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

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*

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.

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).

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!!

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

wylo

I believe that if the Irish population had a vote in 1916 that was similar to the good friday agreement they would vote yes, and thus we would have had no British rule.
Ive no way of proving that of course.

People are talking here as if that uprising was vastly unpopular when the truth is it was probably very popular.

Whereas people in the North, both Catholics and protestants just want peace. And as people have said here already, the RIRA are going against the peoples wishes.

There are also other factors involved that make the situations completely different like discrimination back then, and landlords, and a lack of a peace process that was working to keep everyone happy.

The Northern Ireland situation is completely different and so to answer your question, their ideals are the same but the difference is , this time the RIRAs ones arent justified.

PomBear

RiverWilde wrote: »

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

Ireland didn't elect a London Gov.

Whats the difference if we didn't get involved, we'd all be speaking German (a foreign language) instead of English (a foreign language)

RiverWilde

wylo wrote: »

I believe that if the Irish population had a vote in 1916 that was similar to the good friday agreement they would vote yes, and thus we would have had no British rule.
Ive no way of proving that of course.

People are talking here as if that uprising was vastly unpopular when the truth is it was probably very popular.

Whereas people in the North, both Catholics and protestants just want peace. And as people have said here already, the RIRA are going against the peoples wishes.

There are also other factors involved that make the situations completely different like discrimination back then, and landlords, and a lack of a peace process that was working to keep everyone happy.

The Northern Ireland situation is completely different and so to answer your question, their ideals are the same but the difference is , this time the RIRAs ones arent justified.

Whatever about a 'good friday agreement' - Home Rule was on the books but it had been suspended for the duration of the war. Chances are we'd have had that after the war was ended. We may have even had two parliaments here, one in Dublin and another in Belfast to keep the unionists happy.

1916 threw a spanner in the works and instead of going for the democratic route, 'rabid nationalism' got hold of the situation and we
(I use the term 'we' loosely) went for the 'bloody mayhem route.'

The ironic thing is that how many decades later we're in the EU and as such we're heading for integration and with a bit of luck we'll have directly elected MEP's that can run Europe properly (and get rid of all the 'national parliaments' that muddy the water) and we can get away from all this stupid nationalistic crap.

The way I look at is simple. We can either get on with life on this island or we can put up with the RIRA and other sectional interests who just want to murder people. Some people on this island aren't happy unless they're living in the past and making other peoples lives miserable.

Riv

LordSutch

b12mearse wrote: »

With much publicity of dissident republicans today and there attempts at destroying the Peace Process it makes me wonder are the ideals of these men the same as the ideals of the men who declared independence in 1916?

Yes, and probably with just as much (or little) support as the old IRA had back in the Easter of 1916 due to it (the rising) taking place in the middle of the Great War! > Did the rebels of 1916 have a mandate then? and do the RIRA have a mandate now? the 'ideal' being to remove all trace of 'Britishness' from this island?

daithicarr

RiverWilde wrote: »

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

according to your reasoning all Independence/ separatist movements are illegitimate as they are not part of a legitimate armed forces, which makes most the post colonial states in this word illegitimate

whos freedom were they fighting for? WW1 was purley a imperial war , nothing to do with freedom of smaller nations

brianthebard

RiverWilde wrote: »

Whatever about a 'good friday agreement' - Home Rule was on the books but it had been suspended for the duration of the war. Chances are we'd have had that after the war was ended. We may have even had two parliaments here, one in Dublin and another in Belfast to keep the unionists happy.

The UVF had promised civil war if Home Rule came into being. You make it sound as if everything would have been sweetness and light if Easter 1916 hadn't happened.

Nodin

Happy Monday wrote: »

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

And wasn't that a minority party in parliament as a whole?

Happy Monday wrote: »

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...

"fighting for small nations"....O and "freedom"...Blacks and browns excepted of course.

If 300,000 people think the earth is flat and 1,000 think it's round, who is right?

Happy Monday wrote: »

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.

A conservative church backing the status quo? Well holy god.....

Was there a point you were trying to make?

imme

Does anyone on here know the 'ideals' of the 200 or so member organisation the RIRA. Do their 'ideals' include planting any more Omagh bombs.

DoireNod

imme wrote: »

Does anyone on here know the 'ideals' of the 200 or so member organisation the RIRA. Do their 'ideals' include planting any more Omagh bombs.

It's quite clear what the ideals are, they've stated it countless times.
From a statement read out in Derry, April 13, 2009
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ira/rira130409.htm

Our struggle is against the British occupation forces and the administrative arm of the British government in Ireland – be they in the RUC/PSNI [Royal Ulster Constabulary / Police Service of Northern Ireland], the NIO [Northern Ireland Office], or the quislings in Stormont. The same has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan: those who assist the occupier always condemn the occupied. However, seldom in such blatant or hysterical terms as we have witnessed recently.
[...]
Recent years have seen the reorganisation and restructuring of Óglaigh na hÉireann. This is continuing and is constantly evolving and being refined to keep abreast of enemy developments in technology and modes of war. It is vital that volunteers educate themselves in such developments and take the necessary steps to safeguard themselves and their comrades.
Actions by volunteers of Óglaigh na hÉireann in the last year have proved that the tactical use of armed struggle can, and does, bring results. As was witnessed in Antrim, British soldiers and the colonial police will continue to lose their lives as long as the issue of national sovereignty remains unresolved. Óglaigh na hÉireann will continue to strike at the British occupation forces wherever and whenever we decide.

imme

DoireNod wrote: »

It's quite clear what the ideals are, they've stated it countless times.
From a statement read out in Derry, April 13, 2009
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ira/rira130409.htm

I've never heard the 'ideals' of the (200 or so member) RIRA before. Their talk of 'quislings' would be laughable if they weren't a heavily armed group. Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian politician who collabarated with the Nazis if my memory serves. Does this translate that the RIRA will only target Nationalist politicians at Stormont. The RIRA are an off-shoot of an off-shoot of an off-shoot, yet they trace the 'legitacimacy' back to the 1916 Uprising. This is wrong, innacurate, disengenuous, imo. Their talk of 'colonial police'?

Now I feel bad for giving this discussion any time, as maybe all it does is serve their PR.
And another thing why is their 'statement' as béarla.

RiverWilde

brianthebard wrote: »

The UVF had promised civil war if Home Rule came into being. You make it sound as if everything would have been sweetness and light if Easter 1916 hadn't happened.

Oh I never said it would have been sweetness and light.
If the UVF had decided to be stupid they'd have been dealt with.

Riv

RiverWilde

daithicarr wrote: »

according to your reasoning all Independence/ separatist movements are illegitimate as they are not part of a legitimate armed forces, which makes most the post colonial states in this word illegitimate

whos freedom were they fighting for? WW1 was purley a imperial war , nothing to do with freedom of smaller nations

Freedom of smaller nations? Sounds very much like parochialism only on a slightly larger scale. The notion of the 'inviolate nation state' has caused more wars and gotten more people killed than most other idiotic notions.

After independence this little country was wrapped in a shroud of blood and ignorance. Anyone who didn't subscribe to the new 'status quo' was hounded out. Society went backwards and words like tolerance, respect, equality; were thrown out as a new 'establishment' set about getting it's stranglehold on the state.

The only thing to rescue us from this RC totalitarian state was our joining of the EEC and now that the EU is fast moving forward those 'vested interests' in Irish society who see words like tolerance, respect and equality being brought into use and brought into law they want to once again drag us back to the dark ages.

Independence from Britain had nothing to do with 'freedom' and everything to do with power. Rather than have an open, tolerant society as part of a wider world community, we went down the fascist state route.

Riv

brianthebard

RiverWilde wrote: »

Oh I never said it would have been sweetness and light.
If the UVF had decided to be stupid they'd have been dealt with.

Riv

Dealt with by who? How would this have fundamentally changed things so if you admit there would be armed struggle either way?

DoireNod

RiverWilde wrote: »

Independence from Britain had nothing to do with 'freedom' and everything to do with power. Rather than have an open, tolerant society as part of a wider world community, we went down the fascist state route.

Riv

So, had there not been independence from the U.K. we would have had an 'open, tolerant society as part of a wider world community'? How?

Independence very clearly had a lot to do with a desire for freedom. It's an ideal that stretches back hundreds of years.

RiverWilde

DoireNod wrote: »

So, had there not been independence from the U.K. we would have had an 'open, tolerant society as part of a wider world community'? How?

Independence very clearly had a lot to do with a desire for freedom. It's an ideal that stretches back hundreds of years.

Freedom? The ideal of freedom is fine. It's what resulted from that and the sort of society that was built from it that I have a problem.

Condolences sent to Germany on Hitlers death? Who in their right mind sends that sort of message after one of the worlds bloodiest conflicts? For Hitler? The man responsible for the deaths of millions.

What did we get after 'freedom?' A state, that acted in tandem with the RC church, to repress Irish society, that introduced censorship, imprisoned young girls in laundries and used them as slave labour. The same state that bowed to the wishes of the RC church and scrapped the mother and child scheme - to protect the family???!!! This same church/state relationship exists to prevent the prosecution and imprisonment of clerics for vile crimes and god forbid either would have to stand up and pay for their complicity.

While the rest of Europe was rebuilding, we refused and still refuse to call it a war. All the while hopping up and down moaning about how horrible the Brits were to us!

We joined the EEC and Europe has been very good to Ireland. We take shed loads of cash and squander most of it and when Europe then turns around and says, 'right, Ireland time to take your place in Europe and live up to your responsibilities.' There are still the same voices here that again hop up and down going, 'no, no.'

I'm all for freedom. However, I'm not for wrapping this country up in a cosy relationship of church and state to the detriment of the general populace.

Riv

ballsymchugh

sounds like a different thread there..

daithicarr

RiverWilde wrote: »

Freedom? The ideal of freedom is fine. It's what resulted from that and the sort of society that was built from it that I have a problem.

Condolences sent to Germany on Hitlers death? Who in their right mind sends that sort of message after one of the worlds bloodiest conflicts? For Hitler? The man responsible for the deaths of millions.

What did we get after 'freedom?' A state, that acted in tandem with the RC church, to repress Irish society, that introduced censorship, imprisoned young girls in laundries and used them as slave labour. The same state that bowed to the wishes of the RC church and scrapped the mother and child scheme - to protect the family???!!! This same church/state relationship exists to prevent the prosecution and imprisonment of clerics for vile crimes and god forbid either would have to stand up and pay for their complicity.

While the rest of Europe was rebuilding, we refused and still refuse to call it a war. All the while hopping up and down moaning about how horrible the Brits were to us!

We joined the EEC and Europe has been very good to Ireland. We take shed loads of cash and squander most of it and when Europe then turns around and says, 'right, Ireland time to take your place in Europe and live up to your responsibilities.' There are still the same voices here that again hop up and down going, 'no, no.'

I'm all for freedom. However, I'm not for wrapping this country up in a cosy relationship of church and state to the detriment of the general populace.

Riv

so we should have stayed part of the british empire?
What benefit did that do us? we were depopulated and underdeveloped al in thanks to their policys, we have done much better being independant, even with the recession, we are still a modern and thriving nation

RiverWilde

daithicarr wrote: »

so we should have stayed part of the british empire?
What benefit did that do us? we were depopulated and underdeveloped al in thanks to their policys, we have done much better being independant, even with the recession, we are still a modern and thriving nation

Really? Disasterous policies after independence led to massive emmigration. Now that the cheap money from the ECB has run out along with the structural funds we're heading for another bout of emmigration. 500,000 unemployed by Christmas. A health service that is in the process of being culled. Access to third level education is being made even more difficult.

Have you looked at the western regions lately? Talk about depopulation! Lousy public transport systems etc etc.

Ah yeah, plenty of money for bertie bowls - oops - consultants -plenty of money to pay off politicians who may make life awkward for the govt. parties - not so much cash available to run our healthservice so that everyone has access to proper healthcare.

Feck sake dublin corp. can't even set up a proper ticketing system so that to go from one side of the city to the other you need to buy umpteen different tickets when you really should only need one.

Oh yeah, this country is sooooo well run.

Riv

ballsymchugh

river wilde. take it here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055680319&page=13

it's been done.

Nodin

RiverWilde wrote: »

After independence this little country was wrapped in a shroud of blood and ignorance. Anyone who didn't subscribe to the new 'status quo' was hounded out. Society went backwards and words like tolerance, respect, equality; were thrown out as a new 'establishment' set about getting it's stranglehold on the state.

Completely unlike the hedonistic paradise north of the border.

Nodin

RiverWilde wrote: »

I'm all for freedom. However, I'm not for wrapping this country up in a cosy relationship of church and state to the detriment of the general populace.

Riv

So Padraig Pearse and James Connolly fought for a church dominated state, is what you're saying....

RiverWilde

Nodin wrote: »

So Padraig Pearse and James Connolly fought for a church dominated state, is what you're saying....

I have no idea what they fought for ... I wasn't around at the time ... but that's sure as hell what they got.

Riv

Nodin

RiverWilde wrote: »

I have no idea what they fought for ... I wasn't around at the time ... but that's sure as hell what they got.

Riv

Well that seems to be your general thrust -

RiverWilde wrote: »

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.

The fact is that you seem to be making a direct link between the men of 1916 and that.

Now you're saying "I have no idea what they fought for", which creates the impression that this thread could have been about Brian Boru, and you would have turned up and blamed him for the Magdelene laundries, dodgy priests and no meat on Fridays.

RiverWilde wrote: »

Irish society went back into the dark ages thanks to the State and the RC church.

And what was it like up North? A liberal paradise? Whose "fault" was that?

Erin Go Brath

The ideals of RIRA are the same as the men of '16 namely the creation of a 32 county republic.

RIRA have made a number of mistakes, the Omagh bombing being the biggest and stupidist. It should be pointed out that MI5 agents played a very big part in that bombing, with the guy organising the bombing a suspected agent. Plus the police investigation farce goes a long way towards the difficulties in prosecuting someone, though of course any British agent involved will never do time regardless of how many people they kill. I'm not letting RIRA off the hook by the way, the bombing was a complete disgrace, but the Brits are equally responsible for this atrocity. Not than any tv news story you see will cover it this way of course. :rolleyes:

We need to remove the cancer of British rule in Ireland for normality to ever have a chance in this country.

RiverWilde

Nodin wrote: »

Well that seems to be your general thrust -


The fact is that you seem to be making a direct link between the men of 1916 and that.

Now you're saying "I have no idea what they fought for", which creates the impression that this thread could have been about Brian Boru, and you would have turned up and blamed him for the Magdelene laundries, dodgy priests and no meat on Fridays.



And what was it like up North? A liberal paradise? Whose "fault" was that?

The north of Ireland has nothing to do with the republic. They are responsible for the running of that province as part of the UK.

What we are responsible for is the 26 counties and well that hasn't exactly been a glowing example of self-rule.

Riv

Happy Monday

Nodin wrote: »

And wasn't that a minority party in parliament as a whole?
"fighting for small nations"....O and "freedom"...Blacks and browns excepted of course.
If 300,000 people think the earth is flat and 1,000 think it's round, who is right?
A conservative church backing the status quo? Well holy god.....
Was there a point you were trying to make?

The point behind this is that 100 hundred years Ireland was a loyal part of the United Kingdom - Irishmen in the RIC and Irish regiments of the British Army - RC Church loyal - Court System seen as fair - 100 Irish MPs in the 600 member house of Commons holding the balance of power.

Pearse and Connolly were out of step with the feelings of the Irish people - this is the only reason the Rising took place - their arguments could not have succeeded any other way.

I don't think northen Republicans realise anyone this - Ireland 100 years ago was similar to Scotland of the current day - wanting autonomy within the UK.

DoireNod

Happy Monday wrote: »

I don't think northen Republicans realise anyone this - Ireland 100 years ago was similar to Scotland of the current day - wanting autonomy within the UK.

Just 'Northern Republicans'? What about other Irish Republicans? What makes you think that they don't realise the nature of affairs pre-1916?

Ireland obviously wanted independence, otherwise it wouldn't have happened in the 26 counties and all 32 counties would have remained a part of the U.K.. The men of 1916 were inspired by the likes of the United Irishmen, who also wanted an end to British rule in Ireland. That rebellion and desire happened over 100 years prior to 1916. There's a common thread running through it all.

imme

imme wrote: »

I've never heard the 'ideals' of the (200 or so member) RIRA before. Their talk of 'quislings' would be laughable if they weren't a heavily armed group. Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian politician who collabarated with the Nazis if my memory serves. Does this translate that the RIRA will only target Nationalist politicians at Stormont. The RIRA are an off-shoot of an off-shoot of an off-shoot, yet they trace the 'legitacimacy' back to the 1916 Uprising. This is wrong, innacurate, disengenuous, imo. Their talk of 'colonial police'?

Now I feel bad for giving this discussion any time, as maybe all it does is serve their PR.
And another thing why is their 'statement' as béarla.

*ahem*

DoireNod

imme wrote: »

*ahem*

I take it this is directed at me.

imme wrote: »

I've never heard the 'ideals' of the (200 or so member) RIRA before. Their talk of 'quislings' would be laughable if they weren't a heavily armed group. Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian politician who collabarated with the Nazis if my memory serves. Does this translate that the RIRA will only target Nationalist politicians at Stormont. The RIRA are an off-shoot of an off-shoot of an off-shoot, yet they trace the 'legitacimacy' back to the 1916 Uprising. This is wrong, innacurate, disengenuous, imo. Their talk of 'colonial police'?

So you've never heard of the ideals of the RIRA before? Strange that, given that they've been in the headlines a lot recently and you're discussing them here now. The statement explains who is perceived as a target to them, have you read it?

Now I feel bad for giving this discussion any time, as maybe all it does is serve their PR.
And another thing why is their 'statement' as béarla.

If you feel bad about giving the discussion time, then why actively prompt a response? Who knows why their statement is in English, perhaps it's a translation? Perhaps they've issued an Irish and an English statement?

RiverWilde

Well the RIRA are to my mind just a bunch of murdering bastards. However, it is nice to see the Taoiseach echoing my sentiments.

___________________________________________________________

The Taoiseach also attacked dissident republicans during his speech at the annual party event.

“Once more, this week, they have used violence and the threat of violence against the people of this island,” he said.

“These people are sometimes called dissident republicans, but they are no such thing.

“They are evil murderers whose actions and objectives could not be further removed from the republican ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity.”

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cowen-no-group-exempt-from-budget-pain-430703.html#ixzz0UKDPZnZ2

imme

DoireNod wrote: »

I take it this is directed at me.


So you've never heard of the ideals of the RIRA before? Strange that, given that they've been in the headlines a lot recently and you're discussing them here now. The statement explains who is perceived as a target to them, have you read it?

If you feel bad about giving the discussion time, then why actively prompt a response? Who knows why their statement is in English, perhaps it's a translation? Perhaps they've issued an Irish and an English statement?

yes, as we'd been discussing it earlier, no?
No, I'd never heard the 'ideals' of the RIRA (all 200 or so members) enunciated before. They're pretty much in keeping with what I expected they'd be, as they are an off shoot of an off shoot of an off shoot, so they don't change their story very much from what's gone before. The RIRA may well have been in the news of late, but their 'ideals' were never announced in the media. I didn't know of they had a socialist, communist, libertarian, green, or facist adgenda.
They believe murder is justified to further their aims, they believe the murder of "quislings in Stormont" (what do they mean by this term) is legitimate.

DoireNod

imme wrote: »

yes, as we'd been discussing it earlier, no?
No, I'd never heard the 'ideals' of the RIRA (all 200 or so members) enunciated before. They're pretty much in keeping with what I expected they'd be, as they are an off shoot of an off shoot of an off shoot, so they don't change their story very much from what's gone before. The RIRA may well have been in the news of late, but their 'ideals' were never announced in the media. I didn't know of they had a socialist, communist, libertarian, green, or facist adgenda.
They believe murder is justified to further their aims, they believe the murder of "quislings in Stormont" (what do they mean by this term) is legitimate.

It's strange that you should persist in stating the alleged, but not confirmed numbers of RIRA membership.
If you don't know their ideals, you haven't been watching the news or read much of the media. Their ideals are clearly stated. Wikipedia might be able to help you out. Yes, they evidently do believe that use of force is a legitimate means to acquire Irish sovereignty - it's quite simply clear that they do - just as those in 1916 did and those before them did too. Indeed, many nations around the world still believe that force and 'murder' are legitimate means of acquiring sovereignty or furthering their aims. One need only look at current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a catalogue of examples is evident when one looks at historical precedent.

I assume that the use of the term 'quislings' is a clear allusion to the likes of McGuinness and Sinn Féin, or are you genuinely confused about the use of this term?

Happy Monday

DoireNod wrote: »

The men of 1916 were inspired by the likes of the United Irishmen, who also wanted an end to British rule in Ireland. That rebellion and desire happened over 100 years prior to 1916. There's a common thread running through it all.

And the United Irishmen represented a tiny fraction of opinion and their rebellion was limited to a small number of counties on the island.

Yes - Irish people wanted an Irish parliament in Dublin within the UK.
Just like Scotland has now but are the Scots clamouring to have full independence - no.

That's why the RIRA can be compared to 1916 - small grouping of extremists looking for 32 county Irish republic.

imme

DoireNod wrote: »

It's strange that you should persist in stating the alleged, but not confirmed numbers of RIRA membership.
If you don't know their ideals, you haven't been watching the news or read much of the media. Their ideals are clearly stated. Wikipedia might be able to help you out. Yes, they evidently do believe that use of force is a legitimate means to acquire Irish sovereignty - it's quite simply clear that they do - just as those in 1916 did and those before them did too. Indeed, many nations around the world still believe that force and 'murder' are legitimate means of acquiring sovereignty or furthering their aims. One need only look at current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a catelogue of examples is evident when one looks at historical precedent.

I assume that the use of the term 'quislings' is a clear allusion to the likes of McGuinness and Sinn Féin, or are you genuinely confused about the use of this term?

I can honestly say that I'd not heard the 'ideals' of the RIRA elaoborated unitl now, why would I search for them if I don't agree with their methods. Also, they are an illegal, they don't exactly send around pamphlets.

I questioned the term 'quisling' because I wasn't sure that the RIRA were sure of it themselves. I posted earlier that to the best of my recollection Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian who collaborated with the Nazis in WW2. Their statement refers to 'quislings in Stormont', do they mean nationalist or loyalist, or do they regard all members of Stormont as 'quislings'. Their analogy seems confused.

When in a few years the RIRA cease to exist, will there be another body taking their place, assuming the 'ideals' of the men and women of 1916?

DoireNod

imme wrote: »

I can honestly say that I'd not heard the 'ideals' of the RIRA elaoborated unitl now, why would I search for them if I don't agree with their methods. Also, they are an illegal, they don't exactly send around pamphlets.

Why wouldn't you want to know about the motivation of the people who many feel may pose a serious threat to the people of Ireland? Brian Cowen knows about the ideals of the RIRA, but he doesn't agree with them. Hell, I'd say the DUP know about the ideals of the RIRA, but they certainly don't agree with them. The 32CSM, who are considered the political entity aligned with the RIRA, regularly deliver leaflets and pamphlets detailing their goals and such.

I questioned the term 'quisling' because I wasn't sure that the RIRA were sure of it themselves. I posted earlier that to the best of my recollection Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian who collaborated with the Nazis in WW2. Their statement refers to 'quislings in Stormont', do they mean nationalist or loyalist, or do they regard all members of Stormont as 'quislings'. Their analogy seems confused.

Quisling is another term for traitor or collaborator (a lot of dissident republicans have branded Sinn Féin as traitors) - I think they are sure of their use of the word.

When in a few years the RIRA cease to exist, will there be another body taking their place, assuming the 'ideals' of the men and women of 1916?

Can I borrow your clairvoyant glasses, so that I can see into the future? Why will the RIRA cease to exist in a few years? Will Ireland be free of British rule?

imme

DoireNod wrote: »

(1) Why wouldn't you want to know about the motivation of the people who many feel may pose a serious threat to the people of Ireland? Brian Cowen knows about the ideals of the RIRA, but he doesn't agree with them. The 32CSM, who are considered the political entity aligned with the RIRA, regularly deliver leaflets and pamphlets detailing their goals and such.
(2) Quisling is another term for traitor or collaborator (a lot of dissident republicans have branded Sinn Féin as traitors) - I think they are sure of their use of the word. It doesn't appear to be an analogy.

(3) Can I borrow your clairvoyant glasses, so that I can see into the future? Why will the RIRA cease to exist in a few years? Will Ireland be free of British rule?

(1) I guess I knew that their aim was for there to be a 'free' Ireland, but wasn't aware why they weren't happy with the GFA, Stormont, and why they became an off shoot of an off shoot of an off shoot. They are a small group, according to security correspondents they number less than 200.
(2) I thought their use of the term Quisling strange, outdated, and questioned whether they were ascribing it to nationalist or loyalist politicians or both.
(3) I don't wear glasses, clairvoyant, rose tinted or other. I asked this question to the people reading this thread, in general.

Liam Byrne

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

RIRA have made a number of mistakes, the Omagh bombing being the biggest and stupidist.

Sorry, but I cannot let this go unchallenged. Driving a car bomb into a city street is not a "mistake"; it's a deliberate act and those who committed it are directly responsible.

A "mistake" is leaving a tap running; not blowing 28 innocent people to bits.

Maybe I'm wrong, though, in which case it's a pity about that little mistake that Al-Quaida made about 8 years ago. :rolleyes:

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

It should be pointed out that MI5 agents played a very big part in that bombing, with the guy organising the bombing a suspected agent.

"Suspected" by whom ? The same people who "suspected" hundreds of ordinary people of being "informers" and murdered them without trial or fair hearing ?

And how come it's OK to trot out that this random person is "suspected" of something, while not giving any credence to those "suspected" to be behind the murder of Robert McCartney ?

I'm not baiting, BTW; just a straight question why this supposed MI5 agent can be held up as an example and blamed without offering any proof, while if there's "suspicion" re the McCartney case then it's written off as "there's no proof".

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

We need to remove the cancer of British rule in Ireland for normality to ever have a chance in this country.

Funny you should use the word "cancer", which essentially involves your own cells doing more harm than good. We need to remove the cancer alright.

DoireNod

imme wrote: »

(1) I guess I knew that their aim was for there to be a 'free' Ireland, but wasn't aware why they weren't happy with the GFA, Stormont, and why they became an off shoot of an off shoot of an off shoot. They are a small group, according to security correspondents they number less than 200.

I'd imagine that, in the view of the RIRA, the GFA is an acceptance of British rule in Ireland. That's why there was a split - some evidently felt this wasn't the best way to Irish sovereignty.

(2) I thought their use of the term Quisling strange, outdated, and questioned whether they were ascribing it to nationalist or loyalist politicians or both.

Well it could hardly be used in describing a unionist politician, could it? Why is it an outdated noun?

(3) I don't wear glasses, clairvoyant, rose tinted or other. I asked this question to the people reading this thread, in general.

Fair enough. It appeared as if you knew for a fact that the RIRA would cease to exist in a couple of years time.

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

I'd imagine that, in the view of the RIRA, the GFA is an acceptance of British rule in Ireland. That's why there was a split - some evidently felt this wasn't the best way to Irish sovereignty.

Tough **** on their part. Whatever about not accepting a marginal vote of say 60/40, the vote was overwhelming.

The closest vote in this country was re divorce (50.3% vs 49.7%) and I don't see anyone murdering anyone based on the fact that the disagreed with the outcome and the resulting fact that "Ireland" has accepted divorce.

brianthebard

Happy Monday wrote: »

Pearse and Connolly were out of step with the feelings of the Irish people - this is the only reason the Rising took place - their arguments could not have succeeded any other way.

This is the conventional story is really not the case. The tens of thousands of people in the ITGWU and IVF attest to the popularity of republicanism and separatist politics respectively.