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

brianthebard

Shane-1 wrote: »

Your reply is all over the place, first you say that I dont have evidence of the plans, then when I direct you to it you still have a problem, saying that my earlier 'assumption' is wrong! I dont get what you are trying to say, you question where is the evidence, when you are shown it you still have a problem.

You didn't provide any evidence, you said that the plans existed, then you said you have to do detective work. Give me a link or a book title that explicitly lays down the rising plans and you'll have provided evidence.

The long and the short of it is that James Connolly had no direct involvement in the original plans for a Rising, he was not involved with the Volunteers neither, any of the history sources you mention yourself should clarify this for you. He was coopted at a later stage into the plans, unless of course you think the man was some class of absolute idiot that having being involved in the planning of a Rising then decided to write in many publications about it, thus letting the British know what was coming, wouldnt be the brightest move ever!

Lol! I never said he left the plans in the paper, I said he wrote his street fighting lectures and published them under the ICA notes, which were to form the basis of his planning. No he was not an idiot, but he did let the British know something was up-there was the defense of liberty hall from the DMP two weeks before the Rising, and the raising of the Irish flag a week beforehand. Connolly was very confident in the revolution and was not afraid to let the British know. You are the one who has assumed he ran around telling people the plans!

As for your compelling suggestions of Connollys intimate involvement with the Volunteers as far back as 1914 I would love to see your evidence for this..... And as for Connolly publishing all his plans for a Rising in publications prior to Easter week and all that, please have more respect for the man than to suggest that he would broadcast all the plans he and the Volunteers had prepared to all and sundry before any Rising had taken place! What type of an idiot do you believe him to have been?! He was coopted into the plans for a Rising which he had previously not known about because of what he was saying in his publications. He wouldnt have been so outright about plans for a potential rebellion if he had known that one was actually in planning, rather he would have been silent on the issue incase he might do damage to the preparations. Use some sense to think about this!

I gave you evidence! Its in every single biography of Connolly ever written, its common knowledge that he was in contact with the IRB from 1914 and would've known the main players in the Volunteers long before that. There was even a vote within the ICA where they voted on whether ICA members could be members of the IVF, like Markievicz was. O'Casey left the group as a result.
I have used sense, I've also used research-I've read every single article in the Workers' Republic from May 1915 to April 1916. I'm not trying to show off, I just want you to know that the evidence is there that he knew a rising had been planned for November 1915. Fair enough he was not involved in the planning of that one (which was called off anyways) but was involved in the January plans.

Also, its well known that Mallin suffered a break in confidence or some sort of traumatic stress disorder during the Rising, and Markievicz, who was bossy at the best of times, was very likely to have given orders along side him. Plans had been to occupy the Hotel across the green but without sufficient numbers this was not possible. They didn't pass the RCS without realising they could use it, they never intended to use it at the time of planning the Rising.

Shane-1

brianthebard wrote: »

You didn't provide any evidence, you said that the plans existed, then you said you have to do detective work. Give me a link or a book title that explicitly lays down the rising plans and you'll have provided evidence.


Lol! I never said he left the plans in the paper, I said he wrote his street fighting lectures and published them under the ICA notes, which were to form the basis of his planning. No he was not an idiot, but he did let the British know something was up-there was the defense of liberty hall from the DMP two weeks before the Rising, and the raising of the Irish flag a week beforehand. Connolly was very confident in the revolution and was not afraid to let the British know. You are the one who has assumed he ran around telling people the plans!





I gave you evidence! Its in every single biography of Connolly ever written, its common knowledge that he was in contact with the IRB from 1914 and would've known the main players in the Volunteers long before that. There was even a vote within the ICA where they voted on whether ICA members could be members of the IVF, like Markievicz was. O'Casey left the group as a result.
I have used sense, I've also used research-I've read every single article in the Workers' Republic from May 1915 to April 1916. I'm not trying to show off, I just want you to know that the evidence is there that he knew a rising had been planned for November 1915. Fair enough he was not involved in the planning of that one (which was called off anyways) but was involved in the January plans.

Also, its well known that Mallin suffered a break in confidence or some sort of traumatic stress disorder during the Rising, and Markievicz, who was bossy at the best of times, was very likely to have given orders along side him. Plans had been to occupy the Hotel across the green but without sufficient numbers this was not possible. They didn't pass the RCS without realising they could use it, they never intended to use it at the time of planning the Rising.

Ah God, for a start this is completely off topic, we are talking about the ideals of the men of 1916 and of the RIRA, we seem to have veered now onto the subject of the morals of the RIRA - which is someway connected to the original topic, this is'nt.

The long and the short of it is that Connolly was not in on the original planning of 1916, he was coopted because of his confidence in a rising, a rising that he did not actually know was in planning, and it was because of his outward gestures of rebellion such as the actions of the ICA in the lead up to Easter week that the other leaders felt they had to be brought on board. This is not to say that he had not been in contact with the leaders of the Volunteers prior to this, I am unsure of the full extent of this contact, I never asked him :-) This is all in just about any reputable history of 1916 that you will find! Indeed Wolfpawnat made an interesting comment that if you follow his diary entries in the run up to 1916 he doesnt mention anything of immentent action until just before the Rising, you can go view all of these in Kilmainham, I have seen them myself only I obviously didnt go through them with such microscopic detail Wolfpawnat!

Stephens Green was to be occupied, the strategic value of any of the surrounding buildings wasnt realised until the fighting had began, this is why those particular volunteers had to get into RCSI under heavy fire (and in comical circumstances if you read into it) Mallin remained in control of the battalion, famously reprimanding a young volunteer who ripped a painting of Queen Vicky from the wall, he was adament that the volunteers should be responsible for minimal damage to the RCSI building. Thats the long and the short of it, its all very well documented. Im going back to the proper debate here anyway, rant on brother!

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

I know you said you personally disagree with the actions, but the context of Bloody Sunday was not really one of 'war', so I don't think that it's ironical.

IMHO, the context of Omagh was "not really one of 'war' ", either, which explains why I can view them as completely equivalent; neither atrocity should have been committed.

brianthebard

Shane-1 wrote: »

The long and the short of it is that Connolly was not in on the original planning of 1916, he was coopted because of his confidence in a rising, a rising that he did not actually know was in planning, and it was because of his outward gestures of rebellion such as the actions of the ICA in the lead up to Easter week that the other leaders felt they had to be brought on board. This is not to say that he had not been in contact with the leaders of the Volunteers prior to this, I am unsure of the full extent of this contact, I never asked him :-)

This is untrue and I don't know how you could base his involvement from January onwards with ICA activity in April. It has been covered in several books by several authors that Connolly knew a rising was imminent, at the very least from November 1915 and was involved in the planning. This is irrefutable. You've already conceded that he was involved with the Volunteers after refusing to believe it earlier, just go the whole hog now, you were the one who said we must be honest about history. You also changed your position on who was the main architect of the Rising from Plunkett to Clarke and McDonagh.
And the reason I continue with this topic is because I don't think people are capable of talking about the ideals of the present day RIRA if they don't understand the basic facts of 1916.

getz

the RIRA are just another group of terrorist gangsters ,with no real agenda all they need to do is shout,for the cause get the british out, plant a few bombs and there will be some people in the republic keen to send them money,we have seen it all before with the INLA,who are now in confrontation with the IRA.they,INLA have been recruiting and has carried out at least 4 murders in the passed year,the INLA has been kidnapping and extorting protection money from drug dealers in the north and in dublin,republican sources said, the INLA damanded dealers pay them 40,000 euro or be assassinated,and the strange think is that these scum [INLA ]have been selling guns for drugs in manchester, birmingham, and london gangs.

FTA69

the RIRA are just another group of terrorist gangsters ,with no real agenda all they need to do is shout,for the cause get the british out, plant a few bombs and there will be some people in the republic keen to send them money,we have seen it all before with the INLA,who are now in confrontation with the IRA.they,INLA have been recruiting and has carried out at least 4 murders in the passed year,the INLA has been kidnapping and extorting protection money from drug dealers in the north and in dublin,republican sources said, the INLA damanded dealers pay them 40,000 euro or be assassinated,and the strange think is that these scum [INLA ]have been selling guns for drugs in manchester, birmingham, and london gangs.

That's balls. I'm no fan of any of the groups you've outlined there, but your above post is simply rooted in fantasy.

getz

FTA69 wrote: »

That's balls. I'm no fan of any of the groups you've outlined there, but your above post is simply rooted in fantasy.

its obvious to me you have not read your own national newspapers,ie the independent on sunday september 28th 2008,but maybe you know better,

getz

as for the INLA selling guns to the british gangs,that came from irish justice minister willie odea who said;that they are fuelling gun crime in the streets of britain by smuggling in weapons from the irish republic,and i believe him, because a lot of the guns in manchester have been traced back to ireland

Mr.Blue

Liam Byrne wrote: »

IMHO, the context of Omagh was "not really one of 'war' ", either, which explains why I can view them as completely equivalent; neither atrocity should have been committed.

Setting out with the sole intention to kill people and carefully picking off one after the other after they have surrendered or while they run for their lives is not equivalent to a situation where people/civilians who were not the intended targets lost their lives as a result of a careless paramilitary operation. It is not the same! And they cannot be compared morally..

furiousox

Mr.Blue wrote: »

Setting out with the sole intention to kill people and carefully picking off one after the other after they have surrendered or while they run for their lives is not equivalent to a situation where people/civilians who were not the intended targets lost their lives as a result of a careless paramilitary operation. It is not the same! And they cannot be compared morally..

Exactly, murder is murder

FTA69

its obvious to me you have not read your own national newspapers,ie the independent on sunday september 28th 2008,but maybe you know better,

The same Sunday Independent which told us the IRA lost $100m in the stock market crash? I've personal experience of the outright lies that come out of that publication, if you take anything said by the likes of Cusack or Corcoran as gospel then you'll believe anything. Similarly with the Sunday World, pure and utter b*llocks half of the time.

as for the INLA selling guns to the british gangs,that came from irish justice minister willie odea who said;that they are fuelling gun crime in the streets of britain by smuggling in weapons from the irish republic,and i believe him, because a lot of the guns in manchester have been traced back to ireland

Guns come in with weapons shipment, and most of the stuff in the hands of sophisticated British criminals is actually of a better standard to a lot of gear the Irps have. I have no doubt that elements in the INLA have been involved in criminality, but they aren't importers or wholesalers of drugs and weapons. Nor are they known to be really.

Shane-1

brianthebard wrote: »

This is untrue and I don't know how you could base his involvement from January onwards with ICA activity in April. It has been covered in several books by several authors that Connolly knew a rising was imminent, at the very least from November 1915 and was involved in the planning. This is irrefutable. You've already conceded that he was involved with the Volunteers after refusing to believe it earlier, just go the whole hog now, you were the one who said we must be honest about history. You also changed your position on who was the main architect of the Rising from Plunkett to Clarke and McDonagh.
And the reason I continue with this topic is because I don't think people are capable of talking about the ideals of the present day RIRA if they don't understand the basic facts of 1916.

I havent concluded that he was 'involved' with the Volunteers after refusing to believe it, I said that it was a possibility and I asked you to prove it. I have never changed my position on who was the real architect of the rising, you need to pay closer attention to posts. Clarke and McDonagh were the initial architects of the Rising, the plans were also put together based on study Plunkett had done on urban warfare. Thats been my line from the start, interestingly it is the line most commonly taken by historians on the subject - interesting....

Connolly wished for a Rising from 1915 onwards, he didnt think it was 'immenent', no one did. He spoke of the need for one and explored the possibilities of it in his writings. These writings suggested that a successful rising was possible, this alerted the attention of the men planning for the 1916 Rising who felt that writings such as these could alert the authorities to the possibility/ likelyhood of such a rising. This is why Connolly was then approached. Interestingly you mention that Connollys tactics were based on taking Dublin city centre and fighting out from the centre, sure this should prove to you that he wasnt the architect of the plans because not only did this not happen but it was not even attempted. The rebels occupied several buildings in a rough circle around the city centre and main HQ at the GPO, they intended to hold these buildings, not to move out from them!

James Connolly was not involved in the initial planning of the Rising, this is plain and simple and I believe that if you even wish to ignore the vast bulk of historical writing on the subject you may still see sense from simply sitting down and thinking logically about this - Possibly the major concern in the minds of the leaders of 1916 was that many previous attempts at rebellion in Ireland were brought down from the inside by the infiltration of British intelligence. The leaders wished for this Rising to be a complete surprise to the British, this was perhaps its only decent chance of success. To this end they attempted to ensure that no one outside their immediate circle of conspirators would know of any plans for a Rising, this they done very successfully. Indeed even the nominal leader of the Volunteers Eoin MacNeill had no idea what was planned until literally the last minute. Taking this into account you now wish to tell me and the others on this forum that one of the main leaders and architects of this plan was aware of the plans of 1915 - unlikely, and that then after planning the actions of 1916 he began to publish all these writings about what he had planned - just incase the British wouldnt know, and that his comrades would allow him to go and broadcast what was a pretty jealously guarded secret to all and sundry. It simply didnt happen, thats how simple this is, it didnt happen the way that you are saying. Your version is madness.

Liam Byrne

Mr.Blue wrote: »

Setting out with the sole intention to kill people and carefully picking off one after the other after they have surrendered or while they run for their lives is not equivalent to a situation where people/civilians who were not the intended targets lost their lives as a result of a careless paramilitary operation. It is not the same! And they cannot be compared morally..

They didn't "lose their lives"; their lives were taken from them; by a bomb. :mad: Please lose the biased passiveness if you wish to discuss this fairly and objectively.

And BTW, who says "not the intended targets" ? Whose word do we have to blindly take in order to stretch to that level of credibility ? The bombers and murderers ? Sorry, their word is worth SFA to me.

"Setting out with the sole intention to kill people"; sounds like an accurate description of driving a bomb into a city centre to me.

I've said it before; if you drive a live bomb into a city then you are directly responsible for the deaths that it causes.

So yes, they can be compared morally; semantics and subtleties do not come into it when there's a deliberate premeditated act involved, and there was; in both cases.

Mr.Blue

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Please lose the biased passiveness if you wish to discuss this fairly and objectively.

Funny I could say the same for you..

And where's the bias in my comments? All I want is for you to accept that deliberately taking aim and shooting someone to death is different to accidentally killing someone. That's what the two sides of these two events are akin to.

Yet you seems to be incapable of acknowledging the clear difference between the two..

Shane-1

brianthebard wrote: »

This is untrue and I don't know how you could base his involvement from January onwards with ICA activity in April. It has been covered in several books by several authors that Connolly knew a rising was imminent, at the very least from November 1915 and was involved in the planning. This is irrefutable. You've already conceded that he was involved with the Volunteers after refusing to believe it earlier, just go the whole hog now, you were the one who said we must be honest about history. You also changed your position on who was the main architect of the Rising from Plunkett to Clarke and McDonagh.
And the reason I continue with this topic is because I don't think people are capable of talking about the ideals of the present day RIRA if they don't understand the basic facts of 1916.

James Connolly joined IRB Military Council January 1916 - FACT

Plans laid for Rising in Dublin with at least a year at this stage - FACT

Connolly may have helped fine tune the plans but the basic plan of action was already laid down by the time Connolly came on board - FACT

Connolly advocated the occupation of buildings in Dublin city based on his idea that capitalist property would not be shelled, however the plan for occupying and fortifying buildings in central Dublin was already laid down - FACT

Connollys ideas on street fighting may have been taken into account in the fine tuning of plans but the general plan of action, that which was carried out, was already in place - FACT

James Connolly was unaware of a planned Rising for 1915 and thus could not have commented on its postponment in 1915 - FACT

James Connolly was unaware that a Rising was planned to go ahead in 1916, his writings around the period in question which advocated a rebellion were not based on any plans which he knew were in existance, or which he helped plan himself - FACT

James Connolly, while later serving a massive role in the actions of Easter week, was nonetheless coopted into the plans at a late stage due to fears that he might alert the British authorities to the possibility of an Irish rebellion of some sort - FACT

All of this is supported by just about every reputable, academic publication on the Easter Rising and is thus pretty much beyond doubt - absolute FACT

Sorry to everyone else on this thread for continually derailing the debate - FACT!!

furiousox

Mr.Blue wrote: »

Funny I could say the same for you..

And where's the bias in my comments? All I want is for you to accept that deliberately taking aim and shooting someone to death is different to accidentally killing someone. That's what the two sides of these two events are akin to.

Yet you seems to be incapable of acknowledging the clear difference between the two..

You seem to be incapable of acknowledging that the victims in Omagh were murdered

Liam Byrne

Mr.Blue wrote: »

Funny I could say the same for you.

You could, but you'd be wrong. Unless you'd care to back up that opinion with a quote that shows where you reckon I'm guilty of same ?

Mr.Blue wrote: »

And where's the bias in my comments? All I want is for you to accept that deliberately taking aim and shooting someone to death is different to accidentally killing someone.

Where did I suggest that it wasn't ? :rolleyes: I'll admit that for you no problem : Killing someone accidentally is completely different to killing someone on purpose.

Mr.Blue wrote: »

That's what the two sides of these two events are akin to.

There was nothing accidental in either, so there's no "two sides" or "akin".

Mr.Blue wrote: »

Yet you seems to be incapable of acknowledging the clear difference between the two..

Wrong again. But you're equating "accidental" with Omagh, and "deliberate" with Bloody Sunday. I wonder why ?

You see, that's where your bias shows; and it's the reason why the points that you made above are irrelevant and incorrect. Driving a live car bomb into a city has no association with the word "accidental".

Mr.Blue

They were killed by accident. There was no intent to kill civilians and the bomb warnings make that a fact.

It's understandable however that you staunch 'anti-terrorism' ranters would be incapable of accepting that though. So I see no sense in continuing this discussion..

furiousox

Mr.Blue wrote: »

They were killed by accident. There was no intent to kill civilians and the bomb warnings make that a fact.

It's understandable however that you staunch 'anti-terrorism' ranters would be incapable of accepting that though. So I see no sense in continuing this discussion..

Unbelievable.......
What purpose does a car bomb in a city centre have then?
You don't even appear to have any sympathy for the people that died you're so busy standing up for the terrorists
Sorry am l "ranting" again?

Liam Byrne

Mr.Blue wrote: »

They were killed by accident. There was no intent to kill civilians and the bomb warnings make that a fact.

No, they make it an opinion of yours.

Of course (as I said earlier) if you do give one "side" the benefit of the doubt, then any reasonable and unbiased view would then say that shooting into a crowd might possibly be an effort to disperse them, rather than "deliberate intent to kill anyone".

I don't believe either WAS an accident, so therefore I am 100% consistent. I wasn't there for either, so I can't say for definite, but at least I'm prepared to say that performing an act that directly leads to the murder of innocent people is wrong. No caveats. No agenda. No bias.

Mr.Blue wrote: »

It's understandable however that you staunch 'anti-terrorism' ranters would be incapable of accepting that though.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a "ranter" ? I haven't ranted ONCE in this thread; and I also notice that you didn't reply to your earlier accusation of "biased passiveness" that you said you "could say that about me", either. As a reminder, the reason I said that was because you said "people lost their lives", rather than admit that they were murdered, or at least killed.

Mr.Blue wrote: »

So I see no sense in continuing this discussion..

I don't either, TBH, because if you cannot give one side the same "benefit of the doubt" that you so readily afford the other side, then sorry - you're obviously too biased to have a proper discussion.

BTW, "anti-terrorism" is a fairly OK stance to have, so thanks for the compliment; just to clarify, though (and my posts bear this out) I'm more anti-murder than anti-terrorist, because I've also said that I don't agree with / believe some of what the British Army did either.

bonkey

Enough with making it personal, folks

Shane-1

I personally dont believe that the RIRA set out to deliberately kill innocent people on that day, it was never the intent of the IRA, in any of its guises, to kill the innocent. I believe that those who lost their lives at Omagh were victims of the inexperience of the RIRA at the time and their eagerness to pull off a 'spectacular' as soon as possible. I do not kow what the decision making process was for that day but as soon as the operatives found that they could not place the bomb where it was intended the operation should have been called off. The consequences of Omagh have not had any benifit whatsoever for the RIRA or the cause for which they fight. It was an absolute disaster.

Liam Byrne

Shane-1 wrote: »

I personally dont believe that the RIRA set out to deliberately kill innocent people on that day, it was never the intent of the IRA, in any of its guises, to kill the innocent.

And therein lies my biggest issue with the IRA, in all its guises.

If I never intended to kill someone and then did so accidentally at some stage, then you can be damn sure I'd take steps to make sure it definitely never happened again.

So - against my better judgement and personal ethics - I could give them the benefit of one or two.

But EVERY time someone was killed, they blamed someone else, while simultaneously screaming than any deaths caused by the British were deliberate. That is what galls me most about them and their sympathisers; they want the benefit of the doubt, but refuse point-blank to give it.

At best, they showed a blatant disregard for human lives of innocent people. Abandoning a live bomb and leaving it in a city centre for someone else do deal with is AT LEAST that, and on that level I believe CANNOT be disputed.

And that is why I want no part of THEIR view of a United Ireland.

brianthebard

Shane-1 wrote: »

Plans laid for Rising in Dublin with at least a year at this stage - FACT

Connolly may have helped fine tune the plans but the basic plan of action was already laid down by the time Connolly came on board - FACT

Wrong.

Connolly advocated the occupation of buildings in Dublin city based on his idea that capitalist property would not be shelled, however the plan for occupying and fortifying buildings in central Dublin was already laid down - FACT

Factually incorrect. Comments on bombing of capitalist property were made after January 1916.

Connollys ideas on street fighting may have been taken into account in the fine tuning of plans but the general plan of action, that which was carried out, was already in place - FACT

Wrong. (edit) if this was the case, why did the IRB MC plan to leave from Liberty Hall? A strange plan for them to make before they even brought him on board.

James Connolly was unaware of a planned Rising for 1915 and thus could not have commented on its postponment in 1915 - FACT

Wrong. See Worker's Republic, November/December 1915.

James Connolly was unaware that a Rising was planned to go ahead in 1916, his writings around the period in question which advocated a rebellion were not based on any plans which he knew were in existance, or which he helped plan himself - FACT

James Connolly, while later serving a massive role in the actions of Easter week, was nonetheless coopted into the plans at a late stage due to fears that he might alert the British authorities to the possibility of an Irish rebellion of some sort - FACT

Factually incorrect.

All of this is supported by just about every reputable, academic publication on the Easter Rising and is thus pretty much beyond doubt - absolute FACT

Wrong. See Donal Nevin, Desmond Greaves, Berresford Ellis and others.

In addition, its clear that you know nothing about his street fighting articles, the majority of which appeared before 1916, as did his lectures on the same to the Volunteers. Additionally, you've given no reason why he would be made Commandant of the Dublin Brigade above the people you claim to be the main planners.

getz

FTA69 wrote: »

The same Sunday Independent which told us the IRA lost $100m in the stock market crash? I've personal experience of the outright lies that come out of that publication, if you take anything said by the likes of Cusack or Corcoran as gospel then you'll believe anything. Similarly with the Sunday World, pure and utter b*llocks half of the time.




Guns come in with weapons shipment, and most of the stuff in the hands of sophisticated British criminals is actually of a better standard to a lot of gear the Irps have. I have no doubt that elements in the INLA have been involved in criminality, but they aren't importers or wholesalers of drugs and weapons. Nor are they known to be really.

i just moved house from manchester two years ago, and i can assure you the manchester gangs are made up mostly from the ages of 14 to the mid 20s they are not SOPHISTICATED most have no jobs or education,selling drugs is their main income,they carry and use guns,because so do the other street gangs,because guns are easy to get from northern island,and at this moment with some of the irish groups getting rid of them,there is a lot about.last year a manchester evening news reporter went under cover and joined one of the street gangs,and was present at the exchange of guns for drugs deal,it was he who pointed the finger at the INLA. i have also worked in the security services in manchester for 12 years and from my own experiences i believe him,there has been a lot of money coming into manchester from both the loyalist and republican gangs since the peace process,as you may know a number of houses have been found to have been bought by leading IRA members, and estate agents convicted of passing and taking dirty money,no i dont think fighting for the cause is true now,unless the cause is to destabilize any peace process,and that is not good for either northern irish or the irish republic .

Shane-1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And therein lies my biggest issue with the IRA, in all its guises.

If I never intended to kill someone and then did so accidentally at some stage, then you can be damn sure I'd take steps to make sure it definitely never happened again.

So - against my better judgement and personal ethics - I could give them the benefit of one or two.

But EVERY time someone was killed, they blamed someone else, while simultaneously screaming than any deaths caused by the British were deliberate. That is what galls me most about them and their sympathisers; they want the benefit of the doubt, but refuse point-blank to give it.

At best, they showed a blatant disregard for human lives of innocent people. Abandoning a live bomb and leaving it in a city centre for someone else do deal with is AT LEAST that, and on that level I believe CANNOT be disputed.

And that is why I want no part of THEIR view of a United Ireland.

I would like to add to this, I agree completely and wholeheartedly with you.

Just perhaps to justify my own leanings I would like to add it to the argument that senior figures in Sinn Fein (namely Gerry Adams, for example) had been appealing in print and in speech for many years for the Provisional IRA to keep an eye on civilian casualties, to reduce and ideally eradicate injury to innocents. The Derry brigade of the Provos also demonstrated at one stage, reputadly with Martin McGuinness as OC, how perhaps the war should have been fought throughout. Their commercial bombing campaign in the city managed for several years to inflict huge damage with minimal civilian injury.

Another point which I wish to note to differentiate previous Republican movements with the callousness of the RIRA is that through the 80's and 90's, as civilian casualties rose as a result of IRA actions, figures such as Gerry Adams turned more and more towards the wish for an all inclusive peace process. Adams himself has stated on numerous occasions that the Warrington bombing, in which numerous civilians were killed, was a turning point for him and others within the Republican movement.

This is also why I believe that Adams and McGuinness were entitled to voice condemnation of the RIRA's actions in Omagh, where even if they didnt intend to inflict injury on innocent civilians, they certainly must have known that by their actions they were placing large numbers of innocents at risk.

Another point of note perhaps is that the Provos were fighting a war for the recognition of a voice for the nationalist population of the north, Martin Ferris has stated that the Provisional war was not always about forcing the British out but rather was often more directed to forcing them to the table to at least give catholics equal standing in the state. When this situation was brought about by all party talks the Provisionals soon laid down their arms and followed the path of peace, with one notable break - the bombing of Canary Wharf in London, which occured after the British and Unionists attempted to exclude Sinn Fein from talks towards a settlement, thus attempting to deny a whole community their political voice.

starbelgrade

Mr.Blue wrote: »

They were killed by accident. There was no intent to kill civilians and the bomb warnings make that a fact.

Isn't that what the U.S. military call "collateral damage"? Bomb drops on hospital, killing hundreds.. "collateral damage", bomb drops on school, killing children.. "collateral damage".

Just a fancy way of saying, "oops", really.

And I'm sure the families of those who are killed say, "Ah, sure don't worry about it - mistakes are made, sure you didn't MEAN to kill my son, you didn't INTEND to blow up my daughter, you didn't THINK that planting a bomb in the middle of a town would actually maim my wife, sure it's grand, sh*t happens".





Sure look.. I went to the pub the other night, got rightly tanked up. Properly p*ssed. I knew that I was gonna do so... but I rang the local Garda station before I left. I warned them that at about 3am, I'd be getting into my car & driving home. If they wanted to prevent me, they had very opportunity.

As it turned out, I drove home.. locked. Hit a pedestrian. Killed him stone dead. Not my fault though. I warned the Guards. Not my fault.

Haggishunter

As an outsider I hope you dont mind a comment from me, I do appologise if you do.
I m sure that there will be a united Ireland.
Times have changed and Europe and Ireland have changed.
Looking from the outside of Ireland I think that a united Ireland will come about via the better Irish economy (which will return) and higher Irish living standards, and other peaceful methods. Violance should be a thing of the past.

Scotland is in the proccess of regaining her Independence after 300 years of british bullying, murder and theft, we also had a history of violance against england, but having been in the nationalist movement for 25 years I know that there are far easier ways.
http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.org/

Mr.Blue

starbelgrade wrote: »

Isn't that what the U.S. military call "collateral damage"? Bomb drops on hospital, killing hundreds.. "collateral damage", bomb drops on school, killing children.. "collateral damage".

Just a fancy way of saying, "oops", really.

And I'm sure the families of those who are killed say, "Ah, sure don't worry about it - mistakes are made, sure you didn't MEAN to kill my son, you didn't INTEND to blow up my daughter, you didn't THINK that planting a bomb in the middle of a town would actually maim my wife, sure it's grand, sh*t happens".





Sure look.. I went to the pub the other night, got rightly tanked up. Properly p*ssed. I knew that I was gonna do so... but I rang the local Garda station before I left. I warned them that at about 3am, I'd be getting into my car & driving home. If they wanted to prevent me, they had very opportunity.

As it turned out, I drove home.. locked. Hit a pedestrian. Killed him stone dead. Not my fault though. I warned the Guards. Not my fault.

Hmm.. I fail to see the relevence in that post.

I said in that comment that the people who died in Omagh were killed by accident. I didn't say it wasn't the RIRA's fault. And that's something nobody seems to be willing to accept wether that be due to their blind hatred for republicans in general or some other reason.. it's just beyond me that people can't accept the facts.

LordSutch

Haggishunter wrote: »

Scotland is in the proccess of regaining her Independence after 300 years of british bullying, murder and theft, we also had a history of violance against england

Och aye the nou, noo jist haud on, ye canna be serious laddie! forget ye not we're al' Jock Tamson's bairns!

Lang may yer lum reek