Memorial for 1957 'Edentubber bombers'

P. Breathnach

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?

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.

John Hume has been given the credit for inventing the term "whataboutery", which is a method of switching an argument about one perceived wrong into an argument about a different perceived wrong.

This line of discussion is a classic illustration of that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

John Hume has been given the credit for inventing the term "whataboutery", which is a method of switching an argument about one perceived wrong into an argument about a different perceived wrong.

This line of discussion is a classic illustration of that.

Very true.

On that note, I'll wrap up my contribution to this thread by saying that if Westport town council ever try something like this, I'll be at the forefront of a campaign to try to ensure that every councillor involved loses their seat at the next election.

FTA69

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?

Not really, I am suggesting though that people stop employing British Army insignia like the poppy (which commemorates and supports all past and current imperialist adentures) and that every year people would refrain from portraying WW1 as some sort of noble enterprise when in essence it was wholesale, needless slaughter in a war fought over empires and imperial alliances.

P Bhreathnach,

John Hume has been given the credit for inventing the term "whataboutery", which is a method of switching an argument about one perceived wrong into an argument about a different perceived wrong.

This line of discussion is a classic illustration of that.

Conversely, it could be argued that "whataboutery" is often a shield employed by people, that the word is thrown up whenever someone highlights an inconsistency in their argument. Me raising the question of British Army memorials in Ireland isn't a case of "switching arguments"; it's pointing out the hypocrisy of those who say the notion of commemorating IRA Volunteers is repugnant while they evidently have no problems with memorials concerning other "murderers of civilians".

Because as I said, it has f*ck all to do with moralising over civilians deaths, if it was OB would be at "the forefront of a campaign" to remove the plethora of British Army memorials in Ireland.

djpbarry

T runner wrote: »

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.

Hypothetical situation: the Wellington monument does not exist. Plans are drawn up to erect the largest obelisk in Europe to commemorate The Duke – do you really think nobody would speak out against such a proposal?

djpbarry

BluePlanet wrote: »

Just because HMG declares one group "terrorists" means nothing as they similarly declared the revolutionaries in the American Colonies the same.

The IRA were also labelled ‘terrorists’ by the Irish government – where American revolutionaries similarly labelled by the American government at the time?

BluePlanet wrote: »

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.

Jaysus, don’t get me started. Both my parents were born over 50 years ago, yet they still insist on celebrating the respective occasions on an annual basis. Ludicrous behaviour!

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.

I am generally recognised (within my home) as an irregular armed force, currently engaged in hostilities with the Irish state. In that context, I presume an attack on Collins Barracks (a military installation) would not be regarded as an act of terrorism?

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

Me raising the question of British Army memorials in Ireland isn't a case of "switching arguments"; it's pointing out the hypocrisy of those who say the notion of commemorating IRA Volunteers is repugnant while they evidently have no problems with memorials concerning other "murderers of civilians".

You might point out the posters who have supported the erection of monuments celebrating the “murder of civilians” by any party? It may add weight to your claim of hypocrisy.

who the fug

Sure why not have another monument to a **** up, we be great at that.

FTA69

djpbarry wrote: »

Hypothetical situation: the Wellington monument does not exist. Plans are drawn up to erect the largest obelisk in Europe to commemorate The Duke – do you really think nobody would speak out against such a proposal?

You wouldn't know with this country, no doubt you'd have a few characters on the airwaves blabbing on about "our duty to remember those Irish people who fought in the British Army for freedom" and all that b*llocks.

As far as I'm aware it was only a few years back that €100,000 was spent on renovating a fountain for Queen Victoria, similarly I believe a statue to Walter Raleigh was erected.

FTA69

djpbarry wrote: »

You might point out the posters who have supported the erection of monuments celebrating the “murder of civilians” by any party? It may add weight to your claim of hypocrisy.

I said it was doubtful that many people here giving out about IRA memorials would have no bother with certain British Army memorials.

BluePlanet

So Michael Collins was a terrorist?
How do you feel that you live in a state created by terrorists and out of terrorism?

BluePlanet

djpbarry wrote: »

I am generally recognised (within my home) as an irregular armed force, currently engaged in hostilities with the Irish state. In that context, I presume an attack on Collins Barracks (a military installation) would not be regarded as an act of terrorism?

I promise that i would certainly not consider your action "terrorsim", as it is indeed a valid military target. It is NOT an attack directed against non-combatants, civilians, civilian installations and other protected persons under international law.

mickos

I read the article in last weeks Enniscorthy Echo and while I wasn't surprised at the proposal being made, as the local sinn Fein Cumann is named after Keegan and Parle, I was surprised at councillors from other parties supporting it. AFAIK Sinn Fein have by no means a majority on the local council, so its a quandary as to why FF and FG felt the need to support it.

Exile 1798

It’s not so complicated really.

The occupation of Six Irish Counties by Britain created a number of conflicts during the 20th century.

The supporters, comrades and family members of those Volunteers killed in these conflicts will build memorials to pay tribute to them.

Exile 1798

mickos wrote: »

I read the article in last weeks Enniscorthy Echo and while I wasn't surprised at the proposal being made, as the local sinn Fein Cumann is named after Keegan and Parle, I was surprised at councillors from other parties supporting it. AFAIK Sinn Fein have by no means a majority on the local council, so its a quandary as to why FF and FG felt the need to support it.

Well no objections to the proposal where put forth by any councilors therefore it was accepted, without the need for a formal vote.

Perhaps FF and FG members thought better to take a neutral position, rather then a hypocritical one.

Liam Byrne

BluePlanet wrote: »

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.

Link to proof, because this sounds very wrong to me considering that "HMG's forces" would include the forces of law and order.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

I said it was doubtful that many people here giving out about IRA memorials would have no bother with certain British Army memorials.

Conversely, I would reckon that it's extremely doubtful that certain people here who agree with this monument to terrorists would have no bother with certain British Army memorials.

Those of us who are neutral and do not support terrorism of any kind would view both as objectionable.

FTA69

Exile 1798 wrote: »

It’s not so complicated really.

The occupation of Six Irish Counties by Britain created a number of conflicts during the 20th century.

The supporters, comrades and family members of those Volunteers killed in these conflicts will build memorials to pay tribute to them.

Sickening isn't it? :rolleyes:

Interestingly enough a Fianna Fáil councillor in Sligo will be giving the oration at a commemoration for Volunteer Kein Coen who was killed by the SAS in Fermanagh in the 1980s.

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

I said it was doubtful that many people here giving out about IRA memorials would have no bother with certain British Army memorials.

That’s a pretty big assumption you’re making there. But seeing as we’re on the subject, do you propose that we demolish every single construction in the country that was built in the name of imperialism? Because I doubt there’ll be much left by the time you’re done.

djpbarry

BluePlanet wrote: »

So Michael Collins was a terrorist?

Sure was.

BluePlanet wrote: »

How do you feel that you live in a state created by terrorists and out of terrorism?

Not great, to be honest, but let’s not drag the discussion down that route.

BluePlanet wrote: »

I promise that i would certainly not consider your action "terrorsim", as it is indeed a valid military target. It is NOT an attack directed against non-combatants, civilians, civilian installations and other protected persons under international law.

Actually, I think it’s extremely likely that civilians would be caught up in the attack.

BluePlanet

Originally Posted by BluePlanet
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.

Originally Posted by Liam Byrne
Link to proof, because this sounds very wrong to me considering that "HMG's forces" would include the forces of law and order.

It's from the Law Of Armed Conflict.

"Although civilians may not be made the object of a direct attack, the LOAC recognizes that a military target need not be spared because its destruction may cause collateral damage that results in the unintended death or injury to civilians or damage to their property. Commanders and their planners must take into consideration the extent of unintended indirect civilian destruction and probable casualties that will result from a direct attack on a military objective and, to the extent consistent with military necessity, seek to avoid or minimize civilian casualties and destruction."

Don't you remember the US rationalising the deaths of Iraqis during the "no-fly zone"? They would claim (but never provide proof) that Saddam was putting air defenses in civilian areas. Who was that UN Humanitarian someting fella, got his papers handed to him when he went to investigate Iraq's claims of civilian deaths...

Liam Byrne

BluePlanet wrote: »

It's from the Law Of Armed Conflict.

That only applies during a war, not a terrorist campaign.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No.
Id support changing its name and what it represents though.
Its an example of Roman styled Arch. L'Arch Romaine?

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.

Any military action that has popular support is not terrorism?
The machine gunning to death of 400 Indian civilians and injuring of 1500 by British forces during a peaceful protest in India is not terrorism presumably?

So according to you its OK to murder civilians if you have popular support? This is not terrorism?

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

I dont support having any war memorials because it glorifies violence and is divisive. I dont know how you can extrapolate the above from this.
We need to learn that war is pointless and destructive. Erecting war memorials does not achieve this does it?

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

Who said anything about destroying? Nelsons pillar shouldnt have been destroyed for example. His statue could have been replaced and thus the meaning of the monument changed.

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

I dont know if theyd be happy but they couldnt have much ground for complaint. The Wellington monument celebrates someone who was responsible for the deaths of many, many people: soldiers and innocents.
The Edentupper monument celebrates people who were trying to kill others.

Better to have neither monument than both in my opinion. Nobody would be offended, nobody would miss them.

A Dub in Glasgo

Ahhh, the stench of hypocrisy is still alive and well

Seth Brundle

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.
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.

In other words your are condoning their actions.
As for civilians in the vicinity of HMGs forces losing their right to life under international law, what specific law would this be?

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.

Lets call a spade a spade - the IRA were terrorists as was every other group in NI who decided to point a gun at another person and I would include elements within the British army and police in that!
The IRA represented nobody but themselves. They certainly did not represent either the Republic of Ireland.
As for valid targets: how many of the murders listed in the following link can be justified as valid targets?
http://victims.org.uk/s08zhk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=136&Itemid=78

BluePlanet wrote: »

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.

I'd be curious to know if any public money is being invested in this project (in any way) and were other proposals made / is there other interest in a different memorial.


I don't see a point in pulling down existing monuments from the past whoch are a link to previous battles. By keeping them does not mean that we haven't moved on form the view of that time. However, I don't see any point in sticking up a rock for people who were ready in all likelihood to kill someone else, possibly a civilian!

Exile 1798

kbannon wrote: »

As for valid targets: how many of the murders listed in the following link can be justified as valid targets?
http://victims.org.uk/s08zhk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=136&Itemid=78

Approximately 90%

Exile 1798

kbannon wrote: »

I'd be curious to know if any public money is being invested in this project (in any way) and were other proposals made / is there other interest in a different memorial.

None, on the face of it. Council have merely permission for the memorial to be build by others.

Liam Byrne

kbannon wrote: »

As for valid targets: how many of the murders listed in the following link can be justified as valid targets?
http://victims.org.uk/s08zhk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=136&Itemid=78

I wouldn't even go there, kbannon; the definition of a "valid target", and the resulting outcry, varies on the basis of which "side" whoever replies is on.

What I'd like to see is a comprehensive list of EVERYONE that was murdered, with no details of their background, so that those involved would actually have to think based on facts, rather than sides.

gandalf

Putting aside all this crap about "valid targets" etc it still doesn't take away from the fact that a monument is being erected to failure. Are the chuckies that desperate for heroes that they have to celebrate mediocrity and incompetence?

Seth Brundle

Exile 1798 wrote: »

None, on the face of it. Council have merely permission for the memorial to be build by others.

Ok but plans will presumably be reviewed, inspectors sent out, gardai for the ceremony, etc.? Its costing us regardless.