Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are the ideals of the RIRA the same as those of the men of 1916?

Options
24567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    imme
    Registered Users Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    Happy Monday wrote: »

    Point is - they took part in 1916 - were working class - numbered 200/300 - believed in violence to secure Irish indepedence on their own terms - very similar in make up and belief to the Real IRA.
    Oh, did the ICA plant a bomb in Omagh as well.:confused:


  • Options
    #33
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    DoireNod wrote: »
    True, but isn't that what the RIRA were formed out of? Rejection of the GFA? Those in the RIRA, like the rebels did, don't like the status quo and act against it.

    My point was that there wasn't an all-island vote on 1916, so therefore it could be argued that those involved back then had more of a "mandate", or at least didn't have a categorical opposition to the mandate.


  • Options
    #34
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    That invites the question: what were the ideals of the men of 1916?

    Or did all the men (not to mention the women) have exactly the same ideals ?

    Or how much had they survived would they have adopted and compromised on those ideals over the years that followed and how relevent are they in todays world ?

    Or are/were (some/all of) these ideals even correct and if so was the manner in which they chose to pursue them (both morally and tactically) also correct. ?
    DoireNod wrote: »
    whereas everything Hitler did in his rise to power was technically legal.
    1) /Goodwin
    2) Munich Putsch anyone ?


  • Options
    #35
    RiverWilde
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭RiverWilde


    What is it in Irish psyche that allows groups of murdering bastards like the RIRA to gain support?

    These anti-democratic, murdering thugs should be rounded up, prosecuted and thrown in gaol!

    Riv


  • Options
    #36
    DoireNod
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭DoireNod


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Munich Putsch anyone ?
    Almost everything then - edited accordingly. I'm a pedant myself, so I'll let you have this one!

    EDIT: You're not having it.
    RiverWilde wrote: »
    What is it in Irish psyche that allows groups of murdering bastards like the RIRA to gain support?

    These anti-democratic, murdering thugs should be rounded up, prosecuted and thrown in gaol!

    Riv
    See, this is the thing. The question is are the ideals the same, which they pretty much are. The rebels or 'murdering bastards' of 1916 were rounded up, prosecuted and executed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    DoireNod
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭DoireNod


    Mike 1972 wrote: »


    1) /Goodwin
    Godwin, even?

    So? The point I make is completely valid.

    And, even so, it could be argued that the Munich Putsch wasn't a part of his rise to power.


  • Options
    #38
    daithicarr
    Registered Users Posts: 425 ✭✭daithicarr


    The people in 1916 were not involved in crime and intimidation on a massive scale like the RIRA thugs


  • Options
    #39
    DoireNod
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭DoireNod


    daithicarr wrote: »
    The people in 1916 were not involved in crime and intimidation on a massive scale like the RIRA thugs
    They were criminals though and the question is whether they share ideals.


  • Options
    #40
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    DoireNod wrote: »
    They were criminals though and the question is whether they share ideals.

    British rule had no legitamacy, therefore they can hardly be termed thus.


    Didn't we have this thread before.......?


  • Options
    #41
    DoireNod
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭DoireNod


    Nodin wrote: »
    British rule had no legitamacy, therefore they can hardly be termed thus.


    Didn't we have this thread before.......?
    They were tried and executed as criminals though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    those involved back then had more of a "mandate", or at least didn't have a categorical opposition to the mandate.

    Not strictly true.


  • Options
    #43
    RiverWilde
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭RiverWilde


    DoireNod wrote: »
    See, this is the thing. The question is are the ideals the same, which they pretty much are. The rebels or 'murdering bastards' of 1916 were rounded up, prosecuted and executed.

    Well that's where the govt. erred. The 1916 rebels should not have been executed. Prior to their execution, the general populace was against the rising. After their execution, they were turned into martrys; the rest is history. How does that phrase go? Using a cannon to kill a fly?

    Riv


  • Options
    #44
    Happy Monday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Happy Monday


    RiverWilde wrote: »
    Well that's where the govt. erred. The 1916 rebels should not have been executed. Prior to their execution, the general populace was against the rising. After their execution, they were turned into martrys; the rest is history. How does that phrase go? Using a cannon to kill a fly?

    Riv

    They should have let them go - the local population would have done the rest. There was a lot of anger as Dublin - the 2nd city of empire - had been destroyed and young Dublin boys had been gassed to death earlier that month on the Western front.


  • Options
    #45
    DoireNod
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭DoireNod


    RiverWilde wrote: »
    Well that's where the govt. erred. The 1916 rebels should not have been executed. Prior to their execution, the general populace was against the rising. After their execution, they were turned into martrys; the rest is history. How does that phrase go? Using a cannon to kill a fly?

    Riv
    So, you think they should not necessarily have been executed, but that they should have been prosecuted and imprisoned?


  • Options
    #46
    RiverWilde
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭RiverWilde


    DoireNod wrote: »
    So, you think they should not necessarily have been executed, but that they should have been prosecuted and imprisoned?

    Yes. They committed acts of terrorism against the state. Executing them just gave their actions legitimacy. They should have been thrown in prison or shipped off to the front.

    Riv


  • Options
    #47
    DoireNod
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭DoireNod


    RiverWilde wrote: »
    Yes. They committed acts of terrorism against the state. Executing them just gave their actions legitimacy. They should have been thrown in prison or shipped off to the front.

    Riv
    So the Irish people and government annually commemorate terrorists and terrorism?


  • Options
    #48
    RiverWilde
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭RiverWilde


    DoireNod wrote: »
    So the Irish people and government annually commemorate terrorists?

    Yes, they were terrorists. Europe was in the middle of a bloody awful war. Men from Ireland and all over the empire were fighting and dying on various front lines and while all that was going on a bunch of 'nationalists' decided to take over the GPO and murder a whole lot of people in the name of 'freedom.'

    What did it get us? An island ultimately divided into two jurisdictions, years of bloodshed and hatred and Irish society went back into the dark ages thanks to the State and the RC church.

    Oh yes and a constitution that's so rigid the govt. cannot enact balanced legislation because we have to have a referendum on anything important.

    Riv


  • Options
    #49
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    RiverWilde wrote: »
    Yes, they were terrorists. Europe was in the middle of a bloody awful war. Men from Ireland and all over the empire were fighting and dying on various front lines and while all that was going on a bunch of 'nationalists' decided to take over the GPO and murder a whole lot of people in the name of 'freedom.'

    What did it get us? An island ultimately divided into two jurisdictions, years of bloodshed and hatred and Irish society went back into the dark ages thanks to the State and the RC church.

    Oh yes and a constitution that's so rigid the govt. cannot enact balanced legislation because we have to have a referendum on anything important.

    Riv

    Crazy stuff, we can't let Irish people have a say in the affairs of their own homeland.:rolleyes::D


  • Options
    #50
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    gurramok wrote: »
    Crazy stuff, we can't let Irish people have a say in the affairs of their own homeland.:rolleyes::D

    jaysus no......shower of spud eatin savages....I hear they don't even wash properly...have to ring a priest beforehand or something.....


  • Options
    #51
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Nodin wrote: »
    jaysus no......shower of spud eatin savages....I hear they don't even wash properly...have to ring a priest beforehand or something.....

    Bunch of servants and peasants. They need a master in a far away land to make decisions for them.:p


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    imme
    Registered Users Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    gurramok wrote: »
    Bunch of servants and peasants. They need a master in a far away land to make decisions for them.:p
    sorry but are you using irony *said in an ironic manner*


  • Options
    #53
    Happy Monday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Happy Monday


    Nodin wrote: »
    jaysus no......shower of spud eatin savages....I hear they don't even wash properly...have to ring a priest beforehand or something.....

    They did have a say in the running of their own homeland through the vastly overly represented Irish parliamentary party at Westminster.

    They did have a say in their own homeland when 300,000 Irishmen went to fight on the Western front vs 1,000 on Easter week.

    The Catholic Church you mention was also massively pro British during the 18th and 19th centuries and had many favours done in their honour not least the building of Maynooth.


  • Options
    #54
    Leonid
    Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭Leonid


    anonymous_joe wrote: »

    Irish nationalism is a good thing in my mind, but it has a nasty side. A successful 1916 would potentially have led to a 32 county socialist country. Many would rather have been ruled by a free-market country than that.

    Considering the demographics and religiosity of the country at the time this seems highly unlikely. The Church interference that created the mother and child controversy and all the other crap would have prevailed. Though Pearse was said to have been inspired by Connolly and his ideals during the fighting, which I suppose would have been vast improvement from what he was previously in to(red wine on the battlefields and all that).


  • Options
    #55
    ballsymchugh
    Registered Users Posts: 7,937 ✭✭✭ballsymchugh


    can i give my two cents worth....

    when sinn fein split in 1985 (or 86) into republican and provisional, it was the republican side that refused to acknowledge the irish government's legitimacy. republican sinn féin have the continuity IRA as their 'military wing' so i would say that it's those guys that still uphold the ideals of 1916. ruairidh o'brádaigh probably sees himself as president of the 32 county republic that was proclaimed in 1916.

    since the RIRA came about after the GFA, then they technically are from the crowd that recognise the irish government. so they're just a bunch of shams that deal out local justice. which is why the get support from some locals.

    i know it's being pedantic, but it's the wrong IRA!!


  • Options
    #56
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    ballsymchugh wrote: »
    when sinn fein split in 1985 (or 86) into republican and provisional
    Who are the provisionals ? Since the other lot are "Republican" they must be a splinter group true to the 1905 ideals of Dual monarchy :D
    ballsymchugh wrote: »
    ruairidh o'brádaigh probably sees himself as president of the 32 county republic that was proclaimed in 1916.
    Ive a mate who now and again sees himself as the legitimate successor of Napoleon. It usually goes away a couple of hours after I remind him to take his medication


  • Options
    #57
    ballsymchugh
    Registered Users Posts: 7,937 ✭✭✭ballsymchugh


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Who are the provisionals ? Since the other lot are "Republican" they must be a splinter group true to the 1905 ideals of Dual monarchy :D

    that'd make an interesting conversation with slab murphy i'd imagine!!


  • Options
    #58
    DoireNod
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭DoireNod


    RiverWilde wrote: »
    Yes, they were terrorists. Europe was in the middle of a bloody awful war. Men from Ireland and all over the empire were fighting and dying on various front lines and while all that was going on a bunch of 'nationalists' decided to take over the GPO and murder a whole lot of people in the name of 'freedom.'
    Those men from Ireland and all over who 'were fighting and dying on various front lines' were murdering a 'whole lot of people in the name of 'freedom'' too.
    What did it get us? An island ultimately divided into two jurisdictions, years of bloodshed and hatred and Irish society went back into the dark ages thanks to the State and the RC church.

    Oh yes and a constitution that's so rigid the govt. cannot enact balanced legislation because we have to have a referendum on anything important.

    Riv
    So you're heaping the blame for our current state of affairs on the rebels of 1916?


  • Options
    #59
    PrivateEye
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,283 ✭✭✭PrivateEye


    The ICA refused to shoot looters, and following in the footsteps of this brave act, dissident republicans would never shoot the likes of pizza bo....nevermind.


  • Options
    #60
    RiverWilde
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭RiverWilde


    DoireNod wrote: »
    Those men from Ireland and all over who 'were fighting and dying on various front lines' were murdering a 'whole lot of people in the name of 'freedom'' too.


    So you're heaping the blame for our current state of affairs on the rebels of 1916?

    I'm not blaming our current affairs on the rebels of 1916 ...

    As regards Irish troops fighting in WWI - yes they were fighting for freedom.

    However, they were fighting for the country as part of legitimate armed forces. Sent to fight by the duly elected govt. of the day.

    Riv


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Well I suppose it was the RIRA, CIRA, IRA Lite, "I can't believe its not the IRA" or one of the other aliases these so called heroes use who carried out that brave attack for Republicanism the other day against that cruel servant of the UK apparatus otherwise known as a Dog Handler, oh actually his girlfriend. Well that showed those imperialist dogs whats what :rolleyes:

    Now ask yourself how does a pathetic crime like that equate to the men who fought in 1916. It doesn't. These criminal scumbags now are nothing more than thugs, exactly like their loyalist counterparts and luckly they are dying out as people both north and south realise we are the same and turn their backs on the message of hate and segregation that these throwbacks represent.


Advertisement