Mother anger at IRA medals given by GAA

Spread

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's not politics is it though, Pompey are a British club.

And a pretty fucked up one, at that. The reason that you use the Union Jack as your avatar is your little Englander mentality and the triumphalist nature of your homeland. Remember Britain no longer rules the waves. And not being able to govern herself she seeks external targets to put in their place.
More than likely, this woman doesn't exist. But the BBC, to pander to bigoted Unionists, include it as a news item. And there are enough manufactured bleeding hearts out there to stir up quisling-like trouble.

Varied

Richard wrote: »

When were hundreds of people indiscriminately killed by the British Army?

I shouldn't rise, but if you are indeed as blind as a bat, look up the ballymurphy massacre. Better yet, the killings that highlighted just how bad they where, Bloody Sunday

bwatson

Varied wrote: »

I shouldn't rise, but if you are indeed as blind as a bat, look up the ballymurphy massacre. Better yet, the killings that highlighted just how bad they where, Bloody Sunday

sigh. You don't seem to have the same levels of hatred for organisations that detonated bombs in England and carried out massacres of their own.

Deedsie

Richard wrote: »

When were hundreds of people indiscriminately killed by the British Army?

Even so, you wouldn't expect a sporting organisation in Northern Ireland to hand out medals to children depicting a British soldier, so I can't see how an IRA terrorist deserves to be on such a medal either.

The problem with the GAA is that it is too political. I'm not saying other organisations aren't (the Irish Football Association, for example), but the GAA seems to be unique with its links to the recent armed conflict.

If a club in the Irish league had a player involved in the loyalist paramilitary groups would you paint the entire IFA as having links to the recent armed conflict?

Varied

bwatson wrote: »

Do you have the same levels of hatred for organisations that bombed English pubs and shopping centres? And carried out massacres of its own against unarmed and defenceless protestants?

I will never defend the killing of Innocent people.

However I will defend brave men that fought against the oppressive force that rendered its native people 2nd class citizens, colluded with Loyalist death squads and believed in defending those citizens against said forces.

The majority of the PIRA where good men, they are heroes to the people that mattered and needed them.

Duckworth_Luas

Richard wrote: »

... but the GAA seems to be unique with its links to the recent armed conflict.

FFS, the GAA recently invited the British monarch on a tour of their headquarters. Individuals have links to "the recent armed conflict", the GAA as an association does not.

bwatson

Varied wrote: »

I will never defend the killing of Innocent people.

However I will defend brave men that fought against the oppressive force that rendered its native people 2nd class citizens, colluded with Loyalist death squads and believed in defending those citizens against said forces.

The majority of the PIRA where good men, they are heroes to the people that mattered and needed them.

Nope, I didn't think so. Nowhere near the same levels of conpempt for the organisation that killed more innocents than any other. No mention of "just how bad they were" in the same vein as your comment about the British Army.

Nodin

Richard wrote: »

When were hundreds of people indiscriminately killed by the British Army?

.........

.....ahh jaysus. Narrow it down a bit ffs.

Varied

bwatson wrote: »

Nope, I didn't think so. Nowhere near the same levels of conpempt for the organisation that killed more innocents than any other. No mention of "just how bad they were" in the same vein as your comment about the British Army.

You aren't getting it, the PIRA nor any other Irish army for that matter invaded England or purposely oppressed the people there.

The PIRAs main objectives where to get the british out of Ireland by force and to defend catholics/Irish from them.

There was no anti protestant agenda, no purposely killing innocent people, no interning without trial, no colluding with any government with Death squads. etc etc etc

Sound of Silence

bwatson wrote: »

sigh. You don't seem to have the same levels of hatred for organisations that detonated bombs in England and carried out massacres of their own.

bwatson, I would be thoroughly surprised if you showed any sort of alarm at the actions of the British Security forces in Northern Ireland, let alone that you would condemn them.

The idea that you would then call out another poster for such a logical fallacy is a bit unreasonable.

K-9

If it's a competition that has been run for years well I don't really see the problem. The GAA in Northern Ireland was intrinsically linked to the armed struggle, there was many a crossover between politics, Republicanism and the organisation.

Been to many an Ulster Championship match down the years, played in a few Northern grounds, unofficially!

I wouldn't doubt the mothers veracity tbh. Some people don't share my outlook on it, hardly surprising and I don't see why people should be so dismissive of genuine concerns. Some people wouldn't be aware of Loughgall, educating them is more worthwhile than dismissing them.

Rugby, soccer and the GAA are all trying to move on. It's an issue the GAA will have to try and address and throwing mud at questions isn't going to make them go away!

bwatson

Varied wrote: »

You aren't getting it, the PIRA nor any other Irish army for that matter invaded England or purposely oppressed the people there.

The PIRAs main objectives where to get the british out of Ireland by force and to defend catholics/Irish from them.

There was no anti protestant agenda, no purposely killing innocent people, no interning without trial, no colluding with any government with Death squads. etc etc etc

You are telling me that attacks like the Warrington bombings and the Kingsmill massacre weren't carried out by the PIRA? You are seriously suggesting the PIRA didnt kill innocent people on purpose?

bwatson

Sound of Silence wrote: »

bwatson, I would be thoroughly surprised if you showed any sort of alarm at the actions of the British Security forces in Northern Ireland, let alone that you would condemn them.

The idea that you would then call out another poster for such a logical fallacy is a bit unreasonable.

Well, you are wrong. I have done just that in the past in a thread about Bloody Sunday.

Logical Fallacy

Spunk84 wrote: »

People have short memories, the IRA made this country and should be kept alive for their sacrfices that they made for this so called free state . Ashamed she should be

lol, the IRA as it exists now had nothing to do with the making of our country.

Cop yourself on their slow poke.

IrishAm

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

lol, the IRA as it exists now had nothing to do with the making of our country.

Cop yourself on their slow poke.

What is the difference between the IRA who fought a guerilla war during the WoI and the IRA who fought from 1969 until the GFA?

Spread

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

lol, the IRA as it exists now had nothing to do with the making of our country.

Cop yourself on their slow poke.

There were people who thought like you in the 30s and 40s that had full larders!
Do you mean to say that today's point would have been reached without arms? Would the Brits have ceded power in any of their colonies without being fired upon.
The only way that the encouragement has worked was at the point of a gun.
Apologists for Empire were usually either those that profited from, were weak willed or were cowards.

IrishAm

Spread wrote: »

The only way that the encouragement has worked was at the point of a gun.

True that.

See the Anglo Irish treaty of 1921 and the Good Friday Treaty of 1998 for proof.

Both were extremely bad deals, but the people wanted peace at any cost. And well the Brits knew it.

Doc Ruby

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

FFS, the GAA recently invited the British monarch on a tour of their headquarters.

Very generous of them, all things considered. What was that about offensive medals again? And from a head of state, not some ballygobackwards sports club, no less.

Fratton Fred

Spread wrote: »

And a pretty fucked up one, at that. The reason that you use the Union Jack as your avatar is your little Englander mentality and the triumphalist nature of your homeland. Remember Britain no longer rules the waves. And not being able to govern herself she seeks external targets to put in their place.
More than likely, this woman doesn't exist. But the BBC, to pander to bigoted Unionists, include it as a news item. And there are enough manufactured bleeding hearts out there to stir up quisling-like trouble.

You write that and then accuse someone of bigotry? Wow.

Fratton Fred

Spread wrote: »

There were people who thought like you in the 30s and 40s that had full larders!
Do you mean to say that today's point would have been reached without arms? Would the Brits have ceded power in any of their colonies without being fired upon.
The only way that the encouragement has worked was at the point of a gun.
Apologists for Empire were usually either those that profited from, were weak willed or were cowards.

Apologists for terrorism are the lowest of the low tbh.

The only way NI moved forward was when the decent peaceful people from all sections of the community rejected violence.

Einhard

When this man was killed, he was wearing a balaclava and carring a Kalashnikov. It really beggars belief that some people here are advocating that such a person is suitable for commemoration in an Under 12s football tournament.

Einhard

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Ah yes, because the British always respected the peoples they encountered and never left their borders to colonize half the globe in their avaricious quest to control resources and trade routes.

Oh Lordy, the double standards that people display when it comes to northern Republicans/Nationalists are really quite astonishing.

I think the difference though Chuck, is that most people criticse those actions on the part of the British. Whereas, with the IRA, there's always a sixzeable contingent waiting to excuse and defend their actions.

Chuck Stone

Einhard wrote: »

I think the difference though Chuck, is that most people criticse those actions on the part of the British. Whereas, with the IRA, there's always a sixzeable contingent waiting to excuse and defend their actions.

They do?

Einhard

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They do?

Yup. I can't say I've ever found many people, either on these boards, or in real life who celebrate colonialism.

Even if that were the case though, and there was a double standard, it wouldn't make celebrating at a kids' sports event an IRA man shot dead while toting a kalashnikov any less insane.

Chuck Stone

Einhard wrote: »

Yup. I can't say I've ever found many people, either on these boards, or in real life who celebrate colonialism.

That would be days-gone-by colonialism of the boots on far-away lands kind you're talking about I presume. Neo-colonialism can be just as treacherous and lead to the loss of tens of thousands of lives. Would you be the type to condemn neo-colonialism yourself?

Even if that were the case though, and there was a double standard, it wouldn't make celebrating at a kids' sports event an IRA man shot dead while toting a kalashnikov any less insane.

I've already said that remembering people who die in conflicts is probably best done discreetly. I'm not big on glorifying death by violent means and displays of overt militarism myself - something that state actors are extremely fond of - not least of all our British neighbours.

Einhard

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That would be days-gone-by colonialism of the boots on far-away lands kind you're talking about I presume. Neo-colonialism can be just as treacherous and lead to the loss of tens of thousands of lives. Would you be the type to condemn neo-colonialism yourself?

I condemn all forms of action whereby one group attempts to impose their views or their hegemony through force.

I've already said that remembering people who die in conflicts is probably best done discreetly. I'm not big on glorifying death by violent means and displays of overt militarism myself - something that state actors are extremely fond of - not least of all our British neighbours.

Well, looks like we're in agreement then.

FeckinUsername

I'm coming in late on this argument, and I apologise if this rather obvious point has been raised already, but - she is complaining that Republicans are being commemorated, but she had no problem sending her child to a club named after Patrick Pearse? Oh dear.

Fratton Fred

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That would be days-gone-by colonialism of the boots on far-away lands kind you're talking about I presume. Neo-colonialism can be just as treacherous and lead to the loss of tens of thousands of lives. Would you be the type to condemn neo-colonialism yourself?

I've already said that remembering people who die in conflicts is probably best done discreetly. I'm not big on glorifying death by violent means and displays of overt militarism myself - something that state actors are extremely fond of - not least of all our British neighbours.

But that seems to be the excuse for everything "The Brits do this, the Brits did that".

When a sports club (and in my opinion sports is the best way to bring people together) is dishing out medals with a picture of a politically controversial person on them, it is only to reinforce further the divide. It is always going to alienate one part of the community just as people dressing up in bowlers hats and marching divides them.

As long as there is a divided community in NI, there will never be a united Ireland.

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But that seems to be the excuse for everything "The Brits do this, the Brits did that".

When a sports club (and in my opinion sports is the best way to bring people together) is dishing out medals with a picture of a politically controversial person on them, it is only to reinforce further the divide. It is always going to alienate one part of the community just as people dressing up in bowlers hats and marching divides them.

As long as there is a divided community in NI, there will never be a united Ireland.

What about when a sports organisation, say like the Football Association, invites thugs and murderers from the British Army to be paraded out and cheered by crowds before international matches.

I'm sure those slaughtered in Iraq and Afganistan by occupying British forces would be impressed.

Funny how the British lecture the Irish over "moving on" while still pretending it's an empire....

Crooked Jack

PC CDROM wrote: »

I don't think it was appropriate.

But the area is steeped in Republicanism. Worse than South Armagh.

One Hunger Striker. Martin Hurson.
4 or 5 locals killed in Loughgall


There is a huge amount of information out there on it all. Those are only two snippets about the area. There are a lot of incidents in the general area during all the crap that went on.

Still think the medals were wrong though.

Worse?

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote: »

What about when a sports organisation, say like the Football Association, invites thugs and murderers from the British Army to be paraded out and cheered by crowds before international matches.

I'm sure those slaughtered in Iraq and Afganistan by occupying British forces would be impressed.

Funny how the British lecture the Irish over "moving on" while still pretending it's an empire....

But but but but what about........

Richard

Zebra3 wrote: »

Where do you want me to start? :rolleyes:

With something to back up your statement, maybe?

Richard

Varied wrote: »

I shouldn't rise, but if you are indeed as blind as a bat, look up the ballymurphy massacre. Better yet, the killings that highlighted just how bad they where, Bloody Sunday

Oh I don't doubt that there were some people killed by the British Army who shouldn't have been. And it was a tragedy and it was wrong. But there weren't hundreds of people killed indiscriminately by the British Army as was suggested.

Richard

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

FFS, the GAA recently invited the British monarch on a tour of their headquarters. Individuals have links to "the recent armed conflict", the GAA as an association does not.

That's what I meant.

rn

It would be appropriate for Tyrone County Board to have a word with the officers in that club. Putting such recent events on medals goes against the spirit the ethos of the GAA.

Richard

IrishAm wrote: »

What is the difference between the IRA who fought a guerilla war during the WoI and the IRA who fought from 1969 until the GFA?

Different organisations. The former, became the Irish Defence Forces and had public support (we're talking about the IRA, not the IRB or any of the 1916 crowd).

The latter never had widespread public support in Ireland and killed over 2000 people in a terrorist campaign. Most people in Ireland would call them terrorists.

Some people would call the WoI IRA terrorists, but most wouldn't.

That's the difference.

Dyr

He's probably a local hero up there, seems legit to me

Richard

Bambi wrote: »

He's probably a local hero up there, seems legit to me

I'm sure Billy Wright was a hero to some Loyalists, but I wouldn't give a medal with his face on it to children.

Zebra3

Richard wrote: »

With something to back up your statement, maybe?

Do you actually think Britain acquired a huge empire by being nice to people? :rolleyes:

Dyr

Richard wrote: »

I'm sure Billy Wright was a hero to some Loyalists, but I wouldn't give a medal with his face on it to children.

I dunno, he was easy enough on the eye.

nua domhan

hondasam wrote: »

Was he honoured for his beliefs or his GAA skills?

That's for the mother to tell the child when he asks who's the guy on the medal.

It's either a talented GAA player who died years ago, or an IRA terrorist gunman who i can call the papers about.

FTA69

rn wrote: »

It would be appropriate for Tyrone County Board to have a word with the officers in that club. Putting such recent events on medals goes against the spirit the ethos of the GAA.

But yet both championship cups are named after armed, unaccountable Republicans with no mandate. Not to mention clubs named after the likes of O'Donovan Rossa, Pádraig Pearse and other armed terrorists who didn't give two f*cks about democratic approval from anyone.

Richard,

The former, became the Irish Defence Forces and had public support

Eh, the IRA rejected the Treaty in 1922, the Free State Army were formed out of a minority of the organisation. The rest remained constituted as the IRA.

e're talking about the IRA, not the IRB or any of the 1916 crowd).

The 1916 crowd and the IRA of the Tan War were the same organisation led by the same people by and large, there was a mere two years between them like. Stop pretending there was a massive gulf in terms of tactics and politics between the two.

Richard

Zebra3 wrote: »

Do you actually think Britain acquired a huge empire by being nice to people? :rolleyes:

No I don't. But we're talking specifically about the troubles in Northern Ireland.

gurramok

Richard wrote: »

But there weren't hundreds of people killed indiscriminately by the British Army as was suggested.

Yes there was, from kids to mothers to grannys and priests. Nice selection, look up Suttons list of deaths if you don't believe it. And they got away with it media style too.

Richard

Richard wrote: »

Different organisations. The former, became the Irish Defence Forces and had public support (we're talking about the IRA, not the IRB or any of the 1916 crowd).

The latter never had widespread public support in Ireland and killed over 2000 people in a terrorist campaign. Most people in Ireland would call them terrorists.

Some people would call the WoI IRA terrorists, but most wouldn't.

That's the difference.

The other difference is that the old IRA were fighting to liberate a nation in which the majority wanted independence.

The PIRA were fighting for control of northern ireland - whose inhabitants (or at least the majority of them) DIDN'T want to join the Republic. They were, in effect, attempting to take the six counties by force.

This shouldn't really be confusing.

BTW the soccer analogy above is spot on. If the IFA set up a Billy Wright Cup and went on about he was "a hero to our community" we would be right in saying they are being complete c*nts. Just the same way we agree that soccer in the North is riddled with sectarianism and that they need to cop themselves on.

But when "we" do it somehow it's all ok. The GAA need to wise up on this one.

Richard

FTA69 wrote: »

The 1916 crowd and the IRA of the Tan War were the same organisation led by the same people by and large, there was a mere two years between them like. Stop pretending there was a massive gulf in terms of tactics and politics between the two.

The actions of the early IRA were, by and large, supported by the Irish population (predominantly in what became the Free State, but also elsewhere). The election results of 1918 and the following years indicated that support.

The actions of the PIRA were not supported by most of the Irish population, including a democratically elected Irish government and by the outcomes of elections in NI.

Only when the troubles were over did Sinn Fein's popularity increase massively.

Richard

gurramok wrote: »

Yes there was, from kids to mothers to grannys and priests. Nice selection, look up Suttons list of deaths if you don't believe it. And they got away with it media style too.

The number Sutton given is 297. Now, where does it say "hundreds indiscriminately"?

But I feel this is getting off-topic....

FTA69

The actions of the early IRA were, by and large, supported by the Irish population (predominantly in what became the Free State, but also elsewhere). The election results of 1918 and the following years indicated that support.

People voting for Sinn Féin in 1918 does not correlate with support for an armed struggle. The IRA was a seperate organisation which sought no mandate from anyone, indeed its first action was to shoot two policemen. An operation that was done spontaneously by Dan Breen and his comrades because they felt "things needed moving on a bit." Prior to that those IRA leaders such as Collins etc had participated in an armed Rising which had no mandate or no approval from the Irish people and were spat upon for doing so.

Whether you like it or not the same factors motivated both the early IRA and the modern IRA; namely the principle that armed struggle in pursuit of Irish freedom is legitimate and no mandate is needed to resist occupation.

gurramok

Richard wrote: »

The number Sutton given is 297. Now, where does it say "hundreds indiscriminately"?

But I feel this is getting off-topic....

Is 297 murders of a range of civilians not indiscriminate? Deliberate targeting perhaps to terrorise natonalists? And we're not counting collusion with Loyalists yet.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

People voting for Sinn Féin in 1918 does not correlate with support for an armed struggle. The IRA was a seperate organisation which sought no mandate from anyone, indeed its first action was to shoot two policemen. An operation that was done spontaneously by Dan Breen and his comrades because they felt "things needed moving on a bit." Prior to that those IRA leaders such as Collins etc had participated in an armed Rising which had no mandate or no approval from the Irish people and were spat upon for doing so.

Whether you like it or not the same factors motivated both the early IRA and the modern IRA; namely the principle that armed struggle in pursuit of Irish freedom is legitimate and no mandate is needed to resist occupation.

There is a sizeable difference between an armed struggle and outright blatant terrorism.