Mother anger at IRA medals given by GAA

Joko

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.

Read the Sinn Fein election manifesto of 1918 or newspaper articles printed during that election. People knew exactly what they were voting for, a war.

getz

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.

people were voting for sinn fein in english elections,in fact a sinn fein MP took his seat for liverpool,unlike the sinn fein of today,who are only the political wing of the IRA

c_man

As a GAA head, I'm not ok with this. Leaving aside the guys death, this obviously alienates a certain segment of the community and was sure to cause hassle where none need be. It's a kids blitz ffs.

laoch na mona

not the first time a mother over reacted

Fenian Army

c_man wrote: »

As a GAA head, I'm not ok with this. Leaving aside the guys death, this obviously alienates a certain segment of the community and was sure to cause hassle where none need be. It's a kids blitz ffs.

Not in the local area anyway.

I bet this mother doesnt exist. If she does she has no right to complain, entering her kid in a memorial tournament at a GAA club named after Pearse

Einhard

Fenian Army wrote: »

If she does she has no right to complain,

First of all, she has every right to complain.

Secondly, considering that more than a few people on this forum can see the problem with commemorating gun-toting terrorists on kids' medals, it's not unlikely that some people in the local community feel the same.

entering her kid in a memorial tournament at a GAA club named after Pearse

Ridiculous analogy. The club has been named after Pearse for decades; as with many strrets and stations around Ireland, the naming happened in a different era. There is a major difference between attending a local club named 60 years ago after a particular personage, and that club handing out medals commemorating kalashnikov-toting terrorists in 2012.

And I'd be of exactly the same opinion were some Loyalist soccer club to hand out medals celebrating Gusty Spence or some other "reformed" murderer. Unlike too many people here though, I hold the Loyalist thugs, the Republican thugs, and the British thugs in equal contempt.

conor.hogan.2

He played football himself with Galbally Pearses, apparently.

Happyman42

Einhard wrote: »

First of all, she has every right to complain.

Secondly, considering that more than a few people on this forum can see the problem with commemorating gun-toting terrorists on kids' medals, it's not unlikely that some people in the local community feel the same.

The club and it's board are just being honest maybe and don't have a problem.
It's YOU who doesn't think that McCaughey has anything to do with the aspirations of Pearse, not the club or the board. The elusive, probably fictional mother needs a similar reality check.

Fenian Army

Einhard wrote: »

First of all, she has every right to complain.

Secondly, considering that more than a few people on this forum can see the problem with commemorating gun-toting terrorists on kids' medals, it's not unlikely that some people in the local community feel the same.



Ridiculous analogy. The club has been named after Pearse for decades; as with many strrets and stations around Ireland, the naming happened in a different era. There is a major difference between attending a local club named 60 years ago after a particular personage, and that club handing out medals commemorating kalashnikov-toting terrorists in 2012.

And I'd be of exactly the same opinion were some Loyalist soccer club to hand out medals celebrating Gusty Spence or some other "reformed" murderer. Unlike too many people here though, I hold the Loyalist thugs, the Republican thugs, and the British thugs in equal contempt.

You do realize that the tournament was an annual memorial one named in honour of the man on the medal?

If she had a problem, don't enter the kid. The article (a lazy one) clearly suggests that the medals were just sprung on the kid, they weren't.

Ah yes, the cowardly fence sitter, who sits back, condemns everyone, solves nothing, helps no one except themselves, by basking in the perceived moral superiority.

Well done!

getz

Fenian Army wrote: »

Not in the local area anyway.

I bet this mother doesnt exist. If she does she has no right to complain, entering her kid in a memorial tournament at a GAA club named after Pearse

if she is a local rate payer she has a right to have a say on how any of her money is granted and her child should be able to play sport without any political motives

Fenian Army

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

He played football himself with Galbally Pearses, apparently.

Yes and represented the county, people seem dead set on ignoring the fact that he has a massive connection to the local community, was well loved and is very much missed.

conor.hogan.2

I don't know enough about it to say that but one anonymous tipster does not speak for everyone in the area and neither this club or the mother speaks for the whole of the GAA.

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

if she is a local rate payer she has a right to have a say on how any of her money is granted and her child should be able to play sport without any political motives

And she has a duty to her child and what he/she is getting invovled in. It's a fact of life in the North. Galbally Pearse's was a bit of a give away akin to King Billy's Tiddlywinks Assoc.

Einhard

Fenian Army wrote: »

You do realize that the tournament was an annual memorial one named in honour of the man on the medal?

That makes it even worse IMO. I can't really believe that people don't actually have a problem with children's sports' tournaments commemorating a man who was killed collecting kalashnikovs for an organisation responsible for the murder of 800 civilians during their bloody campaign.

If she had a problem, don't enter the kid. The article (a lazy one) clearly suggests that the medals were just sprung on the kid, they weren't.

Ah right. So if a local Muslim group decides to have a tournament in aid of, say, one of the London bombers, all of those disagreeing should just keep schtum and simply not enter their kids. Brilliant logic there Fenian.

Ah yes, the cowardly fence sitter, who sits back, condemns everyone, solves nothing, helps no one except themselves, by basking in the perceived moral superiority.

LOL speaking of lazy writing.

Anyway, I'd rather be a cowardly fence sitter than a coward who murders children and sundry innocent civilians, or one of their cowardly, hypocritical defenders who sit back and excuse and whitewash their murderous actions while simultaneously condemning every Loyalist and British one.

By the way Fenian, the fact that I have never pariticapted in the murder of another, celebrated that murder, or defended that murder means that, yes, I am morally superioir to those who engage in such actions.

rn

FTA69 wrote: »

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,

Those clubs and cups were named at a time in GAA history when it was acceptable to name them as such, ie pre peace process. That doesn't mean we go on a renaming spree. Its not appropriate to have anyone connected with violence or politics commemorated with any GAA competition in the 21st Century, particularly so for youngesters who are changed with being the first generation who have a chance to overcome the hatred and bigotism in life in Ireland.

BTW this is not representative of the GAA. This is a group of individuals in a club who are running a local competition. Its not often the higher powers of Tyrone Co. Board or Ulster council need to get involved in the running of a club, but on this occasion they do. Its not acceptable.

granturismo

Fenian Army wrote: »

... was well loved and is very much missed.

Not by everybody

fianna saor

if from what i understand to be true that the competition was named after this man the medals were sure to have some connection with the man/ name of the tournament. so any parent who had a problem with this just dont enter the child.

Conguill

The PIRA heads here seem to be forgetting that the PIRA killed Irish guards and soldiers as well.

Sinn Féin didn't even have majority support amongst nationalists in NI until well after the Peace Process began.

The Irish government should not give a penny to the GAA while it allows this kind of nonsense to go on.

Fratton Fred

Fenian Army wrote: »

Yes and represented the county, people seem dead set on ignoring the fact that he has a massive connection to the local community, was well loved and is very much missed.

Aah shure he joined a terrorist organisation and murdered a few innocent people, but shure didn't Pearse himself do the same thing.

Fenian Army

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Aah shure he joined a terrorist organisation and murdered a few innocent people, but shure didn't Pearse himself do the same thing.

What innocent people did he murder?

Doc Ruby

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

Terrorism generally arises when a population is itself being terrorised without any means to strike back. For example when a large and powerful army invades and occupies weaker countries.

Persecution is a great cause of terrorism. Look at the Americans scratching their heads over Middle Eastern terrorism, they don't realise this simple fact: if you attack, bomb, and keep your boot on the neck of a nation for generations, someone is going to return the favour in a way that you are unable to defend against. Brothers, sisters, children and parents killed as "collateral" or as part of machinations are going to be avenged.

I'm not apologising for terrorists, merely pointing out why it happens. If the US hadn't stepped in during WW2 and Germany had conquered the UK, setting up concentration camps and death squads, would you be so quick to call british people who acted like the IRA terrorists? I think not.

Its all a matter of perspective. One thing is for sure though, this stuff doesn't emerge whole from a vacuum. Nobody sits down and says, well what will I do today, oh I know I'll gather up a group of likewise bored individuals and start a terrorist organisation.

Sitting here in Ireland I feel no fear at all of terrorism. I find the idea laughable. The worst thing that happens around here is a bit of petty crime, and less of that than many places. Why am I so blasé about this monstrous threat which has brought the USA to a quivering pile of jelly and the UK to a society with cameras on every lamp post?

I'm not worried because my country isn't dickish enough to go messing around with other countries. Leave them alone and behold! You too can live like a normal human being.

Fratton Fred

Fenian Army wrote: »

What innocent people did he murder?

Who knows.

Guilty by association though.

Conguill

@Fenian Army, your best argument seems to be that he was too incompetent at being a terrorist to actually do anything before getting killed himself.

Either way, they shouldn't be putting his mug on GAA medals.

Spread

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

So, in your mind, it was OK to take things by force years ago but not right for the rightful owners to claim it back by force. I guess you also blow about British Justice being the best in the world. This is the kind of pathetic nonsense printed in the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Express and Sun. You should seek a bit of balance to your poisoned logic
Why do you use the Union Jack as an avatar?

nua domhan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who knows.

Guilty by association though.

The same way every unionist was guilty of gerrymandering, all paras's are guilty of bloody sunday? The irish government is guilty and implicit in special extradition's through shannon?

Guilty by association? The most idiotic thing i've ever heard. Thankfully many of us in the north are a lot more forward thinking than you and your backward negative unfounded slander and vitriol.

Fratton Fred

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Terrorism generally arises when a population is itself being terrorised without any means to strike back. For example when a large and powerful army invades and occupies weaker countries.

Persecution is a great cause of terrorism. Look at the Americans scratching their heads over Middle Eastern terrorism, they don't realise this simple fact: if you attack, bomb, and keep your boot on the neck of a nation for generations, someone is going to return the favour in a way that you are unable to defend against. Brothers, sisters, children and parents killed as "collateral" or as part of machinations are going to be avenged.

I'm not apologising for terrorists, merely pointing out why it happens. If the US hadn't stepped in during WW2 and Germany had conquered the UK, setting up concentration camps and death squads, would you be so quick to call british people who acted like the IRA terrorists? I think not.

Its all a matter of perspective. One thing is for sure though, this stuff doesn't emerge whole from a vacuum. Nobody sits down and says, well what will I do today, oh I know I'll gather up a group of likewise bored individuals and start a terrorist organisation.

Sitting here in Ireland I feel no fear at all of terrorism. I find the idea laughable. The worst thing that happens around here is a bit of petty crime, and less of that than many places. Why am I so blasé about this monstrous threat which has brought the USA to a quivering pile of jelly and the UK to a society with cameras on every lamp post?

I'm not worried because my country isn't dickish enough to go messing around with other countries. Leave them alone and behold! You too can live like a normal human being.

So Ireland voted against UN security council resolution 1386 did it?

Richard

gurramok wrote: »

Is 297 murders of a range of civilians not indiscriminate?

No. 297 killings, whilst tragic for the family of those involved includes all deaths. Whilst this figure does include civilians (Bloody Sunday, for example), it also includes members of terrorist organisations involved in illegal acts.

The word indiscriminate describes shooting people randomly. Bloody Sunday may be an example of this.

Deliberate targeting perhaps to terrorise natonalists?

No.

In any case, "deliberate targeting" and "indiscriminate" mean very different things.

Fratton Fred

nua domhan wrote: »

The same way every unionist was guilty of gerrymandering, all paras's are guilty of bloody sunday? The irish government is guilty and implicit in special extradition's through shannon?

Guilty by association? The most idiotic thing i've ever heard. Thankfully many of us in the north are a lot more forward thinking than you and your backward negative unfounded slander and vitriol.

Any unionist who picked up a gun is guilty of association and I think it is fairly well established how the Irish feel about the paras.

This isn't some random nationalist we are talking about. He was killed holding an AK47.

Spread

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who knows.

Guilty by association though.

Yeah! Good old British Justice again.

Fratton Fred

Spread wrote: »

So, in your mind, it was OK to take things by force years ago but not right for the rightful owners to claim it back by force. I guess you also blow about British Justice being the best in the world. This is the kind of pathetic nonsense printed in the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Express and Sun. You should seek a bit of balance to your poisoned logic
Why do you use the Union Jack as an avatar?

Aah right, so you are simply judging me based your own prejudices are you?

Like I said earlier, you aren't really in a position to call anyone a bigot.

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Any unionist who picked up a gun is guilty of association and I think it is fairly well established how the Irish feel about the paras.

This isn't some random nationalist we are talking about. He was killed holding an AK47.

Only according to the lads who ambushed him.

I imagine he shot a fair few brit soldiers in his day anyway, they seemed to be quite eager to shoot him.

Doc Ruby

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So Ireland voted against UN security council resolution 1386 did it?

It is difficult for me to envision the kind of mindset that can equate UN votes to things like Operation Ajax.

Terrorism is the wage of empire, old boy. If you don't like it, do yourself a favour and stop messing with other nations. It doesn't work in these days of readily available automatic weapons and explosives.

Einhard

It's somewhat ironic that those who are utterly opposed to the British presence in the North, and utterly condemn the wrongdoings of the same organisation in the North, so often use those actions to defend similar actions carried out by the IRA. It's as if, in some warped logic, the murderous actions of the Brits and Loyalists (always condemned) somehow justified the murderous actions of the IRA (always defended). Odd.

Spread

Why exactly does Britannia no longer rule the waves?
Because the exploited/downtrodden/evicted people started fighting back.

Spread

Einhard wrote: »

It's somewhat ironic that those who are utterly opposed to the British presence in the North, and utterly condemn the wrongdoings of the same organisation in the North, so often use those actions to defend similar actions carried out by the IRA. It's as if, in some warped logic, the murderous actions of the Brits and Loyalists (always condemned) somehow justified the murderous actions of the IRA (always defended). Odd.

They are an army of occupation. Tell me anywhere in the world that enjoys a foreign force on it's soil/being invaded.

karma_

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Any unionist who picked up a gun is guilty of association and I think it is fairly well established how the Irish feel about the paras.

This isn't some random nationalist we are talking about. He was killed holding an AK47.

http://northbelfast-ni.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/peter_robinson_1.12820329_std.jpg

And this lad is our First minister!!

Also, why am I not surprised to find you in here Fred?

Heh?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Spread wrote: »

They are an army of occupation. Tell me anywhere in the world that enjoys a foreign force on it's soil/being invaded.

I'm drawn to the chores of The Ballad of Joe McDonald.

vider12

martinedwards wrote: »

GAA in IRA support shock.

and this made the NEWS?

to be fair, I'm amazed that this happened now.

15 years ago it would be expected.

I thought that the GAA had moved on, especially with the rugby in Croke park etc.

very sad

Must have been a very slow news day....

The GAA has powers throughout Ireland and has never been in favor of the War in the North..

Id put it down to a slow news day and one over sensitive woman.

Einhard

Spread wrote: »

They are an army of occupation. Tell me anywhere in the world that enjoys a foreign force on it's soil/being invaded.

Firstly, what's that got to do with the point I made. I'll give you a clue:

nothing

Secondly, the under the GFA, the people of Ireland voted to renounce our territorial claims to the North. The majority in the North wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. Hence, logically, the British Army cannot be considered an army of occupation in the North, an internationally recognised constituent part of the UK. Simples.

Fratton Fred

Spread wrote: »

They are an army of occupation. Tell me anywhere in the world that enjoys a foreign force on it's soil/being invaded.

How is New Hampshire these days?

Are you there trying to end the occupation and give the land back to the locals?

getz

Spread wrote: »

They are an army of occupation. Tell me anywhere in the world that enjoys a foreign force on it's soil/being invaded.

sorry spread like many a irishman,your heart is in ireland,but you would not want to live there , now me my heart is in england,but i would like to live in ireland

getz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How is New Hampshire these days?

Are you there trying to end the occupation and give the land back to the locals?

fred i think its called new england,but i am sure spread will change that.

Doc Ruby

Einhard wrote: »

Secondly, the under the GFA, the people of Ireland voted to renounce our territorial claims to the North.

Technically the claims were only removed from the constutition. Nothing was renounced. Ah politics.

I take it you missed my earlier post about how these things get started. The loyalists and british were turning the screws as hard as they could on the nationalist community for many decades. Suddenly it blows up in their faces and we have weeping and wailing.

Spread

Einhard wrote: »

Firstly, what's that got to do with the point I made. I'll give you a clue:

nothing

Secondly, the under the GFA, the people of Ireland voted to renounce our territorial claims to the North. The majority in the North wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. Hence, logically, the British Army cannot be considered an army of occupation in the North, an internationally recognised constituent part of the UK. Simples.

A bit like the voting in Islas Malvinas or Gibralter. If 100,000 French people were planted in the Isle of Wight and given a vote .......... they would vote to be part of France. Do you not understand the word gerrymandering?

Fratton Fred

Doc Ruby wrote: »

It is difficult for me to envision the kind of mindset that can equate UN votes to things like Operation Ajax.

Terrorism is the wage of empire, old boy. If you don't like it, do yourself a favour and stop messing with other nations. It doesn't work in these days of readily available automatic weapons and explosives.

stop trolling Doc, there's a good chap.

Fratton Fred

Spread wrote: »

A bit like the voting in Islas Malvinas or Gibralter. If 100,000 French people were planted in the Isle of Wight and given a vote .......... they would vote to be part of France. Do you not understand the word gerrymandering?

a bit like putting hundreds of thousands of europeans in North America and them "Claiming" the land I suppose.

You're a gem aren't you. Sat in the States (On stolen post colonial land) preaching to people in NI how noble an armed struggle is/was.

Doc Ruby

Fratton Fred wrote: »

stop trolling Doc, there's a good chap.

Do point out where I am factually wrong in any regard my dear fellow? Your country is only a short plane flight away from any number of places it has messed with in recent memory, no wonder you're all a bit jumpy.

maggy_thatcher

Spread wrote: »

A bit like the voting in Islas Malvinas or Gibralter. If 100,000 French people were planted in the Isle of Wight and given a vote .......... they would vote to be part of France. Do you not understand the word gerrymandering?

What have the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar got to do with anything?

Gibraltar was given to the UK by Spain with the Treaty of Utrecht. The Argentinians gave up any claim on the Falklands in the Arana-Southern Treaty.

Arguing anything else is equivalent to saying that all these "invaders" in America should lose their vote and give the country back to the Native Americans - it isn't going to happen.

getz

Spread wrote: »

A bit like the voting in Islas Malvinas or Gibralter. If 100,000 French people were planted in the Isle of Wight and given a vote .......... they would vote to be part of France. Do you not understand the word gerrymandering?

people in the 16th and 17th century did not have a vote, gibralter only had a few fishermen on when sold to britain in return for a med ireland and a part of florida,and was then settled by people from malta, falklands only had one native settler and never belonged to argentina,all alot different from northern ireland

Spread

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How is New Hampshire these days?

Are you there trying to end the occupation and give the land back to the locals?

Today warm and breezy

No. Enough casinos already

getz wrote: »

sorry spread like many a irishman,your heart is in ireland,but you would not want to live there , now me my heart is in england,but i would like to live in ireland

Christ getz .......... you're only a heartbeat away. Why not catch a ferry or Speke (JL) airport. But if you meet up with Fratton Fred in a pub - button it or speak in Cornish/Manx

getz wrote: »

fred i think its called new england,but i am sure spread will change that.

No need to. I hope you realise why the Founding Fathers came here? A kind of Middle Ages terrorism. Incidently, Portsmouth is just a few hours away and Dublin is about 45 mins