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

furiousox

mega man wrote: »

....the British are more responsible for Omagh than the IRA!

How so?

daithicarr

my god there are some seriously deluded people on here from one spectrum saying the British were actually responsible for the omagh bomb to the other saying Ireland's Independence is some how illegitimate as it some how was pushed past the wishes of the majority who were always a loyal and happy part of the British empire.

Both missing the point that neither spectrum of thought is supported by any reasonably sized portion of the irish public. If so where are their political partys.

getz

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

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.

lets see,chaughey,4 times taoiseach ,twice accused and tried for involvement of running guns to the IRA.and he could not account for the $10,million in his bank balance.irish goverment ministers involvement in ,arming,training,fund raising, of the IRA came to light in 1971 goverment released papers,the murder of chief superintendent,xxxx and superintendent,xxx. because of the involvement of guarda sergeant,xxxx,who was also a member of the IRA,came to light when a former member of the IRA contacted the newspapers,the irish republics goverment has as much blood on its hands[if not more]as the british

DoireNod

imme wrote: »

(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 ).

You're ignoring my point altogether. The colonialism of the British Empire is the reason why such organisations as the RIRA, among others exist and its certainly why there was a rebellion in 1916. Why do you think that relating NI to Iraq and Afghanistan is wrong (not that that is what I've done)? They are similar situations, in that a foreign force has entered a country and occupied it. My reason for raising those examples in this case was to further your question as to who gives the RIRA the right to kill in advancement of their aims. I said, who gives the British and American governments (and indeed anyone) the right to kill in advancement of their aims? I'd hope that if you were against the RIRA for their actions, you'd be against any other such agent that carries out such acts in advancement of their aims. With regard to the attack at Massarene and Patrick Azimkar, why must you pluck at heart strings? The truth is, he was a soldier for a reason and knew full well the dangers associated with being a part of what is a belligerent army. He didn't sign up to the British Army to do charity work. I certainly don't think the British Army should be revered in any way, especially given their history in Ireland. Like you've done, I could just as easily provide a link to an article about any one of the innocent Irish people who were executed by the British Army, but it doesn't really add to the discussion. What's your reason for doing so?

(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?

Again, you're ignoring my point. I've said that these people may be considered legitimate targets by the RIRA, but as I also said, that doesn't mean they're going to round up all civil servants.

You can do as you please, but I find it extremely strange that you refuse to research anything to do with the RIRA, yet you are quick to denounce them from what is essentially a position of ignorance. It has nothing to do with getting involved with them, it has everything to do with educating yourself.

DoireNod

getz wrote: »

lets see,chaughey,4 times taoiseach ,twice accused and tried for involvement of running guns to the IRA.and he could not account for the $10,million in his bank balance.irish goverment ministers involvement in ,arming,training,fund raising, of the IRA came to light in 1971 goverment released papers,the murder of chief superintendent,xxxx and superintendent,xxx. because of the involvement of guarda sergeant,xxxx,who was also a member of the IRA,came to light when a former member of the IRA contacted the newspapers,the irish republics goverment has as much blood on its hands[if not more]as the british

Well, Irish people were being discriminated against and murdered by the British government.

daithicarr

getz wrote: »

lets see,chaughey,4 times taoiseach ,twice accused and tried for involvement of running guns to the IRA.and he could not account for the $10,million in his bank balance.irish goverment ministers involvement in ,arming,training,fund raising, of the IRA came to light in 1971 goverment released papers,the murder of chief superintendent,xxxx and superintendent,xxx. because of the involvement of guarda sergeant,xxxx,who was also a member of the IRA,came to light when a former member of the IRA contacted the newspapers,the irish republics goverment has as much blood on its hands[if not more]as the british

not defending the acts of the RIRA in any form, or the corruption in our government, but the army of the republic never opened fire on Innocent civilians etc, of the party's involved in the conflict, (British state, Republican, loyalist and Irish state) our states had by far the least amount of blood on it hands.

getz

DoireNod wrote: »

Well, Irish people were being discriminated against and murdered by the British government.

like it or not, there was only one country likely to gain anything by terrorism, and that was the irish republic,now goverments and people have got together with a possible solution, so not let us try to ligitimize scum ,who has just one agenda,and thats to stop any chance of a united ireland

DoireNod

getz wrote: »

like it or not, there was only one country likely to gain anything by terrorism, and that was the irish republic,now goverments and people have got together with a possible solution, so not let us try to ligitimize scum ,who has just one agenda,and thats to stop any chance of a united ireland

Like it or not, it depends on what your description of terrorism entails. The British government has been reaping the rewards of terrorism for centuries and continues to do so. You claimed that the Irish government was as much to blame as the British government, which is complete and utter nonsense.

The RIRA's agenda obviously isn't to stop a chance of a united Ireland - it's what they're fighting for. They might not be helping the cause, but their agenda most certainly is a united Ireland free from British rule.

daithicarr

hang on i presume the scum you are referring to are the RIRA ?
i dont think their agenda is to stop any chance of a united Ireland, the opposite in fact.

but the effects of their actions are stopping any chance of there being a united ireland.

as for our role in the conflict, 95% of the votes in the south during that period went to partys which opposed terrorism

getz

daithicarr wrote: »

hang on i presume the scum you are referring to are the RIRA ?
i dont think their agenda is to stop any chance of a united Ireland, the opposite in fact.

but the effects of their actions are stopping any chance of there being a united ireland.

as for our role in the conflict, 95% of the votes in the south during that period went to partys which opposed terrorism

i know nearly every irishman i have met is opposed to terrorism,and most have told me they dont want a united ireland,just the thought of having that lot with us isent worth thinking about,but like everthing else there are two sides to any story,check out the other side www.victims.org.uk

daithicarr

hmmm didnt see anything on that clearly pro unionist website which shows southern Ireland's "bloody hands".
and its clearly one sided view point would make any such claims and believable as those issued by An Phoblacht

And why does it only show the victims of one side, why not a site for all the victims of the conflict, British, Irish, northern Irish, what ever they labeled them selves.

getz

daithicarr wrote: »

hmmm didnt see anything on that clearly pro unionist website which shows southern Ireland's "bloody hands".
and its clearly one sided view point would make any such claims and believable as those issued by An Phoblacht

And why does it only show the victims of one side, why not a site for all the victims of the conflict, British, Irish, northern Irish, what ever they labeled them selves.

i told you there are two sides,that was just one of them.the republican ones are as bad.but the difference between you and me is that not being born on the emerald isles, i believe its up to the citizens to decide what they want to be, not citizens of other nations.

daithicarr

getz wrote: »

i told you there are two sides,that was just one of them.the republican ones are as bad.but the difference between you and me is that not being born on the emerald isles, i believe its up to the citizens to decide what they want to be, not citizens of other nations.

Im not sure what your saying ,
is it that the people have no business taking part in what happens in other jurisdictions and that being born on this island gives us no right to assume we do ?

as opposed to wherever you are from does give you that right ?

Liam Byrne

getz wrote: »

i told you there are two sides,that was just one of them.the republican ones are as bad.but the difference between you and me is that not being born on the emerald isles, i believe its up to the citizens to decide what they want to be, not citizens of other nations.

Well, I was born on the "emerald isle", and we HAVE decided. We voted a few years ago on a tiny little thing called the Good Friday Agreement.

Unfortunately, a tiny minority refuses point-blank to accept the will of 99% of the island and continues to view its opinion as over-ruling everyone elses.

getz

daithicarr wrote: »

Im not sure what your saying ,
is it that the people have no business taking part in what happens in other jurisdictions and that being born on this island gives us no right to assume we do ?

as opposed to wherever you are from does give you that right ?

what i am saying is that you can be to close to the problem,your upbringing and schooling[i did at one time go to a school in the republic] may well give you a one sided view of the irish problem.the anti/british hate we see on the boards is often because of past catholic/republican teachings,i am sure as a 9 year old the brothers kept on checking that horns dident grow out of my head.the bottom line is it is up to the people of northern ireland to decide their future,and thats the way it should always be.

daithicarr

The good friday agreement was about that, the people of northern ireland could make up their mind for any option on what country to be a part off.

Erin Go Brath

daithicarr wrote: »

my god there are some seriously deluded people on here from one spectrum saying the British were actually responsible for the omagh bomb to the other saying Ireland's Independence is some how illegitimate as it some how was pushed past the wishes of the majority who were always a loyal and happy part of the British empire.

Both missing the point that neither spectrum of thought is supported by any reasonably sized portion of the irish public. If so where are their political partys.

A reasonably sized portion of the Irish public believed the IRA committed the Dublin and Monaghan bombings as the papers all pointed their fingers that way. Didn't make it true though! The UVF Portadown division with assistance from British security services are responsible for that one.

No offence, but you are extremely naieve if you believe that theres no way British forces wouldn't stoop to that level on either side of the border. The RIRA was riddled with informers and British agents in 1998. Theres no way this could have happened without authorities having prior knowledge.


http://www.davidford.org/speeches/000050/enquiry_into_the_omagh_bombing.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/17/northernireland.northernireland

Theres a lot that doesn't add up about this bombing and much more to it than meets the eye.

Erin Go Brath

To all those who incredibly believe that British influence in Ireland is benign and we can trust them implicity. Please read the following articles and educate yourselves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2955941.stm
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2007/01/28/story20531.asp
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/collusion/index.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/irel-d23.shtml
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/british-spooks-and-loyalists-colluded-on-bombings-80535.html

How can people be so sure British security forces definitely had no part to play in the Omagh bombing?

thebman

I don't think anybody is saying have blind faith in them nor anyone else.

Liam Byrne

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

A reasonably sized portion of the Irish public believed the IRA committed the Dublin and Monaghan bombings as the papers all pointed their fingers that way. Didn't make it true though! The UVF Portadown division with assistance from British security services are responsible for that one.

No offence, but you are extremely naieve if you believe that theres no way British forces wouldn't stoop to that level on either side of the border. The RIRA was riddled with informers and British agents in 1998. Theres no way this could have happened without authorities having prior knowledge.


http://www.davidford.org/speeches/000050/enquiry_into_the_omagh_bombing.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/17/northernireland.northernireland

Theres a lot that doesn't add up about this bombing and much more to it than meets the eye.

There's a lot that doesn't "add up" about LOTS of things, such as people deliberately leaving bombs on the side of the street in a busy town, and then blaming the authorities for not acting properly on "the warning".

Plus, the argument for all of the IRA & RIRA & CIRA atrocities is : "well, there was a war on".

I don't agree with that for most of the murders of innocents, but if we are expected to ignore one lot of excuses and half-truths and lies for one "side" then we have to do the exact same for the other.

The issue that most people have with certain sections of republicanism is that they expect people to believe all their excuses and caveats while not even remotely considering the equivalent.

When THAT day comes, we'll listen to them. Before then, it's just too blinkered to be taken seriously.

Not everyone "believes the British influence was benign", but then not everyone believes that the terrorists were in it for "the cause" either.

Most neutrals realise the truth was somewhere in between.

But we've voted. We've indicated our choice. End of story. Stop the madness.

LordSutch

DoireNod wrote: »

The colonialism of the British Empire is the reason why such organisations as the RIRA, among others exist and its certainly why there was a rebellion in 1916. Why do you think that relating NI to Iraq and Afghanistan is wrong (not that that is what I've done)? They are similar situations, in that a foreign force has entered a country and occupied it.

OK, just for the record, all this talk of 'the British Empire & colonialism' in IRELAND is one of the main stumbling blocks between one sides take on history, & the other sides 'take' on the same hostory.
In Irish Unionist minds 'the British Empire' was made, constructed, fought for, and run by, the English, the Irish, the Welsh, & the Scots, and "The Colonies" were the lands colonised outside *(this little group of islands) many many thousands of miles away! India, America, Australia, etc, come to mind ................

Those far off lands were colonized by us!

For Republicans to keep saying that they faught the British Empire & that their brave actions are a justified reaction to the oppressive 'Colonizers' just doesnt ring true in the minds of a large proportion of people living on this island (just 24 miles away from Britain as we are) because you see, 'We the Irish' were an integral part of that Colonization machine, we here in Ireland are part of the same group of islands (Britain inc), and in many cases we are exactly the same people as those inhabiting the other parts of *(these islands).

Point made.

*This little group of islands/ These islands = The island of Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Orkneys, the Shetland isles, the isles of Scilly, Rockall, the Channel islands, Hebrides, the Isle of Wight, etc.

DoireNod

Camelot wrote: »

OK, just for the record, all this talk of 'the British Empire & colonialism' in IRELAND is one of the main stumbling blocks between one sides take on history, & the other sides 'take' on the same hostory. > In Irish Unionists minds the British Empire was made, constructed, fought for, and run by, the English, Irish, Welsh, & the Scots, and "The Colonies" were the lands colonised outside *(this little group of islands) many many thousands of miles away! India, America, Australia, etc, come to mind ................

Those far off lands were colonized by us!

For Republicans to keep saying that they faught the British Empire & that their brave actions are a justified reaction to the oppressive 'Colonizers' just doesnt ring true in the minds of a large proportion of people living on this island (just 24 miles away from Britain as we are) because you see, 'We the Irish' were an integral part of that Colonization machine, we here in Ireland are part of the same group of islands (Britain inc), and in many cases we are exactly the same people as those inhabiting the other parts of *(these islands).

Point made.

*the island of Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Orkneys, the Shetland isles, the isles of Scilly, Rockall, the Channel islands, Hebrides, the Isle of Wight, etc.

That's not strictly true though. Ireland only became a part of the union in 1801 and prior to this, was exploited in the same manner (if not worse) as many other colonies were. Certainly, Ireland and its people were exploited after the Act of Union of 1800 too. If there was such a strong desire to be a part of the union, Ireland would still be a part of the UK.

LordSutch

Yes indeed, Ireland has been administered from London in the past, and now its administered from Dublin, the whole island was part of the UK, and now its just the North that remains within the UK, but I was addressing something else altogether.

getz

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

To all those who incredibly believe that British influence in Ireland is benign and we can trust them implicity. Please read the following articles and educate yourselves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2955941.stm
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2007/01/28/story20531.asp
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/collusion/index.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/irel-d23.shtml
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/british-spooks-and-loyalists-colluded-on-bombings-80535.html

How can people be so sure British security forces definitely had no part to play in the Omagh bombing?

you can never be sure of anything now a days,the intelligence services in both the UK and ireland,are very interlocked they also never give away their moles,even during the time when british prime minister harold wilson was in power MI6 was bugging his phone calls,in my time in security work,i have had contact with both CIA and MI6,i also believe i have met the lady who is in charge of the irish intelligence services,most of these organizations seem to be a law unto themselves.if you really check it out you will find at this moment british/american/russian/and israeli security services are active in the republic.

DoireNod

Camelot wrote: »

Yes indeed, Ireland has been administered from London in the past, and now its administered from Dublin, the whole island was part of the UK, and now its just the North that remains within the UK, but I was addressing something else altogether.

What were you addressing exactly?
The Irish, Scots and Welsh have always played second fiddle to England within the British Empire and UK.

Your claims that Ireland was seen as a kind of equal isn't true, when for 100s of years, the indigenous Irish were stifled and treated as inferior. The large portion of Irish people who were Catholic were also treated as inferior. Ireland was colonised and British people drove the Irish off their land and set themselves up as greedy landlords. There is a common theme running through the objection to British rule in Ireland and I imagine it will always be there.

LordSutch

Its all there in post#142

getz

DoireNod wrote: »

What were you addressing exactly?
The Irish, Scots and Welsh have always played second fiddle to England within the British Empire and UK.

Your claims that Ireland was seen as a kind of equal isn't true, when for 100s of years, the indigenous Irish were stifled and treated as inferior. The large portion of Irish people who were Catholic were also treated as inferior. Ireland was colonised and British people drove the Irish off their land and set themselves up as greedy landlords. There is a common theme running through the objection to British rule in Ireland and I imagine it will always be there.

are you saying that since the birth of the republic,you no longer have greedy anglo/irish landlords ?,just greedy irish ones

DoireNod

getz wrote: »

are you saying that since the birth of the republic,you no longer have greedy anglo/irish landlords ?,just greedy irish ones

Not at all. Strange that that is what you infer from my post. The point I was making is that the British came over and drove people off their land and set themselves up as landlords. I'd say there are surely greedy landlords from all ethnic backgrounds here now, but at least they didn't drive people off their own land to sell it back to them.

DoireNod

Camelot wrote: »

Its all there in post#142

The Irish unionists would obviously think that 'the British Empire was made, constructed, fought for, and run by, the English, Irish, Welsh, & the Scots', because they are usually descendants of the protestant ascendancy and the people that colonised the island!

jimmmy

DoireNod wrote: »

What were you addressing exactly?
The Irish, Scots and Welsh have always played second fiddle to England within the British Empire and UK.

The Irish Scots + Welsh payed an important role. London / England was the centre of things, as it had the biggest population. We were a group of islands, not unlike New Zealand, Japan, the Canaries , the Hawaiian islands etc. To outsiders we were the same. In India one thirds of the administration was Irish. Over there nobody cared or minded that. The Irish, Scots Welsh and English did co-operate throught the last number of centuries through economic activity etc.....no one area had a monopoly on innovation, industry, etc. The outlying areas of any country tend to play "second fiddle" to its main population centre / area of population + commerce.