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

getz

DoireNod wrote: »

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.

they did in england and possibly the rest of the UK,that was the way of the world at that time,life in the 17th 18th and 19th century was all about power and money ,most irish MPs were from land owners families,or people with money, its still the same in these islands today except its big business/unions ect who put up the money.dont kid yourself working classes dont run countries . and we all piss in the same pot

LordSutch

Was this island colonized by the Vikings & the Normans? was Britain colonized by the Roman Empire?

Liam Byrne

Camelot wrote: »

Was this island colonized by the Vikings & the Normans? was Britain colonized by the Roman Empire?

Yup, but there's none of those around to blow the crap out of anymore.

Mind you, the bombers never know who'll be doing their shopping; e.g. whether the folks in Omagh were Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Buddhist, or whether they supported a United Ireland or not.

So it's a moot point, really. They've never cared who they blew up or murdered.

DoireNod

Camelot wrote: »

Was this island colonized by the Vikings & the Normans? was Britain colonized by the Roman Empire?

Yes, they were colonised and the colonisers were met with resistance. Good point you make there.

getz

Camelot wrote: »

Was this island colonized by the Vikings & the Normans? was Britain colonized by the Roman Empire?

no its just a myth the vikings/normans/saxons/angles,and romans[even the irish who divided the country into estates] came to the island to conquer and live,but not in enough numbers to change the population. locals just took up their masters ways, no more than the irish did when the english invaded ireland,

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

Yes, they were colonised and the colonisers were met with resistance. Good point you make there.

Great point you make there yourself, since your attempt at an analogy requires us to overlook the fact that the colonisers have been dead for a few hundred years.

Also, when those colonisers were resisted, did those "resisting" murder their own, or target the "invaders" directly ?

Look, whatever about the pros and cons and history, the thread is about RIRA; and indiscriminately blowing the bollox out of innocent people does not "resist" anyone, or convince anyone - unionist or neutral or even a right-minded Irishman - that you'd want to be a part of the resulting country that they'd create if they achieved their supposed "aims".

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Great point you make there yourself, since your attempt at an analogy requires us to overlook the fact that the colonisers have been dead for a few hundred years.

The fact is that colonisers and imperialists have been resisted wherever they go. That was the reason for the 1916 rebellion, which happened over 100 years after Ireland became a part of the Union and here we are now, over 10 years after the Good Friday Agreement and there are still people resisting the British rule in Ireland,militarily or otherwise. I think the resistance to British rule in Ireland will continue until there is no British rule in Ireland.

Also, when those colonisers were resisted, did those "resisting" murder their own, or target the "invaders" directly ?

Who knows? I'd imagine they targeted the invaders directly, since warfare was different back then. Why would they murder their own?

Look, whatever about the pros and cons and history, the thread is about RIRA; and indiscriminately blowing the bollox out of innocent people does not "resist" anyone, or convince anyone - unionist or neutral or even a right-minded Irishman - that you'd want to be a part of the resulting country that they'd create if they achieved their supposed "aims".

The thread is about the RIRA sharing the same ideals as the rebels of 1916, which I believe they do. I'd imagine a fair few civilians were indiscriminately killed in 1916 and in the resulting war-fare which eventually led to independence for the 26 counties. That's not to say it's right to indiscriminately kill innocent civilians, though.

Mr.Blue

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yup, but there's none of those around to blow the crap out of anymore.

Mind you, the bombers never know who'll be doing their shopping; e.g. whether the folks in Omagh were Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Buddhist, or whether they supported a United Ireland or not.

So it's a moot point, really. They've never cared who they blew up or murdered.

Don't be silly. Would the RIRA issue bomb warnings if they 'never cared who they blew up or murdered'?.....

That's a silly comment and you know it. Avoiding civilian casualties is far higher on the list of priorities for republican groups than it has ever been for the British Army. And the evidence is there clear as day..

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

I think the resistance to British rule in Ireland will continue until there is no British rule in Ireland.

I have no objection to anyone exercising their rights and resisting any rule (I'll be resisting FF rule from now on). Just don't murder innocent people.

DoireNod wrote: »

Why would they murder their own?

A question that still stands today. Was there ever a breakdown of how many of the Omagh people were of various religions or backgrounds ?

DoireNod wrote: »

The thread is about the RIRA sharing the same ideals as the rebels of 1916, which I believe they do. I'd imagine a fair few civilians were indiscriminately killed in 1916 and in the resulting war-fare which eventually led to independence for the 26 counties. That's not to say it's right to indiscriminately kill innocent civilians, though.

Like I said, the main difference is that RIRA are pursuing their OWN agenda, not anything that the vast majority of Irish people want. Might that have been the case in 1916 ? Possibly, but we'll never know, because there was no equivalent vote.

But there was a vote here and a COMPREHENSIVE decision; and they're ignoring it.

Mr Blue wrote: »

Would the RIRA issue bomb warnings if they 'never cared who they blew up or murdered'?.....

Would anyone create a working bomb and drive it into a crowded city centre if they did care ?

LordSutch

If the aims of successive generations of the IRA has been to repel the invaders 'Unionists', then surely the current PIRA struggle will continue until there are are no more Unionists left, or at least until their British way of life has been totally eradicated or Gaelicised beyond recognition, (culturally, religiously, & genetically).

What a saddening prospect.

Mr.Blue

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Would anyone create a working bomb and drive it into a crowded city centre if they did care ?

The fact is if they truly didn't care (AT ALL!), then they wouldn't bother issuing any warnings. Simple. No point going round in circles here.. :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

Mr.Blue wrote: »

The fact is if they truly didn't care (AT ALL!), then they wouldn't bother issuing any warnings. Simple. No point going round in circles here.. :rolleyes:

The fact is that if they even cared (A LITTLE) then they wouldn't put a bomb in a crowded area. Simple. No point going around in circles here, or adding patronising rolleyes.

Quick question, actually, do you think it's a good idea to leave a rabid Rottweiler in a children's playground and then ring your most hated enemy to "warn" them that you've done it, in the hope that they'll save the kids ?

Scenario 1 : They ignore the phone call as an opportunity to highlight the atrocities that you're capable of
Scenario 2 : They try to act on it, but the emergency services are busy somewhere else and kids are maimed and die - your fault
Scenario 3 : They manage act on it and save everyone and they're the heroes

And in the meantime, you lose the respect of people who might have supported you, and any injuries or deaths are ultimately your fault, because you brought the Rottweiler.

Lose-lose situation all round.

furiousox

Mr.Blue wrote: »

Don't be silly. Would the RIRA issue bomb warnings if they 'never cared who they blew up or murdered'?.....

That's a silly comment and you know it. Avoiding civilian casualties is far higher on the list of priorities for republican groups than it has ever been for the British Army. And the evidence is there clear as day..

Sorry but that's horsesh1t
Ever heard of proxy bombs?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_bomb

furiousox

Mr.Blue wrote: »

The fact is if they truly didn't care (AT ALL!), then they wouldn't bother issuing any warnings. Simple. No point going round in circles here.. :rolleyes:

Yeah, they're totally misunderstood really
They're more a touchy feely caring sharing type of terrorist group aren't they?

BennyLava

to try and compare the architects of 1916 to the RIRA is probably insulting to the children of the men and women of 1916, many of whom play an active part in the political establishment of the republic.

Those who fought in 1916, didn't hide in the shadows, the stood proud and fought for what the believed and took on the British army directly

RIRA murder pizza delivery men, bomb pregnant women and children

There is no comparison between the two

LordSutch

BennyLava wrote: »

to try and compare the architects of 1916 to the RIRA is probably insulting to the children of the men and women of 1916, many of whom play an active part in the political establishment of the republic.

Those who fought in 1916, didn't hide in the shadows, the stood proud and fought for what the believed and took on the British army directly

RIRA murder pizza delivery men, bomb pregnant women and children

There is no comparison between the two

Well actually, 'they' took on the British army slap bang in the middle of the Great War, while all hell was breaking loose in Europe! with several hundred thousand brave Irish men serving in the British Army, & thirty five thousand Irish men dying around the same time (1916) fighting the Germans on the battlefield > remember Flanders & the Somme.

BennyLava

But in a conventional way. i.e they occupied parts of Dublin and declared independence

as opposed to the RIRA who bomb markets and shoot people going about their business to protect lucrative diesel washing and cigarette smuggling businesses

DoireNod

The rebels of 1916 were still treated as treasonous criminals by the government at the time and would be by modern standards, terrorists.

Their methods might have been more 'conventional' to warfare, but they still had the same ideals as the RIRA have now. They wrecked the 'second city of the Empire', so I don't think they did the economy much help at the time too.

If you brand the Provos and other militant Republican groups as terrorists, I think that it's arguable that you must brand the men of 1916 as terrorists too.

thebman

DoireNod wrote: »

The rebels of 1916 were still treated as treasonous criminals by the government at the time and would be by modern standards, terrorists.

Their methods might have been more 'conventional' to warfare, but they still had the same ideals as the RIRA have now. They wrecked the 'second city of the Empire', so I don't think they did the economy much help at the time too.

If you brand the Provos and other militant Republican groups as terrorists, I think that it's arguable that you must brand the men of 1916 as terrorists too.

I certainly consider them terrorists if for no other reason than to annoy yanks who associate terrorism exclusively with bad things but always seem to support Irish struggle against the British for independence.

DoireNod

thebman wrote: »

I certainly consider them terrorists if for no other reason than to annoy yanks who associate terrorism exclusively with bad things but always seem to support Irish struggle against the British for independence.

Yeah, exactly and by their modern definition, the founding fathers of America were terrorists.

Funglegunk

DoireNod wrote: »

The rebels of 1916 were still treated as treasonous criminals by the government at the time and would be by modern standards, terrorists.

Their methods might have been more 'conventional' to warfare, but they still had the same ideals as the RIRA have now. They wrecked the 'second city of the Empire', so I don't think they did the economy much help at the time too.

If you brand the Provos and other militant Republican groups as terrorists, I think that it's arguable that you must brand the men of 1916 as terrorists too.

The 1916 rebels wore uniforms (when they could get them, the battalion commanders definitely did), formally declared a Republic on the street in view of the public, quickly took and then defended territory inside the city while flying flags from buildings and then deliberately surrendered when civilian casualties started to escalate. They then marched, in formation, as they gave themselves up to British forces.

The more modern militant Republican groups have slaughtered civilians using car-bombs in their campaigns. Are you seriously comparing the two?

The guerilla fighters in the war of independence could most definitely be labeled terrorists, not the 1916 rebels.

FlutterinBantam

Not according to Fachtna anyway, he refers to them as criminals with no political mandate.

I'd have to agree with him, just a bunch of criminals and extortionists using deluded people to further their nefarious aims.

DoireNod

Funglegunk wrote: »

The 1916 rebels wore uniforms (when they could get them, the battalion commanders definitely did), formally declared a Republic on the street in view of the public, quickly took and then defended territory inside the city while flying flags from buildings and then deliberately surrendered when civilian casualties started to escalate. They then marched, in formation, as they gave themselves up to British forces.

The more modern militant Republican groups have slaughtered civilians using car-bombs in their campaigns. Are you seriously comparing the two?

The guerilla fighters in the war of independence could most definitely be labeled terrorists, not the 1916 rebels.

So, if the RIRA wore fancy uniforms, hoisted flags from buildings and so forth, you'd see them as a more legitimate army, or what?

I compare the two because they have the same ideals. Is it not also true that the rebels of 1916 were executed by the British state as criminals? They violated the law of the land and killed in the name of Irish independence. That's what the RIRA are doing now. Violating the law of the land and killing in the name of Irish independence. Do you not see the similarities? Their methods are different. The more modern militant republicans realised the folly of confronting the British head on and opted for guerilla tactics. That's what usually happens when a small force is faced with a larger, usually more powerful force.

Funglegunk

DoireNod wrote: »

So, if the RIRA wore fancy uniforms, hoisted flags from buildings and so forth, you'd see them as a more legitimate army, or what?

I compare the two because they have the same ideals. Is it not also true that the rebels of 1916 were executed by the British state as criminals? They violated the law of the land and killed in the name of Irish independence. That's what the RIRA are doing now. Violating the law of the land and killing in the name of Irish independence. Do you not see the similarities? Their methods are different. The more modern militant republicans realised the folly of confronting the British head on and opted for guerilla tactics. That's what usually happens when a small force is faced with a larger, usually more powerful force.

If they declared themselves in public, wore uniforms, took and defended territory, hoisted flags and, here's the kicker, stopped deliberately killing civilians, then yes I could consider them a legitimate army (they'd be destroyed pretty quickly of course). At least then they wouldn't seem like terrorists locked in an endless cowardly game of tit-for-tat and people might actually sympathise with them. The only way the RIRA will ever gain any sort of traction is with substantial public support. Petty border crime and callous murder just weakens their cause (I suspect, as was said above, that their 'ideals' just serve as a Potemkin village to gloss over their selfish criminal acts).

The 1916 rebel leaders declared themselves in public, and wore their 'fancy uniforms' to give them some semblance of legitimacy in the Irish public's eyes. It didn't matter if they were called criminals by the British state or not, the whole 1916 Rising was a deliberate exercise to gain public support. They knew they had to present themselves as a standing Irish army, they knew they had to hold out longer than six hours, and they knew they had to die as Irishmen, not as criminals.

The following War of Independence was terrorism, and deliberately so: at this stage the momentum of public support was in their favour, so they knew they had enough 'sympathy capital' to spend years wearing down the British.

So are the RIRA's and the Easter rebels' ideals the same? If you mean they both want a united Ireland then yeah at a base level that particular ideal is the same.

Could both be considered terrorists, which is the original point I brought up? Not a chance, the Easter rebels did not use terror tactics. Even the British could see that.

imme

DoireNod wrote: »

Their methods might have been more 'conventional' to warfare, but they still had the same ideals as the RIRA have now. They wrecked the 'second city of the Empire', so I don't think they did the economy much help at the time too.

the rebels of 1916 didn't wreck the '2nd city of the empire', the guns of the Aud on the Liffey did and the field guns in the grounds of Trinity College did.

DoireNod

Funglegunk wrote: »

The 1916 rebel leaders declared themselves in public, and wore their 'fancy uniforms' to give them some semblance of legitimacy in the Irish public's eyes. It didn't matter if they were called criminals by the British state or not, the whole 1916 Rising was a deliberate exercise to gain public support. They knew they had to present themselves as a standing Irish army, they knew they had to hold out longer than six hours, and they knew they had to die as Irishmen, not as criminals.

The British state was the law-maker and governor of the land and therefore, it did matter that they called them criminals. Going by that logic, if in 100 years time the RIRA's actions help achieve Irish independence and a new Ireland, then it won't matter that the British and Irish governments called them terrorists.

So are the RIRA's and the Easter rebels' ideals the same? If you mean they both want a united Ireland then yeah at a base level that particular ideal is the same.

Could both be considered terrorists, which is the original point I brought up? Not a chance, the Easter rebels did not use terror tactics. Even the British could see that.

The Easter rebels deliberately used force to undermine the status quo. If the RIRA did exactly what the IRA, ICA et al. of 1916 did, they'd be still be considered terrorists.

DoireNod

imme wrote: »

the rebels of 1916 didn't wreck the '2nd city of the empire', the guns of the Aud on the Liffey did and the field guns in the grounds of Trinity College did.

If the rebels didn't do what they did, there would have been no destruction. They would be deemed responsible by the people of Dublin in 1916 for the destruction which transpired.

Funglegunk

DoireNod wrote: »

The British state was the law-maker and governor of the land and therefore, it did matter that they called them criminals. Going by that logic, if in 100 years time the RIRA's actions help achieve Irish independence and a new Ireland, then it won't matter that the British and Irish governments called them terrorists.

The Easter rebels deliberately used force to undermine the status quo. If the RIRA did exactly what the IRA, ICA et al. of 1916 did, they'd be still be considered terrorists.

I think you're playing fast and loose with the definition of terrorism there. 'Using force to undermine the status quo' is only half the story, and sounds wrong tbh. Terrorism is used to induce fear so as to intimidate or coerce, its in the name. Can you honestly say that that describes the Easter rebels? In whom were they inducing fear?

José Alaninho

Camelot wrote: »

What a saddening prospect.

In your opinion...

imme

DoireNod wrote: »

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)? (1) 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? (2) 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, (3) 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?

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, (4) 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. (5) It has nothing to do with getting involved with them, it has everything to do with educating yourself.

(1) The cases of Iraq and Afghansitan are not similar to NI, imo. Nor is the case of Palestine or the Basque Country. Nationalists are always looking for 'common cause' with other 'oppressed' people. NI is it's own case, and has to be dealt with on it's own merits. US, UK and associated countries took it on themselves to invade Iraq, I didn't agree with it at the time and voiced my opinion thus. BUT the case of Iraq is not similar to NI. To raise it is to cause confusion, to obfuscate. Afghanistan was invaded by NATO after 9-11. The UN since became directly involved in Afghanistan with the ISAF. These cases are not similar to NI.
(2) Have you not gathered by now that I'm against the (less than 200 member) group that call themselves the RIRA.
(3) the 2 soldiers that were murdered by the RIRA were soft targets, imo. They were colecting pizza from murderers posing as pizza delivery men. The RIRA reportedly phoned the Sunday Tribune newspaper and said that pizza delivery people had been "collaborating with the British by servicing them". That to me is disgusting.
(4) I'm sure the (less than 200 member) RIRA would have a tough time rounding up civil servants that they feel are collaborating with British rule.
(5) I have not studied the RIRA, I am aware of their general 'ideals', but was not aware of their opposition to the GFA, their self proclaimed right to murder people discriminatly and spread terror generally.
Why do you feel I should educate myself intimately with the 'ideals' of the (less than 200 member) RIRA. In my mind they are not representative of a significant portion of the population. They are an unrepresentative group.