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

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.

imme

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.

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 Why is it an outdated noun?

Fair enough. It appeared as if you knew for a fact that the RIRA would cease to exist in a couple of years time.[/quote]
But, British Rule in Northern Ireland is a fact, can't they see that, this group of less than 200 people. Killing people to advance your aims, who gave them this right.
So the RIRA are only taking the right to kill 'quislings' in nationalist parties at Stormont. I'm sure Donaldson, Paisley and Robinson even Sammy Wilson will be able to sleep soundly knowing that they are not targets of the RIRA. The term 'quisling' is ascribed to someone who assists the enemy during a war-type situation. I just thought a war on the scale of WW2 was not an appropriate analogy for nationalist politicians who see the best way of leading their communities is by accepting Stormont and ending killing/bombing/fear on a wide scale.

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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.

Yeah, that seems to be to be the prevailing attitude to rejection of the GFA, but I don't think it's a straight comparison to compare the issue of Irish independence from British rule to the issue of divorce. People weren't fighting and dying for hundreds of years over the issue of divorce prior to the vote.

DoireNod

imme wrote: »

But, British Rule in Northern Ireland is a fact, can't they see that, this group of less than 200 people. Killing people to advance your aims, who gave them this right.

Who knows? British rule in the 32 counties of Ireland was a fact, but it's no longer the case. As for who gives the right? It's a good question and it's certainly applicable to any other Irish rebellion against British rule. Who gives anyone, including modern 'champions of democracy', the US and UK, the right to kill in advancement of their aims?

So the RIRA are only taking the right to kill 'quislings' in nationalist parties at Stormont. I'm sure Donaldson, Paisley and Robinson even Sammy Wilson will be able to sleep soundly knowing that they are not targets of the RIRA.

Did you not read their statement which I posted earlier? Their targets are those who help implement British rule. I think all those politicians would be seen as targets.

The term 'quisling' is ascribed to someone who assists the enemy during a war-type situation. I just thought a war on the scale of WW2 was not an appropriate analogy for nationalist politicians who see the best way of leading their communities is by accepting Stormont and ending killing/bombing/fear on a wide scale.

The term 'quisling' has become a noun for collaborator or traitor. Are you going to labour on linguistics?

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

Yeah, that seems to be to be the prevailing attitude to rejection of the GFA, but I don't think it's a straight comparison to compare the issue of Irish independence from British rule to the issue of divorce. People weren't fighting and dying for hundreds of years over the issue of divorce prior to the vote.

It's true that it wasn't a 100% equivalent comparison, but my point was that even the 49.7% accepted it as "the will of the Irish people".

And while I could understand a numerically equivalent marginal vote being an issue (e.g. the American vote that got GWB in, or our own vote that got FF in), there is absolutely NO mandate based on an over 95% vote!

Add to that the fact that there's NEVER a mandate to kill innocent people (whatever about killing a perceived enemy) and the GFA is OVERWHELMINGLY and ABSOLUTELY the "will of the Irish people".....

And part of the reason for that IS the fact that people were murdering other people; I know for a fact that I would not have voted for the release of any murderers (from either "side") if there hadn't been a damn good reason.....so a HUGE part of the vote was the existence of the terrorist groups on both sides and a big shout of "STOP!".

Giving the two-fingers to the will of the country would certainly imply to me that they have no urge to participate in a democratic Ireland or compromise with people who don't see things their way. So whatever Ireland they'd create, I certainly wouldn't want to be a part of it.

If there had been a referendum back in the early 1900s, would it have been the same scenario ? We'll never know.

But nowadays, the people of Ireland WERE asked and HAVE had their say. ALL OF THEM. And giving that level of a majority the two-fingers means that the aims CANNOT be the same.

Happy Monday

brianthebard wrote: »

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.

Connolly himself had served for 7 years in the British Army.
Larkin who formed the ITGWU had himself been born in England.
Many of the working class of Dublin went to fight in the Royal Dublin Fusiliers in 1914.

imme

DoireNod wrote: »

Who knows? British rule in the 32 counties of Ireland was a fact, but it's no longer the case. As for who gives the right? It's a good question and it's certainly applicable to any other Irish rebellion against British rule. Who gives anyone, including modern 'champions of democracy', the US and UK, the right to kill in advancement of their aims?(1)


Did you not read their statement which I posted earlier? Their targets are those who help implement British rule. I think all those politicians would be seen as targets.(2)


The term 'quisling' has become a noun for collaborator or traitor. Are you going to labour on linguistics?

(1)why do people like this, the RIRA, always talk of empires and colonialism. They're obsessed with it. I guess it stems from the marxist days. The Downing Street declaration should have laid to bed any idea of imperialism in relation to NI. To bring up other countries, Iraq, Afghanistan is just to mislead, confuse their argument, imo.
(2) So, again they're assuming these rights to kill people who "help implement British rule", as you say, who's next traffic wardens, lollipop ladies, lollipop men?

Erin Go Brath

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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:



"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".



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.

You just can't see past your love of British forces can you? You are seriously in denial my friend. Some day you will realise that they've been involved in collusion with loyalist paramilitaries on a number of occasions. The police ombudsman report has confirmed this, in case your in denial about this aswell. Their security forces were involved in a cover up of the Dublin/Monaghan bombings. Thousands of files relating to Dublin and Monaghan have disappeared from 5 seperate secure Garda stations. Umpteen reports into atrocities caused by British forces in the north have taken place, are currently underway, and will be taken in the future.

I know Eoghan Harris and the Sunday Independent crew dont run with these stories, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.

magma69

It is very difficult to compare. 1916 was a way different time to our current political climate. I think some of the heroes who fought in 1916 may not see using violence as an effective means to achieve there goals today. Ireland has come on leaps and bounds with power sharing and what not. Any nationalist representation in Westminster back then was a joke. So technically their ideals are very similar but Ireland is so much different nowadays the question you need to ask is, "If the men of 1916 were here today would they apply the same ideals as they did back then?"

furiousox

Despising people who blew up a pregnant woman and 27 others out doing their shopping does not equate to "you just can't see past your love of British forces?"

Erin Go Brath

furiousox wrote: »

Despising people who blew up a pregnant woman and 27 others out doing their shopping does not equate to "you just can't see past your love of British forces?"

Have you not been reading? MI5 are heavily suspected of involvement in the Omagh atrocity. Ergo the Brits have as much blood on their hands as the RIRA for this.

RiverWilde

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Have you not been reading? MI5 are heavily suspected of involvement in the Omagh atrocity. Ergo the Brits have as much blood on their hands as the RIRA for this.

So what you're saying is that it's okay for the RIRA to go around murdering people because in your view crown forces are just as bad?

Riv

furiousox

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Have you not been reading? MI5 are heavily suspected of involvement in the Omagh atrocity. Ergo the Brits have as much blood on their hands as the RIRA for this.

Ml5 apparently had advance warning of a planned bombing in Omagh but failed to act and prevent the bomb from exploding.

lf that's the case then yes, they have a hell of a lot to answer for.

At least we're agreed that the bombing of Omagh was an atrocity, whoever was responsible?

Erin Go Brath

RiverWilde wrote: »

So what you're saying is that it's okay for the RIRA to go around murdering people because in your view crown forces are just as bad?

Riv

I don't know how you extrapolated that from what i said.

My central point is that all involved deserve to be condemned.

Erin Go Brath

furiousox wrote: »

Ml5 apparently had advance warning of a planned bombing in Omagh but failed to act and prevent the bomb from exploding.

lf that's the case then yes, they have a hell of a lot to answer for.

At least we're agreed that the bombing of Omagh was an atrocity, whoever was responsible?

Omagh was disgusting. I remember seeing it on tv at the time and feeling sick to the pit of my stomach at what happened.

DoireNod

imme wrote: »

(1)why do people like this, the RIRA, always talk of empires and colonialism. They're obsessed with it. I guess it stems from the marxist days. The Downing Street declaration should have laid to bed any idea of imperialism in relation to NI. To bring up other countries, Iraq, Afghanistan is just to mislead, confuse their argument, imo.

I assume people like the RIRA talk of colonialism because it is central to their struggle. Certainly, had there been no British colonial exploits in Ireland, there would have been no IRA. I brought up British and American actions in other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, to question the point of who gives rights to these people to kill in order to advance their aims. It's entirely valid and if it misleads, then that is not my problem.

(2) So, again they're assuming these rights to kill people who "help implement British rule", as you say, who's next traffic wardens, lollipop ladies, lollipop men?

Look, what I say isn't what determines who the RIRA will target. You should do your own research into who is deemed to be a target, if you're so concerned. The RIRA and 32CSM would argue that anyone who is implementing British rule is a legitimate target, but that does not necessarily mean they're going to have a pop at random people working for the British government - they model themselves as an army and talk of being strategic in their attacks. The cops and British army, unlike traffic wardens, post men and lollipop men, are seen to be belligerent agents of the British establishment in Ireland.

mega man

furiousox wrote: »

Despising people who blew up a pregnant woman and 27 others out doing their shopping does not equate to "you just can't see past your love of British forces?"

How many pregnant women have the British killed in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Not only that but the British are more responsible for Omagh than the IRA!

DoireNod

magma69 wrote: »

It is very difficult to compare. 1916 was a way different time to our current political climate. I think some of the heroes who fought in 1916 may not see using violence as an effective means to achieve there goals today. Ireland has come on leaps and bounds with power sharing and what not. Any nationalist representation in Westminster back then was a joke. So technically their ideals are very similar but Ireland is so much different nowadays the question you need to ask is, "If the men of 1916 were here today would they apply the same ideals as they did back then?"

Good point. Interesting that you should call them 'heroes'. I assume you see other republican rebels who died in the Troubles as heroes too?

magma69

DoireNod wrote: »

Good point. Interesting that you should call them 'heroes'. I assume you see other republican rebels who died in the Troubles as heroes too?

Certainly not the ones who engaged in the bombings causing the deaths of innocent people. The men of 1916, for the most part, targeted enemies. That cannot be said of many of the republicans of "The troubles" era.

Nodin

RiverWilde wrote: »

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

Riv

And thats the fault of the 1916 lads? Though you admit you've actually no idea what they were fighting for......

Happy Monday wrote:

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

280,000 Members. Thats a very significant number, by any standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_United_Irishmen
Fianna Fail today has 75,000. It was limited to "a small number of counties" in the end due to action on behalf of the British.

imme

DoireNod wrote: »

(1) I assume people like the RIRA talk of colonialism because it is central to their struggle. Certainly, had there been no British colonial exploits in Ireland, there would have been no IRA. I brought up British and American actions in other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, to question the point of who gives rights to these people to kill in order to advance their aims. It's entirely valid and if it misleads, then that is not my problem.


(2) Look, what I say isn't what determines who the RIRA will target. You should do your own research into who is deemed to be a target, if you're so concerned. The RIRA and 32CSM would argue that anyone who is implementing British rule is a legitimate target, but that does not necessarily mean they're going to have a pop at random people working for the British government - they model themselves as an army and talk of being strategic in their attacks. The cops and British army, unlike traffic wardens, post men and lollipop men, are seen to be belligerent agents of the British establishment in Ireland.

(1) Colonialism is "central to their struggle"? It's history, it's what were left with from history, i.e. the present situation. How we deal with the situation is how we will be judged (I'm not talking about a religious judgment). To relate NI to Iraq/Afghanistan is not right, imo, it is designed to mislead. I'm not accusing you of misleading people. When the RIRA murdered British soldiers at Massareene Barracks in March they made a big deal of their anti-colonialist stance. If they had killed people from a different branch of the 'beligerent forces' as you call them, would they have used different justifications, as to their actions and their justifications. The soldiers at Massareene Barracks seem to have been a 'soft target', this is more likely the reason they were murdered.
(for anyone interested reading about one of the soldiers murdered that day, you can read about Patrick Azimcar here
http://www.rcdow.org.uk/diocese/default.asp?content_ref=2221 ).

(2) No, I won't research who is a 'legitimate target', according to the (less than 200 member) RIRA. I don't want to get involved with an organisation that spreads terror, that uses terror/violence/murder to further their aims.
As to your point of 'legimitate targets' being anyone who implements British rule, why the list could go on forever, midwives, teachers, binmen, town planners, motorway construction workers, post office workers, doctors, dentists. The list could go on forever?