Mother anger at IRA medals given by GAA

Happyman42

rn wrote: »

??? WTF. That doesn't give anyone the right to put a terrorist on medals for children. I have a strong interest in the GAA, so if you want to get into the rule book, lets quote Rule 1.11 and 1.12 of the GAA

1.11 Non-Party Political
The Association shall be non-party political. Party political
questions shall not be discussed at its meetings, and no
Committee, Club, Council or representative thereof
shall take part, as such, in any party political movement.
A penalty of up to twenty four weeks suspension may be
imposed for infringement.

It is you that is calling him a 'terrorist'. They see him as a former clubman who contributed a lot to the club. You, along with all the other partitionists want to see the whitewashing of history. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, is anothers statesman. The members of the IRA where real people with real connections to their community that some see a value in commemorating. Nobody is being offended here, people are taking offence where none was intended.

1.12 Anti-Sectarian/Anti-Racist
The Association is Anti-Sectarian and Anti-Racist. Any
conduct by deed, word or gesture of a sectarian or racist
nature against any player, official, spectator or anyone else,
in the course of activities organised by the Association,
shall be deemed to have discredited the Association.
Penalty: As prescribed in Rule 7.2(e).

Again, if they wanted to be sectarian then they would have celebrated his achievemnts as an IRA member, they didn't.
Also the logical extension of the above would be the removal of any Republican names from the club name lists, trophies of the GAA etc. at the behest of the hysterical. That's a hell of a list.

BTW if you are a true GAA man, you will know that all proposals come from one individual in the GAA and are endorsed by a club and often only a subset of its members, its executive. This was a bad proposal by that individual, a terrible decision for that club to make that brings our national game into disrepute and its up to Tryone County board and Croke Park to sort this out, either by a firm word with the officers of that club or sanction. I think the vast majority of the GAA membership would support sanction at this stage.

I suspect the GAA will be powerless to do anything about it, rightly so.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is you that is calling him a 'terrorist'. They see him as a former clubman who contributed a lot to the club. You, along with all the other partitionists want to see the whitewashing of history. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, is anothers statesman. The members of the IRA where real people with real connections to their community that some see a value in commemorating. Nobody is being offended here, people are taking offence where none was intended.


Again, if they wanted to be sectarian then they would have celebrated his achievemnts as an IRA member, they didn't.
Also the logical extension of the above would be the removal of any Republican names from the club name lists, trophies of the GAA etc. at the behest of the hysterical. That's a hell of a list.



I suspect the GAA will be powerless to do anything about it, rightly so.

so do you also believe the relatives of the bloody Sunday shootings shouldn't complain about a para who wad there that day getting an MBE?

Fenian Army

People just don't get it... they like to have this illusion were people in the IRA were shunned by all, seems to disturb them that one such as the person in question was a very popular pillar of the local community, well liked and respected who is sadly missed.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so do you also believe the relatives of the bloody Sunday shootings shouldn't complain about a para who wad there that day getting an MBE?

If he's getting the MBE for being a 'good' soldier...most definitely they should complain, as no soldier has faced sanction for what happened that day. That would be a provocative act in my book.
I refer you to the article I posted earlier, the line between what soldiers do honourably and what they do illegally is all too often blurred by that particular monarch......'Sir' Winston being a case in point.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

If he's getting the MBE for being a 'good' soldier...most definitely they should complain, as no soldier has faced sanction for what happened that day. That would be a provocative act in my book.
I refer you to the article I posted earlier, the line between what soldiers do honourably and what they do illegally is all too often blurred by that particular monarch......'Sir' Winston being a case in point.

the one "outed" during the saville enquiry did nothing wrong that day, just as the majority of soldiers didn't, yet the relatives are getting upset about it. it is often spoken of on here.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so do you also believe the relatives of the bloody Sunday shootings shouldn't complain about a para who wad there that day getting an MBE?

An OBE 10 months later. Lt Colonel Derek Wilford, who disobeyed a direct order, as found by Saville.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the one "outed" during the saville enquiry did nothing wrong that day, just as the majority of soldiers didn't

Wilford did nothing wrong? That mask is slipping again Fred.

They did what they did in every other colony. Go in and take out all males of 'fighting age', armed or not, to "send a message". Only the presence of the modern media made a difference.

Fenian Army

Its called a killzone, they did it in ballymurphy too

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the one "outed" during the saville enquiry did nothing wrong that day, just as the majority of soldiers didn't, yet the relatives are getting upset about it. it is often spoken of on here.

I refer the dishonorable gentleman to the answer given by Nodin.

I don't think anybody who was there that day in a uniform should be honoured for their work as 'soldiers'. It was clearly a sop (as the honour system frequently is) to an embarassed and discredited military.

true

micropig wrote: »

They should put Rosanna Davidson's head on the medal next year

yeah, put one Protestants head on a medal to make up for the Protestants the IRA put 6 feet under....or in the case of Jean McColville, maybe one or 2 feet under. Tell the 10 and 12 year olds to make love, not war.

Happyman42

true wrote: »

yeah, put one Protestants head on a medal to make up for the Protestants the IRA put 6 feet under....or in the case of Jean McColville, maybe one or 2 feet under. Tell the 10 and 12 year olds to make love, not war.

Selective condemnation again true? :rolleyes:

true

Happyman42 wrote: »

Selective condemnation again true? :rolleyes:

nope, just a "thumbs-up" to someone elses suggestion of what to put on the medals. In the civilized world / democracies anyway, its not exactly commonplace for "sporting" organisations to put terrorists on sporting medals for young boys.

K-9

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Isn't there some bloke called Sam who had something to do with it as well?

Yep, the Cup!. Jack Boothman was the GAA President in the 90's as well. Doesn't seem very sectarian to me.

Happyman42

true wrote: »

nope, just a "thumbs-up" to someone elses suggestion of what to put on the medals. In the civilized world / democracies anyway, its not exactly commonplace for "sporting" organisations to put terrorists on sporting medals for young boys.

It is commonplace to put people on medals who gave of themselves to a club and community. You see him as a 'terrorist', the community do not, the 12 year olds are members of that community too and are being encouraged to invest in the community as obviously this man did. You cannot whitewash their history.
It is an entirely different thing to celebrate somebody because they killed out of hate. What you need to realise is that nationalist communities know and appreciate that the IRA did not kill out of hate and they can separate when it was a sectarian act and when it was a political act. They don't, in the main criticise or dishonour the dead for that very reason, regardless of how they view the right and wrongs of their actions. That is why living in Northern Ireland is not a black and white affair.
If the killings and violence where motivated by hate of a religion or idealology, where are the killings now...why where they able to stop so effectively? You do after all, consider them physcopathic and consumed with sectarian blood lust.
You may be able to selectively re-write your own history but you can't impose that on others, much as you dislike it. That is part of this great democracy thing you speak of. To do that, my friend, is to allow oppression to raise it's ugly head again.

Spread

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

No.

Just when I thought he was in the nick for the past month or so ...... up he pops
Keith says No

true

Happyman42 wrote: »

You see him as a 'terrorist', the community do not, the 12 year olds are members of that community too and are being encouraged to invest in the community as obviously this man did.

by bombing men women and kids? Great example. If they wanted to put someone on a medal, could they not at least have found someone who was law-abiding? He was not an elected MP or anything, he was a terrorist...and if you have him on a medal why not a picture of the real IRA Omagh bomber for example if he had been a member of the club?

Would the GAA club in Adare have a picture of Pierce McCauley on their medals to give to their young lads?

If you go to working class loyalist areas, would they sink so low as to have medals to give to young boys in their sporting clubs with pictures of UVF terrorists on them? NO.

If you go to a muslim Bradford, would they sink so low as to have medals to give to young boys in their sporting clubs with pictures of Osama Bin Laden on them? I doubt it either.

But its ok when we do it to our "heroes". As someone else said, grow up.

Happyman42

true wrote: »

If they wanted to put someone on a medal, could they not at least have found someone who was law-abiding? He was not an elected MP or anything, he was a terrorist...and if you have him on a medal why not a picture of the real IRA Omagh bomber for example if he had been a member of the club?

Would the GAA club in Adare have a picture of Pierce McCauley on their medals to give to their young lads?

If you go to working class loyalist areas, would they sink so low as to have medals to give to young boys in their sporting clubs with pictures of UVF terrorists on them? NO.

You answer those questions ^^^
If they wished to be provocative or sectarian why would they not have done the above instead....much more likely to succeed as a sectarian bait, don't you think?

true

Happyman42 wrote: »

If they wished to be provocative or sectarian ...

obviously it is the gaa club which is provocative or sectarian , because other sporting organisations do not tolerate or have the problem of clubs having terrorists on medals for young boys.

Happyman42

true wrote: »

obviously it is the gaa club which is provocative or sectarian , because other sporting organisations do not tolerate or have the problem of clubs having terrorists on medals for young boys.

One elusive, probably ficticious mother had a problem with it, after the event! The GAA because of it's nationalist history and culture found itself on the Nationalist side of the conflict. In that way it is unique as a sporting organisation. It is not quite the same as the Rugby, Soccer organisations in that soccer was played by both sides, albeit the majority being from the Unionist/Loyalist community. Rugby was played by the largely unaffected (in terms of being at the coalface of the conflict) middle and upper class Unionist fraternity.
The GAA was already an organisation which grew from community, unique in the fact that it's teams are parish based. A lot of those communities supported the IRA which also arose from communities. The people in those communities knew who the IRA where or could guess. The guy that painted your house, the guy that worked beside you in the factory etc. To a kot of these people they were idealistic, principled and honorable people, as equally committed to the community as themselves.
That is the grey area you refuse to countenance, they knew these men and women as real people, part of their communities.
To attempt to wipe that out and to force your black and white judgemental attitudes on them is wrong and will achieve nothing but making you feel a little better.
A little understanding and less hysterical preaching always went a long way in this country. Ask Ian Paisley.

true

Happyman42 wrote: »

One elusive, probably ficticious mother had a problem with it,

A lot more than "One elusive, probably ficticious mother " would think that it is wrong to give glorifying medals with pictures of real IRA bombers on them to children.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The people in those communities knew who the IRA where or could guess.

so there was no need for collusion so if the identies of IRA people was so widely known.;). You cannot have it both ways.

Happyman42

true wrote: »

A lot more than "One elusive, probably ficticious mother " would think that it is wrong to give glorifying medals with pictures of real IRA bombers on them to children.

There are an awful lot of things I think are wrong, but I understand why they happen, therefore I have to have a sensible scale. I have to assess exactly what I am getting involved in and what I am sanctioning, as I have said before, it's a fact of life where I live.
This 'medal' and tournament doesn't even rate on that scale because I understand it's intention. It wasn't done to enflame or to foster hate.
The continued fostering of hate and bigotry in soccer and the wearing of sports jerseys just to enflame or tuant is much higher on my list of priorities.

so there was no need for collusion so if the identies of IRA people was so widely known.;). You cannot have it both ways.

You really don't know much about the North, do you?:rolleyes:

Spread

Hey true! I just went back over the last six pages or so. You have mentioned the phrase young boys, boy, 10 and 12 year old, children etc on so many occasions.

We all know what you are trying to say ........ so why keep repeating these words

I'm sure it's all from a healthy perspective. Just sayin'

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

An OBE 10 months later. Lt Colonel Derek Wilford, who disobeyed a direct order, as found by Saville.

Wilford did nothing wrong? That mask is slipping again Fred.

They did what they did in every other colony. Go in and take out all males of 'fighting age', armed or not, to "send a message". Only the presence of the modern media made a difference.

I wasn't talking about Wilford.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wasn't talking about Wilford.

:D You gonna tell us Fred? Or is it a secret, like the brave soldiers names at the inquiry?

getz

i find it hard to understand people who support republican terrorist organisations who have shot over 85 fellow republicans in northern ireland over the last three years,40 of them in derry alone,

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

i find it hard to understand people who support republican terrorist organisations who have shot over 85 fellow republicans in northern ireland over the last three years,40 of them in derry alone,

Try understanding why they exist, nobody is asking you to support them. You can condemm until you burst but that isn't gonna achieve anything and never did.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

:D You gonna tell us Fred? Or is it a secret, like the brave soldiers names at the inquiry?

There are several actually. Google it.

It does show the.hypocrisy quite nicely.

This thread should ne quoted when the annual November knicker wetting happens before poppy day as well.

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

Try understanding why they exist, nobody is asking you to support them. You can condemm until you burst but that isn't gonna achieve anything and never did.

poor answer,and it has nothing to do about a united ireland

Raiser

DB10 wrote: »

Just because one small club done it doesnt represent the whole of the GAA. At the end of the day who really cares no harm done.

Who said it was representative of the 'whole of the GAA' then? Oh yeah, you did, in the first reply on the thread

People care allright - your mindset and form hinders instead of helping, put a tiny bit of thought in first next time you try and present blind arguments on here.

Fenian Army wrote: »

Wow, big deal.

"Terrorist" my arse. The "terrorists" were the scum who executed him as he lay wounded on the ground

As he lay innocently on the ground sunbathing, reading the newspaper and sipping a cold beer wandered around in a Balaclava with an AK 47 - looking to shoot a pheasant or duck presumably!

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are several actually. Google it.

I did, and all I can find are those who remained anonymous at the trial but had no problem having their names in lights when it came to honours. Added to that that they where to be honoured BEFORE Saville reached it's conclusion and Cameron apologised for the behaviour of all the 'Paras' that day. Insensitive in the extreme.

It does show the.hypocrisy quite nicely.

This thread should ne quoted when the annual November knicker wetting happens before poppy day as well.

I have nothing against anyone wanting to wear a poppy, it's not my army or my conscience. As I say, you are responsible for what you sanction by your actions. Live and let live.

Ms.M

true wrote: »

Without the IRA thousands of men, women and children would be alive now. People like Garda McCabe in Adare would be alive if the IRA did not empty their AK47 in to him. Due to botch ups etc, the IRA killed more Catholics than anyone else, so you cannot say they were defending their community.

Much as I dislike the IRA, this the "IRA killed more Catholics than anyone else" comment is deliberately misleading. You're completely understating the actions of loyalist groups, the RUC and the British Army. There was never an umbrella loyalist faction the equivalent of the IRA. I don't think the fact that loyalist groups liked in-fighting and killing each-other as well as killing Catholics is evidence of their less-homicidal tendancies. This only shows your true colours and makes your argument weaker. One of the reasons why the IRA does still enjoy support is because people with your version of reality are still around.

Ms.M

Happyman42 wrote: »

Try understanding why they exist, nobody is asking you to support them. You can condemm until you burst but that isn't gonna achieve anything and never did.

I would say a lot of people can understand why they exist without feeling the need to put IRA men on GAA medals.

getz

Ms.M wrote: »

I would say a lot of people can understand why they exist without feeling the need to put IRA men on GAA medals.

they still exist as a paramilitary organisation [above the law] in cities like dublin cork limerick ect,nothing to do with northern ireland,why

Happyman42

Ms.M wrote: »

I would say a lot of people can understand why they exist without feeling the need to put IRA men on GAA medals.

Since Fred brought up the issue of the poppy, let me ask you, what processess are people using to quiet their consciences when they wear a poppy?

Bear in mind that they are honouring people like The Para's who shot dead 13 unarmed Irish people, soldiers who shot people as part of the shoot to kill horror. Not to mention, the bold 'Sir' Winston who sanctioned and ordered the killing and deliberate 'terrorising' of hundreds of thousands of innocent people during World War 2 as did generations of his predecesors?
It continues up to the present day.
Are they not saying, that these men and women, in their opinions, served the greater good? Seems to me that they are, otherwise they are signing up to the bad as well.

Ms.M

getz wrote: »

they still exist as a paramilitary organisation [above the law] in cities like dublin cork limerick ect,nothing to do with northern ireland,why

Drugs.

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

Since Fred brought up the issue of the poppy, let me ask you, what processess are people using to quiet their consciences when they wear a poppy?

Bear in mind that they are honouring people like The Para's who shot dead 13 unarmed Irish people, soldiers who shot people as part of the shoot to kill horror. Not to mention, the bold 'Sir' Winston who sanctioned and ordered the killing and deliberate 'terrorising' of hundreds of thousands of innocent people during World War 2 as did generations of his predecesors?
It continues up to the present day.
Are they not saying, that these men and women, in their opinions, served the greater good? Seems to me that they are, otherwise they are signing up to the bad as well.

as far as WW11 ireland is on its own in thinking the alies were wrong to stop nazi germany,even in germany its excepted there was no choice,the poppy is to commemorate the fallen not politics,something you do not seem to understand,

getz

Ms.M wrote: »

Drugs.

that makes it ok then to shoot and maim people without a trail ?strange morals

karma_

getz wrote: »

as far as WW11 ireland is on its own in thinking the alies were wrong to stop nazi germany,even in germany its excepted there was no choice,the poppy is to commemorate the fallen not politics,something you do not seem to understand,

That's just completely untrue. Did Ireland have fascist scum? unfortunately yes, and they shamed us all, however even Britain had it's own, very large fascist movement, remember Oswald and his cronies? to say that Ireland did not want the Nazis stopped is just about as stupid an argument you're ever likely to hear on AH in fairness.

Ms.M

Happyman42 wrote: »

Since Fred brought up the issue of the poppy, let me ask you, what processess are people using to quiet their consciences when they wear a poppy?

Bear in mind that they are honouring people like The Para's who shot dead 13 unarmed Irish people, soldiers who shot people as part of the shoot to kill horror. Not to mention, the bold 'Sir' Winston who sanctioned and ordered the killing and deliberate 'terrorising' of hundreds of thousands of innocent people during World War 2 as did generations of his predecesors?
It continues up to the present day.
Are they not saying, that these men and women, in their opinions, served the greater good? Seems to me that they are, otherwise they are signing up to the bad as well.

I don't think the majority of British people think/care deeply about any of those victims to be honest. I don't think they have to quiet their consciences. British experience in relation to war is very different to ours.

I don't agree that the IRA served the greater good. But what if I did? Are there not IRA men who did what they did out of sheer desperation and have been careful not to pass any fondness for violence or romanticising of the IRA onto their kids?

There are a lot of people on this thread who will always empathise with victims above any cause. Something we've inhereted from our tragic past in my opinion. We should nurture this above anything else.


Getz, I can only assume you've got me mixed up with another poster. I have no fondness for the IRA.

Ms.M

getz wrote: »

as far as WW11 ireland is on its own in thinking the alies were wrong to stop nazi germany,even in germany its excepted there was no choice,the poppy is to commemorate the fallen not politics,something you do not seem to understand,

Jeez, that's history World Wrestling style that is.

I suggest you open a history book.

getz

karma_ wrote: »

That's just completely untrue. Did Ireland have fascist scum? unfortunately yes, and they shamed us all, however even Britain had it's own, very large fascist movement, remember Oswald and his cronies? to say that Ireland did not want the Nazis stopped is just about as stupid an argument you're ever likely to hear on AH in fairness.

what has that rant got to do with my statment,but if you are thinking about the section of the irish community who wanted germany to win go no further than the IRA who not only helped adolf but also carried out terror in london in the 1940s

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

as far as WW11 ireland is on its own in thinking the alies were wrong to stop nazi germany,even in germany its excepted there was no choice,the poppy is to commemorate the fallen not politics,something you do not seem to understand,

Hold on now, stop infering stuff that I never said. Ireland decided to remain neutral, but pushed that definition to it's limit by allowing the allies, to for instance, use the Donegal air corridor out to the atlantic and to allow crashed aircraft to be retrieved. They also shared intelligence, the weather report that allowed the D-Day landings came from an Irish Weather station, freely given
The Allies did always have a choice in how they conducted the war, the British alone 'decided' to terrorise ordinary innocent people to bring about a speedier resolution. Please note, the US decided not to take part in indiscrimately carpet bombing Germany deciding instead to bomb depots and munitions. They made a choice! All armies resort to this strategy sooner or later though, the US adopted the carpet bombing strategy in Japan, killing hundreds of thousands innocents again. All choices!
The people who made decisions like that and who carried them out are among the 'fallen' commemorated by wearing the poppy. One man's war crimminal is another's 'Sir' or 'MBE'. Usually the winners get to make the distinctions.

So can you, based on the facts, answer my question, what process are people using to allow them to wear the poppy?

Ms.M

getz wrote: »

what has that rant got to do with my statment,but if you are thinking about the section of the irish community who wanted germany to win go no further than the IRA who not only helped adolf but also carried out terror in london in the 1940s

There are always bleedin' 'sections'. How I hate those 'sections'.
Let us talk about sections of the British community.... is it from 1940 onwards so chaps?

Or let's not.
Let's just. Not.

Doc Ruby

karma_ wrote: »

That's just completely untrue. Did Ireland have fascist scum? unfortunately yes, and they shamed us all, however even Britain had it's own, very large fascist movement, remember Oswald and his cronies? to say that Ireland did not want the Nazis stopped is just about as stupid an argument you're ever likely to hear on AH in fairness.

I think the Irish perspective was more along the lines that there wasn't much difference between the british and the nazis, so if they wanted to kick the stuffing out of one another that was grand and dandy.

And indeed, fifteen years after the end of world war 2, the british were running their own concentration camps and massacres in Africa. Lovely.

karma_

getz wrote: »

what has that rant got to do with my statment,but if you are thinking about the section of the irish community who wanted germany to win go no further than the IRA who not only helped adolf but also carried out terror in london in the 1940s

What has it got to do with your statement?

Seriously...?

I was refuting what you said, not that I had any real call to do so as, to be blunt, it was a monumentally moronic thing to say in the first place.

Happyman42

Ms.M wrote: »

I don't think the majority of British people think/care deeply about any of those victims to be honest. I don't think they have to quiet their consciences. British experience in relation to war is very different to ours.

I agree to an extent, I think human nature is very simple, if somebody or some group is seen to be protective overall even if some of their activities fill you with revulsion(I don't for aminute believe that the ordinary British person sanctions what Churchill et al did in Dresden or Colonge) then you have no problem with the existence of that group, because the greater good has been served by their sarcrifices and efforts

I don't agree that the IRA served the greater good. But what if I did? Are there not IRA men who did what they did out of sheer desperation and have been careful not to pass any fondness for violence or romanticising of the IRA onto their kids?

There are a lot of people on this thread who will always empathise with victims above any cause. Something we've inhereted from our tragic past in my opinion. We should nurture this above anything else.

But you have to allow for those who think they did 'serve the greater good'. There are no winners here, everybody lost.

Fratton Fred

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I think the Irish perspective was more along the lines that there wasn't much difference between the british and the nazis, so if they wanted to kick the stuffing out of one another that was grand and dandy.

And indeed, fifteen years after the end of world war 2, the british were running their own concentration camps and massacres in Africa. Lovely.

then why did so many join the British army? Why were the Irish government openly bias in their "neutrality"? Other than those that joined the army, why did so many risk their lives by moving to British cities to work in factories and hospitals?

Other than a few idiots, no one saw the British as bad as the nazis.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

then why did so many join the British army? Why were the Irish government openly bias in their "neutrality"? Other than those that joined the army, why did so many risk their lives by moving to British cities to work in factories and hospitals?

Other than a few idiots, no one saw the British as bad as the nazis.

The same reason why most join armies including the native British, to get out of poor living conditions, I have known several veterans from that era and all of them cite that as their reasons for joining up, no ideology, no particular allegience, purely an economic decision.
And our 'neutrality' was most definitely biased towards the British.

Ms.M

Happyman42 wrote: »

But you have to allow for those who think they did 'serve the greater good'. There are no winners here, everybody lost.

I don't think the idea that the IRA served the greater good is unanimously supported in the GAA. They risk alienating people.
I think the GAA should move away from being a politicised organisation.
My interest is in the GAA and its protection as a sporting body. Inevitably, this thread has turned into a political discussion. It's a pity the GAA is associated with all this.

rn

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is you that is calling him a 'terrorist'. They see him as a former clubman who contributed a lot to the club. You, along with all the other partitionists want to see the whitewashing of history. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, is anothers statesman. The members of the IRA where real people with real connections to their community that some see a value in commemorating. Nobody is being offended here, people are taking offence where none was intended.

Fair enough I'm calling him a terrorist, call him a freedom fighter. Doesn't really matter. The point is offence is an emotion interpreted by the observer of an event. If none were intended, this dead IRA chap wouldn't be on the medals!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again, if they wanted to be sectarian then they would have celebrated his achievemnts as an IRA member, they didn't.
Also the logical extension of the above would be the removal of any Republican names from the club name lists, trophies of the GAA etc. at the behest of the hysterical. That's a hell of a list.

What are his club credentials that they are celebrating? Did he form the club? Was he on the first championship winning team? Was he chairman, secretary, treasurer? Look call a spade a spade, This guy is only being commemorated in sport for being shot by the British army. BTW I'm not saying it wasn't tragic or that it shouldn't be commemorated or remembered by the community - but I am saying not in the GAA, not in sport - as you are inclined to mark me as... by labelling me partitionist - politics shouldn't come into it.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I suspect the GAA will be powerless to do anything about it, rightly so.

I don't think they are - rules 1.11 and 1.12 are quiet clear. This club could be suspended for this. Whether the powers that be have the balls to do anything, that is another story. My guess is they will hope it goes away, with time. Parish leagues in many club are rarely run every year with consistency.

Happyman42

Ms.M wrote: »

I don't think the idea that the IRA served the greater good is unanimously supported in the GAA. They risk alienating people.
I think the GAA should move away from being a politicised organisation.
My interest is in the GAA and its protection as a sporting body. Inevitably, this thread has turned into a political discussion. It's a pity the GAA is associated with all this.

The GAA has always been about and invested in the community and long may it be so, it's what makes it unique and is probably the only way it will survive.
A consequence of that is that a GAA club in the PSNI or in the old RUC (they did exist) will have a different ethos than one in Newry or one in Trinity College.