity, including those innocent men slaughtered at Kingsmill:

http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/kingsmill.htm

Lest We Forget...

Ah here - are we to list everyone that was murdered? I'm not a fan of those 'FAIR' style sites - 'The IRA are not to be confused with Shamrocks, Leprachauns, fiddles, and Guinness beer' (I assume they mean stout:rolleyes:) I mean it would be niceer to see a site which tells ALL the stories of the troubles rather then a single side.

However more importantly feck off and I'll discuss this in another thread - we are after all not talking about them here.

FTA69 wrote: »

What about Bloody Sunday, when Michael Collins had 12 odd people shot dead in their beds and in front of their wives? Or when they shot octogenarian Alan Bell in the face on a tram because he was investigating accounts in which IRA finances were held? The IRA killed their targets when and where they found them, they had no qualms in shooting people in their underpants or in their sleep.

The war they fought was just as bloody and vicious as the one the Provos fought, there's no point in romanticising the past.

Here's an interesting link for your enjoyment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgn15X5qroM

You seem to have a decent grip on Irish history - I'm sure you will note that bloody Sunday was AFTER the rising (In fact there was a few before and after - but the one you refer toWikipedia).

Now I think the 1916 heroes should be celebrated - they took a stand against the external oppression of a foreign master on Ireland. Something I definitely appreciate - ar deis dé a raibh a n'anamacha

jimmmy

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Sinn Fein go around the doors in west Belfast selling them. Which is handy enough.

They would be well used to knocking on doors uninvited. Ask the relatives of the disappeared, inc the mother of ten from west Belfast. No thanks, no Easter Lily for me.

Grudaire

jimmmy wrote: »

They would be well used to knocking on doors uninvited. Ask the relatives of the disappeared, inc the mother of ten from west Belfast. No thanks, no Easter Lily for me.

Basically you're letting Sinn Féin hijack the Easter lilly...

i71jskz5xu42pb

FTA69 wrote: »

Neither did the IRA in any of its incarnations, however there is no doubting that civilians often died as a result of their actions, the IRA in Cork once threw a Mills bomb into a crowded pub which contained British soldiers.

To say that the IRA didn't target civilians and in the same sentence say they threw a bomb into a crowded pub makes no sense. It's hair splitting at best.

And was it not an incarnations/splinter of the IRA that carried out the Omagh bombing.


Fair enough on your other points though - I do agree that the past has been romanticising, same as any country I guess.

Grudaire

Olive Steep Cafe wrote: »

And was it not an incarnations/splinter of the IRA that carried out the Omagh bombing.

I think you misunderstand the use of 'Real' before IRA

i71jskz5xu42pb

Cliste wrote: »

I think you misunderstand the use of 'Real' before IRA

Is the Real IRA not a splinter of the IRA? Not being smart, that's a question - Wikipedia seems to think so, so that makes it a fact I guess.

In any case I don't really go for the Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea distinctions - if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are ...

Rebelheart

If somebody could explain why Irish people should honour Irish-born people who fought and died for the diverse causes of killing Irish freedom fighters, shoving women, children and men into the concentration camps and "enclosed villages" of South Africa and Kenya, the torture chambers of Iraq and Afghanistan and much, much else that is morally objectionable, I'd like to hear it.

If it is because they are Irish-born, then we might as well honour every other Irish-born murderer, rapist, and barbarian who carried out similar inhumane acts without the cover of the British state. How very tribal indeed.

There is no intellectual or moral support for honouring such people. None whatever. It is simply not challenged because of the peace process and the "greater good". Let's not try and dress it up.

Grudaire

Olive Steep Cafe wrote: »

Is the Real IRA not a splinter of the IRA? Not being smart, that's a question - Wikipedia seems to think so, so that makes it a fact I guess.

In any case I don't really go for the Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea distinctions - if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are ...

I apologise unreservedly - I completely mis-read you comment. Well it's more a splinter of the PIRA.

I personally think that the IRA and P/R/CIRA are totally seperate.

The IRA were a different group altogether - it should be remembered that when that group split it was the civil war. And half of them went into government, later to be joined by the other half. Any reference to them being the same as the PIRA etc is laughable

VO

CSC wrote: »

This is a debate that happens on a regular basis but I can't see the difference between the rebels of 1916 who launched a rising resulting in hundreds dead and with virtually no support and the "rebels" of the PIRA. To call one set of rebels "heroes" and the others "murderers" doesn't make any sense.

I do not recall reading anywhere that the rebels of 1916 planted no warning bombs targetted at civilian casualties or targetted people because of their religous persuasion, which was something that the gangsters in Sinn Fein/IRA did many time sover the troubles. In 1916 the target of the rebels was solely the British Army not the citizens of Dublin.

Can'tseeme

jimmmy wrote: »

They would be well used to knocking on doors uninvited. Ask the relatives of the disappeared, inc the mother of ten from west Belfast. No thanks, no Easter Lily for me.

Believe me they're invited into the homes of west Belfast jimmmy. Just look at their election results in the constituency over the years.

Allah Hu Akbar

Olive Steep Cafe wrote: »

To say that the IRA didn't target civilians and in the same sentence say they threw a bomb into a crowded pub makes no sense. It's hair splitting at best.

And was it not an incarnations/splinter of the IRA that carried out the Omagh bombing.


Fair enough on your other points though - I do agree that the past has been romanticising, same as any country I guess.

I would condemn the killing of any innocent person been killed, but to try and suggest the IRA just went out to murder innocent people is totally wrong just look at the the Manchester bombing or Canary Wharf where hundreds if not thousands could have died.

But once again wearing of a easter lilly has nothing to do with Sinn Fein or the PIRA/CIRA/RIRA.

Sand

Will you be remembering Dublin citizens murdered by British forces?

Ive already responded to that whataboutery - read up. Seriously lads, you guys are like a hive mind with the same stock responses.

The Provos have nothing to do with 1916, they didnt exist then. I find your post insulting to the memory of those who founded this nation state and that is subversive.

Read what my post again. Call a friend and discuss its implications. Then come back with a sensible response.

"they didnt exist then" - Jesus...thats your contribution?

The war they fought was just as bloody and vicious as the one the Provos fought, there's no point in romanticising the past.

See what I mean? Provos equate themselves with the men of 1916 - and its very hard to differentiate between the methods and arguments used by either organisation as they struggled for the same end goal. Me and FTA agree on that. And we are both entirely consistent in our views on both. Except we completely disagree, but hey.

Grudaire

Sand wrote: »

you guys are like a hive mind with the same stock responses.

Are we not allowed to have differing opinions either? :rolleyes:

Sand wrote: »

Read what my post again. Call a friend and discuss its implications. Then come back with a sensible response.

"they didnt exist then" - Jesus...thats your contribution?

As above (And try use the quote button, it's a pain in the hole finding what you're so narky about)

Sand wrote: »

See what I mean? Provos equate themselves with the men of 1916 - and its very hard to differentiate between the methods and arguments used by either organisation as they struggled for the same end goal. Me and FTA agree on that. And we are both entirely consistent in our views on both. Except we completely disagree, but hey.

Well I think of all the risings in Ireland the 1916 rising was the most noble - ironically. It was also one of the most suicidal (Mac Neill pulled out because of this). The fact of the matter is that they went out to fight against the blatent injustices that exsisted in Ireland - they went to Dublin with the aim of holding their ground. Don't forget that at this stage Constitutional means had basically failed (Yes Home Rule had been put through - but we didn't exactly see it did we, Ulster after all did say NO).
Now every single man and women who went out to fight that Easter Monday wanting a better Ireland - this was a selfless act.

The fact that innocents were killed is terrible, don't get me wrong about this.

The PIRA is another story. Their tactics meant more of a mob then a movement existed. The fact that they claim to be the continuity of the 1916 rebels means nothing - and really shouldn't to you either. Just because the UVF etc claim to be British - I don't hold this against every English,Scottish and Welsh man that I meet.


I think that I have dealt with your posts with no whataboutery (Great word by the way), either way I hope you appreciate this, and don't dismiss my opinion as lightly as you have others. You have acted in a very insulting manner and do less to convince people that your version is the truth, and more to drive people to the old trenches - just as they falsely coined it the Sinn Féin rising you are giving credence to the PIRA by associating them with it.
I invite a reply, but to honest wouldn't shed a tear if you don't.

The Raven.

Cliste wrote: »

I think that I have dealt with your posts with no whataboutery (Great word by the way)...

The origin of the term ‘whataboutery’ has been attributed to John Hume, but others argue that it was invented by Cardinal Cahal Daly, who referred to it as ‘the commonest form of moral evasion in Ireland today’.

http://www.nextleft.org/2009/01/etymology-of-whataboutery.html

I don’t like the term as it usually throws a debate askew, and I don’t entirely agree with Cardinal Daly's interpretation, as Mick Fealty rightly pointed out :

Evasion may not be the intention but it is the obvious effect. It occurs when individuals are confronted with a difficult or uncomfortable question. The respondent retrenches his/her position and rejigs the question, being careful to pick open a sore point on the part of questioner's 'tribe'. He/she then fires the original query back at the inquirer.

Historical subjects can be the worst. Rational perspective disappears and opponents are forced to assume moral responsibility for their community's past sins. The substance of the issue is foregone for an emotional power play that comprises the solipsistic concerns of the participants, with little regard for fact or quality of argument.

If people wish to wear white lilies or red poppies to commemorate dead combatants, then that is their prerogative. The white Easter lily, when we were growing up, was always regarded as a cheerful symbol of life, hope, and beauty. I could never associate it with the IRA and the fierce emotions they arouse.

walrusgumble

FTA69 wrote: »

Olive Steep Cafe wrote: »

Neither did the IRA in any of its incarnations, however there is no doubting that civilians often died as a result of their actions, the IRA in Cork once threw a Mills bomb into a crowded pub which contained British soldiers.



Nonsense, they were robbing anything they could get their hands on, i.e trains. Similarly, when that whole "moving statue" lark started up the IRA were first on the scene to charge people admission.



What about Bloody Sunday, when Michael Collins had 12 odd people shot dead in their beds and in front of their wives? Or when they shot octogenarian Alan Bell in the face on a tram because he was investigating accounts in which IRA finances were held? The IRA killed their targets when and where they found them, they had no qualms in shooting people in their underpants or in their sleep.

The war they fought was just as bloody and vicious as the one the Provos fought, there's no point in romanticising the past.

Here's an interesting link for your enjoyment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgn15X5qroM

what about the tan's actions against Lord Mayor of Cork, tomas MacCurtain in his own bed (some time BEFORE Bloody Sunday)not to mention another limerick mayor (cant think of his name atm) or the sacking of places like cork, balbriggan, parts of limerick etc

some of these G men were no angels. you are fully aware of the treatment people like dick mckee got in dublin castle. one particular gentleman, daniel hoey had helped the army point out the leaders of the rebellion, and had thomas clarke stripped naked outside the rotunda hospital and beat him up - fine example of british gentlemanship during a war, wouldn't you say? you are aware of what the defence of the realm act and the effect it had on towns/cities all over the country which were effected by it, not just social and civil rights aspect.

Sand

Are we not allowed to have differing opinions either?

Claiming that you guys have differing opinions might be overstating it. Already had two seperate guys asking "Whatabout the innocent Dubs killed by the British!?!<>!>!?" and had the old sneering West Brit accusations. All stock responses that indicate group think. Mind you, its understandable - given that free thinkers in Provo circles tended to end up found in ditches or shallow graves, perhaps reading from a fixed playbook is a survival trait.

Now every single man and women who went out to fight that Easter Monday wanting a better Ireland - this was a selfless act.

Every member of the Provos would claim the same for themselves. Ironically, every Loyalist would claim something similar ( a better Northern Ireland...). Can you disagree? Maybe they were. Wrongly, but only as wrongly as the men of 1916.

None of them are telling the truth of course, but its comforting. What is quite likely is that, like Redmonds Volunteers, many of the men engaged in the 1916 rising were involved for a whole scope of human reasons as opposed to be some sort of angelic cadre.

The fact of the matter is that they went out to fight against the blatent injustices that exsisted in Ireland - they went to Dublin with the aim of holding their ground. Don't forget that at this stage Constitutional means had basically failed (Yes Home Rule had been put through - but we didn't exactly see it did we, Ulster after all did say NO).

This is historical revionism. The Rising was intended as a great blood sacrifice: something you admit to, it had no chance of success and was only intended to be a great orgy of violence which would hopefully completely destroy constitutional nationalism and lead to a rebirth of physical force. Basically, semi fascist idealogy that praised violence, national or racial "purity" and dismissed peaceful means of reaching an objective as being somehow dishonourable.

Constitutional means had not failed: It had succeeded - as you note the laws were already on the books. Home Rule was achieved, and only had to be implemented with the conclusion of the war. Overwhelmingly backed by a majority of the Irish people. With Home Rule in place, everything was possible. It a necessary requirement to assume that constitutional means had failed, because if it hadnt failed, then supporters of the 1916 rising would have to actually understand the real reasons behind the rising and they dont make for comfortable reading. Far easier to pretend that actually, the 1916 rising was a last resort, with violence only being turned to in reaction to one last final betrayal of constitutional nationalism by perfidious Albion.

6 years of violence and bitter civil war only achieved partition (probably a given anyway, but violent Irish republicanism ensured the worst fears of Northern unionists were confirmed), poisoned Irish politics ( to this day, the idea of a FF and FG government is near unthinkable to their grassroots), brought great suffering to the people of Ireland and laid the idealogical groundwork for the troubles.

Was there blatant injustice in the Ireland ( and indeed the United Kingdom as a whole) in 1916 - yes. Is there blatant injustic in Ireland today - yes. So 1916 failed on that measure too.

The only way 1916 can be said to have succeeded is that it killed constitutional nationalism for a generation. Thats not something that should be celebrated.

The PIRA is another story.

How so? A bunch of brave patriots, out to make Ireland a better place, to free Ireland from the British yoke, ignoring what the majority of people think by taking the long view that eventually everyone will agree they were right?

If anything, the PIRA has more cause to revert to violence in the 1960s and 1970s than the men of 1916 did because there was blatant injustices in Stormont's Northern Ireland. There was loyalist mobs attacking Catholic and nationalist homes. There was extreme prejudice and bigotry in the institutions of the state.

I honestly dont see how you can differentiate. They both wanted a better Ireland. They both dismissed constitutional means. They both embraced violence as being the best, most pure form of achieving their goals. They both claimed to regret innocent deaths. They both failed to achieve anything better than what was achieved by constitutional means.

I condemn both organisations, but nationalists/catholics in 1960s Ireland had far more cause to turn to violence than the men of 1916 did. 1916 was for some blood sacrifice idealogical bollocks, whereas Provos could claim their terrorism was rooted in a real need to defend and protect nationalist/catholic areas from Loyalists. How you prevent Loyalist attacks on nationalists by bombing furniture shops is for another thread, but it makes about as much sense as fighting injustice in Ireland by taking over a post office and shooting unarmed policemen.

You have acted in a very insulting manner and do less to convince people that your version is the truth, and more to drive people to the old trenches - just as they falsely coined it the Sinn Féin rising you are giving credence to the PIRA by associating them with it.

I'm not too bothered if Provos agree with me or not to be honest. If they cant see that people throwing nail bombs into resteraunts packed with families arent heros then my view is :rolleyes:

jimmmy

CSC wrote: »

This is a debate that happens on a regular basis but I can't see the difference between the rebels of 1916 who launched a rising resulting in hundreds dead and with virtually no support and the "rebels" of the PIRA. To call one set of rebels "heroes" and the others "murderers" doesn't make any sense.

+1. Since the foundation of the state generations have been indoctrinated about the "heroes" of 1916. To me, if you want to talk about hero soldiers, the real heroes were on the ground in Europe in both world wars. That was real war.

FTA69

walrusgumble wrote: »

what about the tan's actions against Lord Mayor of Cork, tomas MacCurtain in his own bed (some time BEFORE Bloody Sunday)not to mention another limerick mayor (cant think of his name atm) or the sacking of places like cork, balbriggan, parts of limerick etc

some of these G men were no angels. you are fully aware of the treatment people like dick mckee got in dublin castle. one particular gentleman, daniel hoey had helped the army point out the leaders of the rebellion, and had thomas clarke stripped naked outside the rotunda hospital and beat him up - fine example of british gentlemanship during a war, wouldn't you say? you are aware of what the defence of the realm act and the effect it had on towns/cities all over the country which were effected by it, not just social and civil rights aspect.

I support the actions of the IRA fully.

FTA69

jimmmy wrote: »

+1. Since the foundation of the state generations have been indoctrinated about the "heroes" of 1916. To me, if you want to talk about hero soldiers, the real heroes were on the ground in Europe in both world wars. That was real war.

What's a "real war"? Over the top and tally ho? You could do with reading a spot of Wilfred Owen I'd say, there was nothing heroic about those who died in WW1, simply sordid disgusting death on an industrial scale, and for what? British imperialism?

To get back to the original point, I'll be wearing the Easter Lily to commemorate all those who died for Irish freedom. Regards the poppy, if people want to remember those Irish people who died in the world wars then let them, but we should have our own symbol to remember them, not latching on to a British symbol which attempts to portray imperialist adventures as noble endeavours.

Shane-1

Sand wrote: »

Claiming that you guys have differing opinions might be overstating it. Already had two seperate guys asking "Whatabout the innocent Dubs killed by the British!?!<>!>!?" and had the old sneering West Brit accusations. All stock responses that indicate group think. Mind you, its understandable - given that free thinkers in Provo circles tended to end up found in ditches or shallow graves, perhaps reading from a fixed playbook is a survival trait.



Every member of the Provos would claim the same for themselves. Ironically, every Loyalist would claim something similar ( a better Northern Ireland...). Can you disagree? Maybe they were. Wrongly, but only as wrongly as the men of 1916.

None of them are telling the truth of course, but its comforting. What is quite likely is that, like Redmonds Volunteers, many of the men engaged in the 1916 rising were involved for a whole scope of human reasons as opposed to be some sort of angelic cadre.



This is historical revionism. The Rising was intended as a great blood sacrifice: something you admit to, it had no chance of success and was only intended to be a great orgy of violence which would hopefully completely destroy constitutional nationalism and lead to a rebirth of physical force. Basically, semi fascist idealogy that praised violence, national or racial "purity" and dismissed peaceful means of reaching an objective as being somehow dishonourable.

Constitutional means had not failed: It had succeeded - as you note the laws were already on the books. Home Rule was achieved, and only had to be implemented with the conclusion of the war. Overwhelmingly backed by a majority of the Irish people. With Home Rule in place, everything was possible. It a necessary requirement to assume that constitutional means had failed, because if it hadnt failed, then supporters of the 1916 rising would have to actually understand the real reasons behind the rising and they dont make for comfortable reading. Far easier to pretend that actually, the 1916 rising was a last resort, with violence only being turned to in reaction to one last final betrayal of constitutional nationalism by perfidious Albion.

6 years of violence and bitter civil war only achieved partition (probably a given anyway, but violent Irish republicanism ensured the worst fears of Northern unionists were confirmed), poisoned Irish politics ( to this day, the idea of a FF and FG government is near unthinkable to their grassroots), brought great suffering to the people of Ireland and laid the idealogical groundwork for the troubles.

Was there blatant injustice in the Ireland ( and indeed the United Kingdom as a whole) in 1916 - yes. Is there blatant injustic in Ireland today - yes. So 1916 failed on that measure too.

The only way 1916 can be said to have succeeded is that it killed constitutional nationalism for a generation. Thats not something that should be celebrated.



How so? A bunch of brave patriots, out to make Ireland a better place, to free Ireland from the British yoke, ignoring what the majority of people think by taking the long view that eventually everyone will agree they were right?

If anything, the PIRA has more cause to revert to violence in the 1960s and 1970s than the men of 1916 did because there was blatant injustices in Stormont's Northern Ireland. There was loyalist mobs attacking Catholic and nationalist homes. There was extreme prejudice and bigotry in the institutions of the state.

I honestly dont see how you can differentiate. They both wanted a better Ireland. They both dismissed constitutional means. They both embraced violence as being the best, most pure form of achieving their goals. They both claimed to regret innocent deaths. They both failed to achieve anything better than what was achieved by constitutional means.

I condemn both organisations, but nationalists/catholics in 1960s Ireland had far more cause to turn to violence than the men of 1916 did. 1916 was for some blood sacrifice idealogical bollocks, whereas Provos could claim their terrorism was rooted in a real need to defend and protect nationalist/catholic areas from Loyalists. How you prevent Loyalist attacks on nationalists by bombing furniture shops is for another thread, but it makes about as much sense as fighting injustice in Ireland by taking over a post office and shooting unarmed policemen.



I'm not too bothered if Provos agree with me or not to be honest. If they cant see that people throwing nail bombs into resteraunts packed with families arent heros then my view is :rolleyes:

Sand you are accusing people on here of having tunnel vision and one dimensional views etc, but can I ask you politely to broaden your historical education before posting here. Your views on Irish history are so simplistic and one dimensional, you have clearly based your entire reading of history on a small section of historical thought. You need to read around, consult many sources and authors, otherwise your arguaments are too simple to be of any benefit to a meaningful debate.

For example your views on 1916 as a simple blood sacrifice? Clearly you have not much in depth knowledge of this period of history. There is considerable debate as to whether it was a 'simple blood sacrtifice'. This idea is based on some of the content of Patrick Pearses poetry and writings. Look at other evidence. Original plans for the rising were based on the assumption that many more volunteers would be available (prior to MacNeills countermanding order) The rising was likewise planned to be a nationwide rebellion, again a plan scuppered by the countermanding order. The original plans for Dublin included taking control of several more buildings across the city centre, setting up a ring fortification around the centre of Dublin - this was the established urban warfare tactic of the time.
Also the real powers behind the rebellion were Thomas Clarke, Sean MacDiarmuda and Thomas MacDonagh. These men were not lofty idealists like Pearse, they would not have planned and taken part in a rebellion with no chances of success, they were firm pragmatists.

Clearly as this example will hopefully prove to you, there are two sides to every story. This is for your benifit to appreciate this, it will help your arguaments if you can add depth to your historical knowledge. Hopefully this will set you on the right path!

Shane-1

FTA69 wrote: »

What's a "real war"? Over the top and tally ho? You could do with reading a spot of Wilfred Owen I'd say, there was nothing heroic about those who died in WW1, simply sordid disgusting death on an industrial scale, and for what? British imperialism?

To get back to the original point, I'll be wearing the Easter Lily to commemorate all those who died for Irish freedom. Regards the poppy, if people want to remember those Irish people who died in the world wars then let them, but we should have our own symbol to remember them, not latching on to a British symbol which attempts to portray imperialist adventures as noble endeavours.

Thanks for that post, well put. I touched on the idea of an Irish version of the poppy earlier in the debate. Many Irish people died in the world wars, we should commemorate these people, but without glorifying the British war machine that sent them to the slaughter. I would never say a bad word against men who left from here to fight in the war, some were forced by economic conditions, others were fooled into thinking it would benifit Irish nationalist aspirations, and I suppose its a common trend with wars that often younger men enlist in the search for adventure!

Our list of dead is tragic, made even more so by the fact that their deaths were absolutely in vain. I suggest we commemorate our own people in our own way,maybe a tricoloured poppy, maybe even a version on the lily. Died so small nations might be free? The greatest hypocracy of our age. Especially when that small nation in question should be Belgium, who so proudly put the British to shame with their colonial cruelty in Africa.