Memorial for 1957 'Edentubber bombers'

funnyname

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0125/1224263036685.html

Memorial for 1957 'Edentubber bombers'


ENNISCORTHY TOWN Council has approved a proposal to erect a granite stone memorial, on a public site in the town, to honour the 1957 “Edentubber bombers” – two of whom were natives of Co Wexford.

Town clerk Pádraig O’Gorman said councillors had “unanimously” agreed to the request from an organisation called Coiste Cáirde na Laochra, Loch Garman, to erect a memorial “in remembrance of those who played their part in the struggle for Irish freedom”.

On the morning of Monday November 11th, 1957, five men died in an explosion in a cottage at Edentubber Mountain in Co Louth, 300 yards from the Carrickarnon Border post on the main Dundalk/Newry Road.

It is believed the men were en route to bomb a target in Northern Ireland as part of the so-called “Border Campaign”, staged by the IRA during the late 1950s and early 1960s, which involved guerrilla-style attacks launched from the Republic.

The Irish Times of November 12th, 1957 reported that the men “were setting off to take part in a raid in the Newry district to mark Armistice Day” and that “a civic guard radio patrol guard on border duty” heard the explosion.

Two of the men who died in the explosion were from Northern Ireland: Paul Smith (19) from Bessbrook, Co Armagh and Oliver Craven (19), from Newry, Co Down. Three were from the Republic: Michael Watters (54), a Co Louth forestry worker; Patrick Parle (27), a printer from Wexford town; and George Keegan (28), a baker and son of a councillor from Enniscorthy.

The Enniscorthy memorial is expected to be unveiled later this year.

oscarBravo

Hi - the charter states that you shouldn't just quote a news article verbatim without contributing an opinion, so please do so now - what prompted you to post this? How do you feel about it? Thanks.

gandalf

Apart from the fact that it is a monument supporting terrorists it is also celebrating ineptitude.

funnyname

Apologies

I find this a bit strange, this happened over 30 years after the end of the war of independence, it was an act of terrorism so they don't deserve a memorial for what they were trying to do. Not trying to be facetious but a postumus Darwin award would be more in order.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FTA69

I'd sooner a memorial for Irish people who were engaged in anti-imperialism than having to look at the ones dotted around the country for people who joined a foreign army in order to fight for imperialism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FTA69

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah, loads of old people and kids on RUC customs posts alright. :rolleyes:

I also think you'll find there were infinitely more civilians killed (probably a million odd) in successive British wars. There are memorials all over the country commemorating Irish people who participated in these particular wars, but funnily enough I don't see anyone cribbing over them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

Not only were they terrorist bombers but by the looks of things they weren't very good at it.

So if that's going to be celebrated, it doesn't say very much for Enniscorthy, terrorism, the border campaign or the 1950s. Just because we're in a recession doesn't mean we have to celebrate past idiotic failure.

Extra thumbs down from me obviously. I wouldn't be in favour of commemorating a successful bomb from these guys so obviously I couldn't support commemorating them given that they couldn't even get it right.

Someone reading this is probably spitting "west brit" at the screen. Nope. I have standards though.

T runner

sceptre wrote: »

Not only were they terrorist bombers but by the looks of things they weren't very good at it.

So if that's going to be celebrated, it doesn't say very much for Enniscorthy, terrorism, the border campaign or the 1950s. Just because we're in a recession doesn't mean we have to celebrate past idiotic failure.

Extra thumbs down from me obviously. I wouldn't be in favour of commemorating a successful bomb from these guys so obviously I couldn't support commemorating them given that they couldn't even get it right.

I would even go so far as to say that if they killed anyone bar themselves that council wouldnt have approved that monument.

It seems fairly clear that this campaign had no nationalist support in Northern Ireland: Civil rights issues being far more pertinent at the time (the eventual formation of that fine party the SDLP for this purpose)

I personally abhor war memorials of any kind. War shouldnt be celebrated as it usually represents mens failures rather than their successes.

The Wellington monument in the Phoenix Park is a particularly pertinant example. Amongst some of the Dukes military successes was the "pacification of British India". One wonders how many tens of thousands of innocent lives were lost on that greed driven quest in that faraway land.

As with most military monuments they actually celebrate many pointless and unnecessary deaths, and piss off people no end who may have suffered those deaths. They should have no place in a civilised country.

mike65

I suppose this is a good example of time making something more "acceptable", I doubt this would have got a hearing from anyone 20 years ago but now its okay to celebrate would be mass murderers. No doubt the deeds of the Provos will be whitewashed in the next half century.

Seth Brundle

The man who gave the oration at the funeral of these would-be murderers, John Joe McGirl, was given a posthumous monument in Ballinamore (Co. Leitrim)
Its a disgusting mark at a major tourist point within that town.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Joe_McGirl
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/34381


Lets not let it happen again!

Liam Byrne

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wonder did they telephone themselves a warning ? :rolleyes:

Karma is great, though!

FTA69

Again I'll reiterate my point, how come nobody here (with the exception of T Runner) finds the numerous memorials to the British Army dotted around the country reprehensible, especially considering the millions of civilian deaths that that entity is responsible for?

At the end of the day with some people here the whole "murder" bluster is simply insincere in the extreme. When it boils down to it, it's just Irish Republicanism which gets their goat more than anything.

The likes of John Joe McGirl and the Edentubber Martyrs are far more worthy of commemoration in this country than the likes of the Duke of Wellington or Irish people being slaughtered in the Somme.

joolsveer

FTA69 wrote: »

..........the likes of the Duke of Wellington or Irish people being slaughtered in the Somme.

Wasn't the Duke of Wellington an Irishman?

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

Again I'll reiterate my point, how come nobody here (with the exception of T Runner) finds the numerous memorials to the British Army dotted around the country reprehensible, especially considering the millions of civilian deaths that that entity is responsible for? .

I'll take your point - but when were those erected ?

Remember when the U.S. fawned over Saddam Hussein ? Remember then when his statue was dragged down.

Loads of countries have memorials of and from the past, many of which would be objectionable if they were done nowadays. "If we knew then....", and all that.

The issue is whether NEW memorials to these types of people - from both "sides" - should have been created, particularly with public money, or in a public place.

We have people objecting to religious events and statues in public, finding them offensive; and yet we erect statues to people whose followers like them but that others find offensive, and that's OK ?

And again, I'll point out that if someone did the equivalent for British terrorists, the "Republican movement" would be giving out stink and saying that it shouldn't happen.

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote: »

The likes of John Joe McGirl and the Edentubber Martyrs are far more worthy of commemoration in this country than the likes of the Duke of Wellington or Irish people being slaughtered in the Somme.

I'm not clear which you're suggesting: that we should consign the memory of Irish people who died at the Somme to the rubbish heap of history? That we should pretend no wars have ever happened, and hope that by pretending that, no wars will ever happen again?

Or that everyone who has ever made up an excuse for blowing up another person is automatically a war hero, and should be commemorated?

Or - worst of all - that the Irish people who died at the Somme should be forgotten, but that terrorists should be remembered?

Nodin

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'll take your point - but when were those erected ?


.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/08/15/story151351584.asp

BluePlanet

All this hot air over nothing.
Firstly, it is not established that it was an act of terrorism as the article doesn't specify the intended target.
If it were HMG's forces then they are a valid military target.
If it were civilians going about their business, then it would be terrorism.
If it were civilians assisting or even in the vicinity of HMG's forces than they too automatically loose their status as protected persons under international law.

You people are jumping the gun without the facts.

oscarBravo

BluePlanet wrote: »

All this hot air over nothing.
Firstly, it is not established that it was an act of terrorism as the article doesn't specify the intended target.
If it were HMG's forces then they are a valid military target.

A "valid military target" for terrorists is still an act of terrorism. Ireland was not at war with the UK in the 1950s.

You people are jumping the gun without the facts.

Are we talking about real-world facts, or the makey-uppy facts some Republicans use to justify acts of terrorism?

DublinWriter

FTA69 wrote: »

I also think you'll find there were infinitely more civilians killed (probably a million odd) in successive British wars. There are memorials all over the country commemorating Irish people who participated in these particular wars, but funnily enough I don't see anyone cribbing over them.

It's depressing how any discussion of Anglo-Irish history inevitably turns into a game of military-slaughter Top Trumps.

T runner

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not clear which you're suggesting: that we should consign the memory of Irish people who died at the Somme to the rubbish heap of history? That we should pretend no wars have ever happened, and hope that by pretending that, no wars will ever happen again?

Or that everyone who has ever made up an excuse for blowing up another person is automatically a war hero, and should be commemorated?

Or - worst of all - that the Irish people who died at the Somme should be forgotten, but that terrorists should be remembered?

I think terrorism is an emotive word and means different things to different people.

Infinitely more death and destruction were caused by the perpetrators of WW1 (European aristocracy?) than by the planners of the bomb in Edentubber.

You could argue that more death and terror were caused by the 300,000 Irish in WW1 than by the men who blew themselves up in Edentubber.

Do terrorists have to target civilians?
Someone claimed that the target of the Edentupper bombers was not civilian.

Is political legitimacy important?
The perpetrators of the Iraq were had no legal mandate and casualties of around .5 million dead civilans and many millions displaces have resulted. How much terror was and is caused by this invasion/occupation?
Does the fact that its perpetrators are recognised governments preclude them from being called terrorists.

Does where you come from geographically and politically depend on how you view terrorrism? I think it most definately does (not referring to you here, referring to national media etc.)

My opinion is that there should be no monuments to war of any kind. War shouldnt be forgotten: lessons of its futility need to be learned but it should not be celebrated. The graves of the needless dead are memorial enough.

On the other hand if someone is OK with a huge phallic monument in our State park to a man who was responsible for "pacifying British India" and all the death and terror to millions of people that this implies, then one can have no complaints about the Edentupper statue.

BluePlanet

oscarBravo wrote: »

A "valid military target" for terrorists is still an act of terrorism. Ireland was not at war with the UK in the 1950s.

From what i understand of the Border Campaign, the IRA targeted military installations - barracks, border posts, B-specials (hmg forces).
All valid targets, not terrorism i'm afraid.

Just because HMG declares one group "terrorists" means nothing as they similarly declared the revolutionaries in the American Colonies the same. (who also employed similar guerrilla tactics).
These are just labels one uses to de-humanise the enemy, it's propaganda.
One persons "terrorists" are "freedom fighters" to another, as the saying goes.

Enniscourthy is perfectly entitled to put up a statue for their "heroes".
If you want to get your knickers in a twist about it, be my guest. But remember, you're talking about something that occured 50 years ago.

T runner

oscarBravo wrote: »

A "valid military target" for terrorists is still an act of terrorism. Ireland was not at war with the UK in the 1950s.

Your definition of terrorism seems to be any military action carried out by an actor which is not a national government. Are people somehow immune to death and terror when it is perpetrated by governments?

oscarBravo

T runner wrote: »

I think terrorism is an emotive word and means different things to different people.

This is especially true when people try to blur the meaning of the word to the point where it's meaningless. There are two main groups responsible for this: terrorists (and their supporters) who wish to claim legitimacy for their acts of mass murder, and those governments who wish to undermine civil liberties by defining damn near everything as terrorism.

And then there's common sense, which says that a small group of disaffected people who decide to kill people to further the political aims for which they can't win popular support are terrorists.

You could argue that more death and terror were caused by the 300,000 Irish in WW1 than by the men who blew themselves up in Edentubber.

So in answer to my question: consign the Irish who fought in past wars to the dustbin of history. Gotcha.

Do terrorists have to target civilians?

...

Is political legitimacy important?

...

Does where you come from geographically and politically depend on how you view terrorrism?

...

That's the whole "blurring the definition of terrorism" thing I was talking about earlier.

My opinion is that there should be no monuments to war of any kind. War shouldnt be forgotten: lessons of its futility need to be learned but it should not be celebrated. The graves of the needless dead are memorial enough.

Should we destroy every monument in the country that celebrates anyone who has ever killed anyone else?

On the other hand if someone is OK with a huge phallic monument in our State park to a man who was responsible for "pacifying British India" and all the death and terror to millions of people that this implies, then one can have no complaints about the Edentupper statue.

Does that mean, reciprocally, that anyone who supports the Edentubber monument is also happy about the monument in Phoenix Park?

oscarBravo

BluePlanet wrote: »

From what i understand of the Border Campaign, the IRA targeted military installations - barracks, border posts, B-specials (hmg forces).
All valid targets, not terrorism i'm afraid.

So if I take a drive by my local Army barracks and lob a grenade over the wall, I'm not a terrorist? It's a military target, after all.

Enniscourthy is perfectly entitled to put up a statue for their "heroes".
If you want to get your knickers in a twist about it, be my guest. But remember, you're talking about something that occured 50 years ago.

What are your criteria for heroism? And how long ago does something have to have happened before it's automatically OK to put up a monument to it?

oscarBravo

T runner wrote: »

Your definition of terrorism seems to be any military action carried out by an actor which is not a national government. Are people somehow immune to death and terror when it is perpetrated by governments?

Your definition of terrorism seems to encompass everything from Hiroshima to a mugging.

BluePlanet

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if I take a drive by my local Army barracks and lob a grenade over the wall, I'm not a terrorist? It's a military target, after all.

Yeah, if you can contextualize it.
For example, if you are a generally recognized regular or even irregular armed force that is currently engaged in hositilties with an opposing party.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What are your criteria for heroism? And how long ago does something have to have happened before it's automatically OK to put up a monument to it?

It's not my statue, it's Enniscouthy's and i cannot answer for them.

oscarBravo

BluePlanet wrote: »

Yeah, if you can contextualize it.
For example, if you are a generally recognized regular or even irregular armed force that is currently engaged in hositilties with an opposing party.

So if one of the criminal gangs in Limerick blows up a house belonging to one of the other criminal gangs, that's not terrorism?

It's not my statue, it's Enniscouthy's and i cannot answer for them.

I didn't ask you to, I asked for your perspective on the issue.

BluePlanet

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if one of the criminal gangs in Limerick blows up a house belonging to one of the other criminal gangs, that's not terrorism? I didn't ask you to, I asked for your perspective on the issue.

Is a house a military target?
Stupid questions get stupid answers.