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

The RIRAs legitimacy

13567…11

Comments

  • #62
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    yekahs wrote: »
    Why wouldn't it have? I don't think that there is any reason to doubt that the Home Rule Bill of 1914 wouldn't have resulted in a devolved government had it not been for the intervention of a minority rebel groups attack.

    Perhaps it even would have allowed for a united Ireland, where both protestant, and catholic Irishmen were welcome, rather than the situation where protestants and unionists were seen as 'not Irish'.
    I think a lot of the time unionists do not want to be seen as Irish.


  • #63
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    I think a lot of the time unionists do not want to be seen as Irish.

    Perhaps I'm mistaken. But I thought they see themselves as Irish, they just want to be part of the union. They're certainly not English or Scottish.


  • #64
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    yekahs wrote: »
    Perhaps I'm mistaken. But I thought they see themselves as Irish, they just want to be part of the union. They're certainly not English of Scottish.
    Many would view themselves as British, certainly at that time anyway. British first, Irish second.


  • #65
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    delta720 wrote: »
    Remember this??

    Text of 'real' Irish Republican Army (rIRA) Statement, 20 October 2002
    Statement issued by jailed members of the rIRA in Portlaoise prison calling on the Army Council of the organisation to "stand down"



    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ira/rira201002.htm

    Here is a more recent statement.
    The move comes following the Real IRA’s announcement at the weekend that it has killed seven men in the last eight years who it claims were involved in the drugs trade. One of those included on the list was Derry man Kieran Doherty, a Real IRA member, who was shot dead by the organisation in February.
    ......
    The source also told the ‘Journal’ that the organisation has met with “other armed groups” - including Republican Action Against Drugs in Derry - to discuss its stance on drugs and added that “all groups are in agreement.”

    The dissident republican source also said an amnesty is currently in place for drugs dealers. “The IRA are offering an amnesty for anyone involved in dealing death to come forward and end their activities. Otherwise they will face the full force of the republican movement,” the source said.

    In the weekend statement, the group claimed responsibility for a number murders which were previously regarded as gangland executions. The dissident republican group also denied allegations it had extorted money from drug dealers and allowed them to continue their activities.

    “The leadership of the IRA have never sanctioned such actions and anyone using our name to tax drug dealers and criminals will be executed,” the statement said.
    Taken from here


  • #66
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Are the RIRA are political party? No. Do the RIRA have a mandate? No. Is it sensible to blow up peoples businesses? No. Do they offer anything to society? No.

    There is nothing to argue really.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Stinicker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    The RIRA has about the same legitimacy and mandate as our current illegal Government with its unelected leader, actually I have more time for the IRA as they beleive in something and are prepared to do something about it.


  • #68
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Stinicker wrote: »
    The RIRA has about the same legitimacy and mandate as our current illegal Government with its unelected leader, actually I have more time for the IRA as they beleive in something and are prepared to do something about it.
    Lets not go mad now in fairness


  • #69
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Stinicker wrote: »
    The RIRA has about the same legitimacy and mandate as our current illegal Government with its unelected leader, actually I have more time for the IRA as they beleive in something and are prepared to do something about it.

    Our present government is elected as per the constitution and every democratic barometer the world has to offer. Brian Cowen was elected Taoiseach by his peers. In case you didn't know, this is how a parliamentary democracy works.

    I believe that all people with names beginning with 'S' should be rounded up and placed in concentrations camps. I believe in it and am prepared to do something about it. Do you now have time for me as well? Do you have time for every jumped up little fascist who could very easily be the plot of a carry on or Monty Python movie?


  • #70
    Stinicker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    Denerick wrote: »
    Our present government is elected as per the constitution and every democratic barometer the world has to offer. Brian Cowen was elected Taoiseach by his peers. In case you didn't know, this is how a parliamentary democracy works.

    I agress 100% with this. However the people of the 3 constituencies where the By-Elections are not being held are being denied fair representation in Dail Eireann and as a result this government in my eyes is illegitimate as it does not have a mandate from all the people of the Republic of Ireland. Also by their refusal to hold the by-elections they are blocking democracy as those three by-elections are certain to return three non-Fianna Fail politicians giving the opposition more numbers to resist Fianna Fail in Parliament.

    The IRA has more credibility and more of a mandate than Fianna Fail because the IRA has support for a sizeable percentage of Irish people unlike Fianna Fail.

    The 2nd paragraph of your post is personal abuse which I am reporting you for.


  • #71
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Stinicker wrote: »
    I agress 100% with this. However the people of the 3 constituencies where the By-Elections are not being held are being denied fair representation in Dail Eireann and as a result this government in my eyes is illegitimate as it does not have a mandate from all the people of the Republic of Ireland. Also by their refusal to hold the by-elections they are blocking democracy as those three by-elections are certain to return three non-Fianna Fail politicians giving the opposition more numbers to resist Fianna Fail in Parliament.

    The IRA has more credibility and more of a mandate than Fianna Fail because the IRA has support for a sizeable percentage of Irish people unlike Fianna Fail.

    The 2nd paragraph of your post is personal abuse which I am reporting you for.
    Lets not lose the plot. FF have more support than the IRA. The IRA dont have in the region of a quarter of the populations support.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Happy Monday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Happy Monday


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Are the RIRA are political party? No. Do the RIRA have a mandate? No. Is it sensible to blow up peoples businesses? No. Do they offer anything to society? No.

    There is nothing to argue really.

    Completely agree - this means you will also be condeming the Easter 1916 leaders as well any moment now.


  • #73
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    Completely agree - this means you will also be condeming the Easter 1916 leaders as well any moment now.
    Im not a republican. lol. But this is not about 1916 or anything in the 70's or 80's. This is about the RIRA now. They have nothing to offer.


  • #74
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Stinicker wrote: »

    The 2nd paragraph of your post is personal abuse which I am reporting you for.

    No its not. You said that you have time for anyone who has a cause and is willing to do something about it. I honestly think that such beliefs are dangerous and deluded. This is a discussion forum, next time you post something that is liable to be scoffed at, bear in mind people will ridicule you for it.


  • #75
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Im not a republican. lol. But this is not about 1916 or anything in the 70's or 80's. This is about the RIRA now. They have nothing to offer.

    It is very much about previous rebel groups.

    The OP said:
    If the men of 1916 had a claim to legitimacy in this country and we celebrate that fact every year, doesnt the RIRA and CIRA share that same claim?

    So if you dismiss RIRA on the grounds that
    Are the RIRA are political party? No. Do the RIRA have a mandate? No. Is it sensible to blow up peoples businesses? No. Do they offer anything to society? No.

    There is nothing to argue really.

    Then why not dismiss the 1916 rebels on the same grounds?


  • #76
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    yekahs wrote: »
    It is very much about previous rebel groups.

    The OP said:



    So if you dismiss RIRA on the grounds that



    Then why not dismiss the 1916 rebels on the same grounds?
    I do dismiss the 1916 rebels.


  • #77
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Keith is a loyalist.


  • #78
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    KeithAFC wrote:
    I do dismiss the 1916 rebels.
    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Keith is a loyalist.

    Oh right, got the wrong end of the stick there so, apologies for the misinterpretation.


  • #79
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    to answer the question, they derive their legitimacy from the same source all the other iterations of the IRA do.

    What some posters fail to grasp is while there is a British occupation there will be some form of armed resistance. That is simply life and all the hair splitting on here won't change that historical reality. Added to that mix is a political peace that isn't being reflected on the ground.


  • #80
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    to answer the question, they derive their legitimacy from the same source all the other iterations of the IRA do.

    I agree, but what I am more interested in, is how people can appluad the 1916 IRA, and in the same breath condemn RIRAs actions today.


  • #81
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    My question is how come people slaughter the Taliban and yet say its not black or white with RIRA who are a terrorist organisation who plant bombs to kill police officers and leave devices around for kids to pick them up.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    yekahs wrote: »
    I agree, but what I am more interested in, is how people can appluad the 1916 IRA, and in the same breath condemn RIRAs actions today.

    Thats a question of popular support as opposed to legitimacy. Because the conditions of the time are different.


  • #83
    CiDeRmAn
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,621 CMod ✭✭✭✭CiDeRmAn


    In 1916 did the IRA have popular support? No.
    Did they get support in the aftermath? No.
    It took the brutal treatment of the "rebels" before there was a swell of support behind the republican movement.
    Did the 1916 republican movement have legitimacy? No, but in the years that followed the control of both media and school books allowed the same movement, now government, to replace history with their own version, skewed to make the notion of a Anglo-Irish identity into a nonsense and generate a version of the Easter 1916 actors as heroes and martyrs.
    They were, of course, terrorists, pushing their own agenda, contrary to that of the country and causing death of civilians, destruction of property, and the murder of local members of the police force.
    They created a republic and wrote out the inevitability of home rule from the history books, creating the myth of patriotism instead of the truth that they hijacked the country and railroaded it into the pathetically led government we see today.
    And the RIRA would be exactly the same if they gained a popular foothold in Ireland, make no mistake, scum to the last man, justifying the murder of legitimate police and privately owned property with bull**** notions of republicanism,
    To hell with them.


  • #84
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    yekahs wrote: »
    I agree, but what I am more interested in, is how people can appluad the 1916 IRA, and in the same breath condemn RIRAs actions today.
    Well logically you cannot of course. There is no stomach (yet!) to elevate the dissidents to the status of national heroes and of course it is out of the question to consider revising Pearse’s deity like status. (The fact that “revisionist” is such a dirty word, and not just in Irish history, is fairly telling).

    The only alternative is to try and undermine the motivation of dissidents by highly doubtful claims that they are nothing more than criminals. No doubt they do attract some unsavoury types, as such groups are invariably likely to do, but I see no evidence that as groupings, they are any less driven by political ideals than any other physical force republican group.

    There is a simply solution of course. Insist, as a minimum, that anyone who takes up arms has the support of the people they claim to represent. Not sufficient justification, but necessary. In some cases there was the obvious practical difficulty of establishing if a group had support or not, if they were denied democracy. But that card cannot be played by the dissidents, or PIRA before them.


  • #85
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,811 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    to answer the question, they derive their legitimacy from the same source all the other iterations of the IRA do.
    Correct. They have invented an imaginary republic in their parallel universe of which they are the legitimate armed forces.

    Unfortunately, makey-uppy legitimacy doesn't count out here in the real world.
    What some posters fail to grasp is while there is a British occupation there will be some form of armed resistance.
    Unfortunately, that occupation also only exists in the republican parallel universe. Out here in the real world, Northern Ireland has been democratically accepted - through a constitutional amendment that was overwhelmingly ratified by the citizens of this republic - as being part of the United Kingdom, until democratically decided otherwise.

    That's not an occupation. The so-called "occupation" exists only in the fevered imagination of those who desperately need to believe in it, in order to legitimise their beliefs.


  • #86
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Unfortunately, that occupation also only exists in the republican parallel universe. Out here in the real world, Northern Ireland has been democratically accepted - through a constitutional amendment that was overwhelmingly ratified by the citizens of this republic - as being part of the United Kingdom, until democratically decided otherwise.

    That's not an occupation. The so-called "occupation" exists only in the fevered imagination of those who desperately need to believe in it, in order to legitimise their beliefs.

    For a great many people in NI, Britian is an occupying power, and this is not just a small minority of people so I wouldn't just dismiss them.
    If a large number of people believe they are "occupied" then they are occupied, basic logic.
    The nationalist vote for the GFA was more of a vote to accept this occupation for the time being and put in place the democratic means to end it, and to put the Executive in place.
    Swapping the gun for the ballot box to end the occupation.


  • #87
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    For a great many people in NI, Britian is an occupying power, and this is not just a small minority of people so I wouldn't just dismiss them.
    If a large number of people believe they are "occupied" then they are occupied, basic logic.
    The nationalist vote for the GFA was more of a vote to accept this occupation for the time being and put in place the democratic means to end it, and to put the Executive in place.
    Swapping the gun for the ballot box to end the occupation.
    The GFA was to end violence and enter into peace and politics.


  • #88
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    The GFA was to end violence and enter into peace and politics.
    Of course. .
    It also mentions something about the will of the majority regarding it's status within the UK, if I remember correctly.


  • #89
    nacho libre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,906 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    I wonder do the people on the receiving end of violence, feel better if the violence visited on them at least has legitimacy?

    Anyway it appears some posters are ok with violence, provided it has popular consent. This must be why it's ok to support and admire the Irishmen who fought for the british empire, yet violence that doesn't have legitimacy- i.e not backed by the majority must be condemned. What about those Irishmen who felt they were also doing the right thing picking up arms in 1918 to fight British rule, just as those who felt they were do the right thing about joining up with the British army to fight in world war 1.

    it would seem those who condemn the men of 1916 for political violence, but are quick to defend British imperalism, are well capable of engaging in double think and cognitive dissonance too.


  • #90
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,037 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    paky wrote: »
    If the men of 1916 had a claim to legitimacy in this country and we celebrate that fact every year, doesnt the RIRA and CIRA share that same claim? Im not a supporter of either, I would just like to see your arguments on this matter. Please try to keep it civil.
    Did the men of 1916 place a car bomb in a busy town centre killing 29 and injuring 220 innocent people?
    If they did*, how did the republicans back then claim how that their action was necessary for the struggle for independence?





    * I know they didn't but am being hypothetical


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    CiDeRmAn
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,621 CMod ✭✭✭✭CiDeRmAn


    As opposed to a call to arms basing its legitimacy in popular support, perhaps it is all together more civilised to say that a call for peace bases its legitimacy in popular support, given that far fewer people have to die for an ideal based around peaceful negotiation than one requiring the deaths of not only its adherents or opposing side, but often those who never had a chance or desire to choose one or the other.
    We should have evolved past the use of violent struggle as a means to make a point in a democratic society, if are we still barbarians, placing our future in those wielding the most power and the will to use it?


Advertisement