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

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

Options
1…457910

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    mrtaylor1981
    Closed Accounts Posts: 45 ✭mrtaylor1981


    How anyone could justify the RIRA after Omagh is beyond me.


  • Options
    #183
    DoireNod
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭DoireNod


    Funglegunk wrote: »
    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?
    I don't think terrorism is limited to the use of fear as coercion (although that's a big part of it), but let's say it is. Who's to say that the British government and people weren't afraid of the implications caused by an armed rebellion in Ireland when they were fighting in WW1? Who's to say that the Irish people weren't afraid of the implications of an armed group using force to set up a new state in time of War?
    imme wrote: »
    (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.
    You are right that each case is separate, but they are similar. In the north, what is perceived to be a foreign oppressor is occupying part of Ireland and why not show solidarity to similarly affected groups? There's nothing wrong with it.
    2) Have you not gathered by now that I'm against the (less than 200 member) group that call themselves the RIRA.
    Yes, I've obviously gathered that, but I was hoping you'd be against all similar cases where countries, such as the US and UK, have killed to advance their aims.
    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.
    I can see your point when it comes to the innocent victims, but you haven't answered my question. Do you have some kind of reverence for the British army and its soldiers? They're soldiers, armed trained to kill and they know their position.
    (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
    What's your point, or are you just ignoring the point I made?
    (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.
    I didn't say you should educate yourself 'intimately' with regard to the RIRA. I said that you should educate yourself before criticising (the same goes for anything). It would give your points more weight. Going by your logic, you should ignore anything that doesn't represent general public opinion. That's just silly in my opinion.
    mrtaylor1981 wrote: »
    How anyone could justify the RIRA after Omagh is beyond me.
    Who's justifying the RIRA?


  • Options
    #184
    imme
    Registered Users Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    DoireNod wrote: »
    (1) You are right that each case is separate, but they are similar. In the north, what is perceived to be a foreign oppressor is occupying part of Ireland and why not show solidarity to similarly affected groups? (2) There's nothing wrong with it.
    (3) Yes, I've obviously gathered that, but I was hoping you'd be against all similar cases where countries, such as the US and UK, have killed to advance their aims.
    (4) I can see your point when it comes to the innocent victims, but you haven't answered my question. Do you have some kind of reverence for the British army and its soldiers? They're soldiers, armed trained to kill and they know their position.
    What's your point, or are you just ignoring the point I made?
    (5) I didn't say you should educate yourself 'intimately' with regard to the RIRA. (6) I said that you should educate yourself before criticising (the same goes for anything). It would give your points more weight. Going by your logic, you should ignore anything that doesn't represent general public opinion. That's just silly in my opinion.


    (7) Who's justifying the RIRA?
    (1) The case of NI is a product of history, so it is its own case, it's also its
    own case geographically. The other 'colonialist' war-zones that you quote are totally separate.
    (2) possibly nothing wrong with it. BUT if this leads to more Irishmen beating arrested in Colombia, while they say they were 'bird-watching' it will lead people to conclude that terror groups are exchanging know-how and bomb-making capabilities.
    (3) I am against murder, state-sponsored or other.
    (4) I am against murder, so cannot agree with the (less than 200 member) RIRA that sees the British Army as 'legitimate targets'.
    (5) 'intimately' was my wording, but it seemed to me what you were suggesting I do. I feel I know enough about the RIRA from the media in general.
    (6) The (less than 200 member) RIRA feel that they have the right to murder people, to further their 'ideals', this is enough for me, they're not interested in argument, political or otherwise, imo. So, I don't feel too bad about not being up to date on their latest 'war aims'.
    (7) This wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. Some people might feel that you're justifying the (less than 200 member) RIRA.


  • Options
    #185
    Funglegunk
    Registered Users Posts: 1,566 ✭✭✭Funglegunk


    DoireNod wrote: »
    I don't think terrorism is limited to the use of fear as coercion (although that's a big part of it), but let's say it is. Who's to say that the British government and people weren't afraid of the implications caused by an armed rebellion in Ireland when they were fighting in WW1? Who's to say that the Irish people weren't afraid of the implications of an armed group using force to set up a new state in time of War?

    Who's to say indeed? So by your definition any war in which multiple fronts open up, the aggressors on those fronts are all terrorists? That's a bit of a stretch.

    EDIT: A far better word would be insurgents.


  • Options
    #186
    DoireNod
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭DoireNod


    imme wrote: »
    (1) The case of NI is a product of history, so it is its own case, it's also its
    own case geographically. The other 'colonialist' war-zones that you quote are totally separate.
    Separate and all as they may be, they're still similar situations.
    (3) I am against murder, state-sponsored or other.
    Good
    4) I am against murder, so cannot agree with the (less than 200 member) RIRA that sees the British Army as 'legitimate targets'.
    Fair play.
    (5) 'intimately' was my wording, but it seemed to me what you were suggesting I do. I feel I know enough about the RIRA from the media in general.
    That's strange. Earlier you said you didn't know why they opposed the GFA and such. Still, I like to educate myself from a variety of sources and not just the media in general.
    (6) The (less than 200 member) RIRA feel that they have the right to murder people, to further their 'ideals', this is enough for me, they're not interested in argument, political or otherwise, imo. So, I don't feel too bad about not being up to date on their latest 'war aims'.
    Your choice. I like to know about people who are deemed dangerous.
    (7) This wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. Some people might feel that you're justifying the (less than 200 member) RIRA.
    Why do you feel that? Because I'm engaging in discussion from an angle that you don't necessarily agree with?
    Funglegunk wrote: »
    Who's to say indeed? So by your definition any war in which multiple fronts open up, the aggressors on those fronts are all terrorists? That's a bit of a stretch.

    EDIT: A far better word would be insurgents.
    Your understanding of my point is not exactly what my definition is. I certainly feel that if the actions of 1916 were to transpire now, the perpetrators would possibly be labelled terrorists. I feel that the word 'terrorism' is only used when it suits those in power. I think it's applicable to various situations and groups, governments included.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    imme
    Registered Users Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    DoireNod wrote: »
    Separate and all as they may be, they're still similar situations.

    That's strange. Earlier you said you didn't know why they opposed the GFA and such. Still, I like to educate myself from a variety of sources and not just the media in general.

    Your choice. I like to know about people who are deemed dangerous.

    Why do you feel that? Because I'm engaging in discussion from an angle that you don't necessarily agree with?

    I still don't believe they're similar situations.
    I also said I wasn't aware of their 'aims', whether they wanted a communist/fascist inspired collective. They use murder and take it upon themselves to be judge and jury.
    From the 'counter every point' style you've adopted. You definitely don't come across as being opposed to the RIRA.


  • Options
    #188
    Mr.Blue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 49 ✭Mr.Blue


    Funglegunk wrote: »
    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.
    Oh right well.. maybe it's just me but I'd be much more fearful for my life living amongst armed to the teeth british soldiers (who like to take pot shots at civilians and shoot a boy in the back on his way to a GAA match). And on top of that, these terrorists are immune to prosecution for their crimes. I would say the british army fit quite nicely into your classification of terrorism, dare I say a better example don't you think?


  • Options
    #189
    DoireNod
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭DoireNod


    imme wrote: »
    I still don't believe they're similar situations.
    I also said I wasn't aware of their 'aims', whether they wanted a communist/fascist inspired collective. They use murder and take it upon themselves to be judge and jury.
    From the 'counter every point' style you've adopted. You definitely don't come across as being opposed to the RIRA.
    They quite evidently are similar, but distinct, situations, I don't understand how you can't see that they're similar.

    'Counter every point style'? You mean, the same style as you've adopted? It's a discussion forum and I've been taking the angle that the RIRA share the ideals and are similar to the men of 1916. At no point have I indicated that I support the RIRA. You appear to have inferred that because I've raised points about how the RIRA see themselves - something you admit to not having a notion about. There's nothing wrong with learning what drives a group, but you refuse to do so, just because they're not representative of the general populace.


  • Options
    #190
    imme
    Registered Users Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    DoireNod wrote: »
    (1) They quite evidently are similar, but distinct, situations, I don't understand how you can't see that they're similar.

    (2) 'Counter every point style'? You mean, the same style as you've adopted? It's a discussion forum and I've been taking the angle that the RIRA share the ideals and are similar to the men of 1916. At no point have I indicated that I support the RIRA. You appear to have inferred that because I've raised points about how the RIRA see themselves (3) - something you admit to not having a notion about. There's nothing wrong with learning what drives a group, but you refuse to do so, (4) just because they're not representative of the general populace.

    (1)I believe the case of NI versus Iraq & Afghanistan are not the same. Are you going to tell me that Iran backed terrorists in Iraq are the same as the RIRA, or that the Taliban in Afghanistan are the same as the RIRA.
    (2) very true, it must be from my school debating days
    (3) I couldn't care less how the (less than 200 member) RIRA see themselves. All I see is murderers, who don't want to know of argument of political avenues. I understand the general 'aim' of the RIRA is to see a 'free Ireland', but still have no idea if they would like to foist a communist, fascist, libertarian style of 'free Ireland' on me. All I know is that they feel they have the right to murder people.
    (4) The (less than 200 member) RIRA is an off shoot of an off shoot of an off shoot.


  • Options
    #191
    DoireNod
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭DoireNod


    imme wrote: »
    (1)I believe the case of NI versus Iraq & Afghanistan are not the same. Are you going to tell me that Iran backed terrorists in Iraq are the same as the RIRA, or that the Taliban in Afghanistan are the same as the RIRA.
    I brought those situations up in regard to the question of who gives anyone the right to kill in advancement of their aims, not as analogous situations, but the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan could be seen as very similar to British rule in Ireland.
    (2) very true, it must be from my school debating days
    Your poor opponents.
    (3) I couldn't care less how the (less than 200 member) RIRA see themselves. All I see is murderers, who don't want to know of argument of political avenues. I understand the general 'aim' of the RIRA is to see a 'free Ireland', but still have no idea if they would like to foist a communist, fascist, libertarian style of 'free Ireland' on me. All I know is that they feel they have the right to murder people.
    Well then, that being the case, you shouldn't care how the British and American governments or anyone else like that sees themselves. You should only see murderers who feel they have the right to kill in advancement of their aims. I don't see the harm in acquainting oneself with what motivates dangerous people. If anything, I think it's silly to actively ignore what motivates dangerous people.
    (4) The (less than 200 member) RIRA is an off shoot of an off shoot of an off shoot.
    And?????


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Mr.Blue wrote: »
    Oh right well.. maybe it's just me but I'd be much more fearful for my life living amongst armed to the teeth british soldiers

    I take it that you don't shop in Omagh, then ?


  • Options
    #193
    imme
    Registered Users Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    DoireNod wrote: »
    Well then, that being the case, you shouldn't care how the British and American governments or anyone else like that sees themselves. You should only see murderers who feel they have the right to kill in advancement of their aims. I don't see the harm in acquainting oneself with what motivates dangerous people. If anything, I think it's silly to actively ignore what motivates dangerous people.(1)

    (2) And?????
    (1) I'm being silly, ok. Well I can sleep at night knowing I don't have peoples' blood on my hands. Are you also in favour of people acquainting themeslves with what motivates serial killers, suicide-bombers in Pakistan.

    (2) I brought up the fact of the (less than 200 member) RIRA being an off shoot ........, because how many more times will it take for people to learn to turn away from murder,terror, fear. If the RIRA were to accept only peaceful means tomorrow, would there be a further off shoot away from them, to continue murdering people.


  • Options
    #194
    DoireNod
    Registered Users Posts: 863 ✭✭✭DoireNod


    imme wrote: »
    (1) I'm being silly, ok. Well I can sleep at night knowing I don't have peoples' blood on my hands. Are you also in favour of people acquainting themeslves with what motivates serial killers, suicide-bombers in Pakistan.
    I also sleep at night knowing I don't have people's blood on my hands. I sincerely hope you aren't accusing me of having people's blood on my hands. I see absolutely no problem with educating yourself on what motivates any kind of killer. People do it for a living and become professors and experts on the matter.
    (2) I brought up the fact of the (less than 200 member) RIRA being an off shoot ........, because how many more times will it take for people to learn to turn away from murder,terror, fear. If the RIRA were to accept only peaceful means tomorrow, would there be a further off shoot away from them, to continue murdering people.
    Possibly. Who knows?


  • Options
    #195
    imme
    Registered Users Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    DoireNod wrote: »
    I also sleep at night knowing I don't have people's blood on my hands. I sincerely hope you aren't accusing me of having people's blood on my hands. I see absolutely no problem with educating yourself on what motivates any kind of killer. People do it for a living and become professors and experts on the matter.


    Possibly. Who knows?
    eh no, no accusation was intended. I was merely stating my own case.

    That's true, but I've no intention of looking into the motivation of murderers today or tomorrow.


  • Options
    #196
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    mrtaylor1981 wrote: »
    How anyone could justify the RIRA after Omagh is beyond me.


    Even Gerry Adams & Martin McGuinness condemned this.

    P.O'Neil refused to comment.


  • Options
    #197
    Mr.Blue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 49 ✭Mr.Blue


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I take it that you don't shop in Omagh, then ?
    Was that supposed to be funny or something?

    I condemn what happened at Omagh, but the fault is not solely the RIRA's. Yes they positioned the bomb but it was not aimed at killing civilians. Had the information on the bomb warnings been passed on to the police correctly then there likely would have been no casualties that day.

    So would you equate Omagh to Bloody Sunday then? The accidental killing of innocent civilians to the deliberate shooting and killing of 14 innocent people by a so called 'army'? If so then I would find that quite disturbing.


  • Options
    #198
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Mr.Blue wrote: »
    Was that supposed to be funny or something?

    No. You said that you'd be more afraid of the British Soldiers than the RIRA. You wouldn't agree if you were in Omagh that day.
    Mr.Blue wrote: »
    I condemn what happened at Omagh....

    Glad to hear it
    Mr.Blue wrote: »
    , but the fault is not solely the RIRA's. Yes they positioned the bomb but it was not aimed at killing civilians. Had the information on the bomb warnings been passed on to the police correctly then there likely would have been no casualties that day.

    Please do not raise that pathetic old chestnut.

    If there was no bomb then there would have been no casualties. Undeniable FACT. Doing something horrendous and then blaming someone else for not reacting in time is a pathetic argument, and quite frankly completely undermines your "condemnation", as you are obviously "condemning" the authorities for not reacting rather than condemning those ultimately responsible.

    Here's a scenario for you; you put a child on the open window-ledge of a 5th floor window, and walk away, and then phone the parents at work to tell them. They don't get there in time.

    Who's to blame for the child's death ? Are you suggesting that the parents are ?
    Mr.Blue wrote: »
    So would you equate Omagh to Bloody Sunday then? The accidental killing of innocent civilians to the deliberate shooting and killing of 14 innocent people by a so called 'army'? If so then I would find that quite disturbing.

    About as disturbing as I'd find blaming authorities for Omagh; actually, I'd probably find the abdication and misplaced blame more disturbing, because if I thought you were capable of laying blame where it belongs, I'd discuss the above with you, no problem, but you obviously aren't.

    By all means, come back to me when you are, though, and then we'll discuss rationally who's to blame for Bloody Sunday as well as who's to blame for Omagh.


  • Options
    #199
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    Mr.Blue wrote: »

    I condemn what happened at Omagh, but the fault is not solely the RIRA's. Yes they positioned the bomb but it was not aimed at killing civilians.

    Saying "oooops, sorry - it wasn't meant to kill YOU", does little to change the fact that they killed who they killed. That's no excuse. You may as well blame the civilians for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.. yep, it was thier own bloody fault. Careless shoppers & tourists.

    Or maybe blame the Gardai...
    Mr.Blue wrote: »
    Had the information on the bomb warnings been passed on to the police correctly then there likely would have been no casualties that day.

    Ever reported anything to the Guards? "OK, so you're hiding in your wardrobe with 2 burglars in your house.. We'll be there in a jiffy".

    2 months later.. "So what did these guys look like.. JP - take a description".
    Mr.Blue wrote: »
    So would you equate Omagh to Bloody Sunday then? The accidental killing of innocent civilians to the deliberate shooting and killing of 14 innocent people by a so called 'army'? .

    Nope, blame the civilians. Blame the Guards. Don't blame the army. Whichever army it was, be it the British Army or the RIRA.

    I think it's called "collateral damage" in military terms.


  • Options
    #200
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    No RIRA is not the same as the leaders of 1916. For one the leaders of 1916 were highly educated and 2 organised military forces, 1 under Pearse and 1 (Irish Citizen Army) under Connolly. The RIRA is just a bunch of hooligans and though it is stated that they did not intend for the bomb to go off in that area of Omagh, what they did was sickening. 29 people and a 2 of unborn twins died that day, and others have had their lives destroyed in other ways as a result. The RIRA is not belonging to any organisation, and are condemned by Provo's and CIRA (then again, pot kettle and Black all spring to mind)

    I truly believe that the men of 1916 were national heros as they did not try to destroy a peace process, unlike the RIRA and they regreted the lost of all human life on all sides of the divide. And they remained valiant even when facing the executioners guns in Kilmainham.

    My son bears the names of Pearse and Connolly. I am so proud to have them as patriots of my country.


  • Options
    #201
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    wolfpawnat wrote: »

    My son bears the names of Pearse and Connolly. I am so proud to have them as patriots of my country.

    I sincerely hope that your surname is not Station. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    starbelgrade wrote: »
    I sincerely hope that your surname is not Station. ;)

    Thankfully no:D, his middle names are James Pearse, which could probably confuse people as they could assume he has a double barrelled name:)


  • Options
    #203
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    Thankfully no:D, his middle names are James Pearse, which could probably confuse people as they could assume he has a double barrelled name:)


    James Pearce Connolly? Hueston, we have a problem!!


  • Options
    #204
    mega man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 370 ✭✭mega man


    Imo the British finally defeated the IRA with Omagh.
    They anticipated a split in the Republican Movement and conspired with the Omagh bombing.
    The British Government has blood on its hands regarding Omagh.
    Saying that, one cannot take away the IRAs part in the bombing.

    The business of war is murder.
    To the people who support the murder of security forces and those same people who say the murder of civilians is wrong, you are the fools.
    When in war, if you support something your in it to the end.


  • Options
    #205
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    mega man wrote: »
    When in war, if you support something your in it to the end.

    Gerry Adams & Martin Mc Guinness agree with this statement. P.O'Neil declined to offer a statement. Everyone else who was involved in politics at the time is either dead, retired, or not involved in the whole process.

    Hmm.


  • Options
    #206
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    starbelgrade wrote: »
    James Pearce Connolly? Hueston, we have a problem!!

    Actually his name is Aidan James Pearse Cahill.

    And back to the point for a minute. I have no pity for thoose in any form of Army, be they British or otherwise that are killed by acts of war. No offence, but thats war and Ireland was an active warzone for quite a while. But the killing of innocent civilians really upsets me. In war all solidiers should know there is a chance of them being killed.


  • Options
    #207
    Shane-1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Shane-1


    The ideals of both the RIRA and the men of 1916 are similar, both want the establishment of a united 32 county independent Irish Republic and both are willing to use force to achieve this goal. Both also believe that fundamentally the use of force is justified in the name of the Republic. Both groups also were, and are, willing to operate in opposition to the wishes of public opinion. Both believe that the population has been misled in their apathy towards national aspirations, and both believe that the majority 'have no right to do wrong'. They would rather find their inspirations and justifications in both the past and in the future they would believe they can achieve.

    In these respects the two groups are remarkably similar. The difference would be in military tactics however it must be remembered that the men of 1916 based their tactics on the standard military tactics of the time, similarily the RIRA base their tactics on the standard insurrectionary tactics of today, so in that respect they are once again pretty similar.

    I do not support the actions of this group in the present climate, I feel that there is an opportunity for political progress towards a solution to the National Question at present and that the climate for armed action is not present. I feel that in the current climate armed action is not justifiable. But interestingly this is exactly what several Irish politicians would have been saying in the run up to 1916 - yet another similarity!!


  • Options
    #208
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    mega man wrote: »
    [The British] anticipated a split in the Republican Movement and conspired with the Omagh bombing.
    The British Government has blood on its hands regarding Omagh.

    Links to proof would be appreciated.
    mega man wrote: »
    To the people who support the murder of security forces and those same people who say the murder of civilians is wrong, you are the fools.
    When in war, if you support something your in it to the end.

    I almost thought for a second that you were calling me a fool, which would be pretty objectionable......but then when I thought about it, I realised that I don't "support" the murder of security forces; I can, however, see how someone could view them as a "legitimate target", as they knew what they were signing up to and agreed to do so. I'm not comfortable with that, but I can grudgingly "see where they're coming from".

    The bottom line is, however, that the murder of civilians is wrong, and saying "in it to the end" does not cut it.......murdering people is wrong.

    Of course, the irony is that if people are of that mindset, then they can't complain about the murder of civilians on Bloody Sunday, or being stopped and harrassed at checkpoints; these things happen in "war" too.

    And before I get flamed or misrepresented, personally I disagree with both actions, but that's because I'm consistent. And like I said, the day a sympathiser views them consistently (not screaming "collusion" and mouthing excuses for one while simultaneously demanding "justice and transparency" for the other) then I'll take them seriously and listen to what they have to say.


  • Options
    #209
    Shane-1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Shane-1


    With respect to the person above saying about P O Neill not making a comment about Omagh? I presume you mean that the Provisional IRA didnt make a comment? P O Neill was a code word using by the Provisional IRA, it wasnt ever a real person. In fact there was a P O Neills coal delivery company operating in the north at the start of the Provisional campaign, perhaps this is the origin of the codeword.


  • Options
    #210
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Shane-1 wrote: »
    In these respects the two groups are remarkably similar. The difference would be in military tactics however it must be remembered that the men of 1916 based their tactics on the standard military tactics of the time, similarily the RIRA base their tactics on the standard insurrectionary tactics of today, so in that respect they are once again pretty similar.
    This isn't completely accurate tbh, planning for the 1916 Rising were based mainly on Connolly's theories of street warfare which were a huge contrast to conventional warfare of the period. Whether RIRA and 1916 tactics are similar I can't say.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Of course, the irony is that if people are of that mindset, then they can't complain about the murder of civilians on Bloody Sunday, or being stopped and harrassed at checkpoints; these things happen in "war" too.

    And before I get flamed or misrepresented, personally I disagree with both actions, but that's because I'm consistent. And like I said, the day a sympathiser views them consistently (not screaming "collusion" and mouthing excuses for one while simultaneously demanding "justice and transparency" for the other) then I'll take them seriously and listen to what they have to say.

    I don't agree about Bloody Sunday. I think they have every right to complain about that. What I would say is I agree with you about not having a right to complain about checkpoints. I would also say they have no right to complain about SAS death squads taking out active service units.


Advertisement