Misguided Heroes.

MOC88

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

The 1916 rebels. Worshipped in Ireland with plenty of streets and buildings named after them.

Completely undemocratic and deluded romantasists. Caused huge damage to the capital and its people in a move that had little support. They would be brandished as terrorists today, and rightly so.

They had more support than is normally believed. Eamonn Ceannt and Develera were cheered by crowds as they were brought in... their responses were generally where were you when we needed you. Yes in the upper class areas they hadn't much support other but then many of them were middle or upper class themselves. Home Rule was not granted after it was to come in so what reasons were there for them to not act. By your idea the American Revolution was immoral, the Hungarian uprising was immoral etc. etc.

I think if a group of armed men decided to rebel against English rule in Dublin today they'd be thought of as insane not terrorists. They should have streets and buildings named after them, many of them done a great service to this country. Please back up your statements/arguments/dribble with facts rather than statements

BillyMitchel

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

No, why would I be?

Do you think that after an election where a party advocating a political solution (home rule) wins a landslide victory (86 out of 105 seats) that its ok to say "**** the people, they don't know what they want, lets just have a violent and utterly deluded assault on the capital anyway"??

I would be much prouder had Ireland gained its independence through peaceful means like canada, nz or aus.

Incidentally Im not apposed to the armed conflict after it received public backing in the 1918 elections.

I think the aboriginal people would disagree.

Yitzhak Rabin

MOC88 wrote: »

They had more support than is normally believed. Eamonn Ceannt and Develera were cheered by crowds as they were brought in... their responses were generally where were you when we needed you. Yes in the upper class areas they hadn't much support other but then many of them were middle or upper class themselves. Home Rule was not granted after it was to come in so what reasons were there for them to not act. By your idea the American Revolution was immoral, the Hungarian uprising was immoral etc. etc.

I think if a group of armed men decided to rebel against English rule in Dublin today they'd be thought of as insane not terrorists. They should have streets and buildings named after them, many of them done a great service to this country. Please back up your statements/arguments/dribble with facts rather than statements

There are a group leading an armed struggle against the English in Ireland today. They're called the real IRA and they're rightly branded as terrorists.

If the rebels had the support you claim, tgen why did they perform so poorly in the elections and the Irish Parliamentary Party polled so well.

It sounds like you've been indoctrinated by a distorted account of history that FF had taught in schools here.

MOC88

Sergeant wrote: »

There are many examples of people throughout history who are seen as heroes by people who admire what they did. From Caesar to Armstrong.

Yet they turn out to be fundamentally flawed.

Any other examples of people who you feel don't deserve the badge of 'hero' that has been placed upon them?

What was wrong with Caesar, people who admire him for his ability to lead an army, maneuver politically and achieve the seemingly impossible. H eliad the foundation for Rome to become what it was. You don't get to the top by accident, generally you have to be ruthless

MOC88

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

There are a group leading an armed struggle against the English in Ireland today. They're called the real IRA and they're rightly branded as terrorists.

If the rebels had the support you claim, tgen why did they perform so poorly in the elections and the Irish Parliamentary Party polled so well.

It sounds like you've been indoctrinated by a distorted account of history that FF had taught in schools here.

I was trying to point out you're arguments are weak, why would the IRA rebel in Dublin you ####. Besides, they co-operate more with the former unionist paramilitary organisations these days laundering petrol and diesel. :pac:

Because very few people knew about them at that stage due to the impracticality of publicity in 1910-1916 and home rule was going to be granted when the elections were being put forward. When you are living hand to mouth, can't read and don't have a radio its very hard to tell the difference between one political party and another. The parliamenary party had been around for 50 years in one form or another and even had links to O Connell's movement never mind the land league etc. etc. They knew the representatives in their area and had for years and knew they were working for more independence for Ireland... what did they know about this new party?

It sounds like you've been indoctrinated by a revisionist view of events and are just rying to be contrary to what you feel is a doctrine.

I've pointed to eye witness accounts of support for the rebellion. You seem to think people fo the time had access to all info. about relative parties, ideoligies etc.

Andrew_Doran

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

It sounds like you've been indoctrinated by a distorted account of history that FF had taught in schools here.

History is always written by the victors, that much is sure. The proof is right in this thread not least with the large number of inaccuracies and outright falsitudes that I assume are the result of presumption.

Re-learning our history as an adult, to get a more complete picture of the time and events is one of the best things I have ever done.

Andrew_Doran

MOC88 wrote: »

When you [...] can't read [...] its very hard to tell the difference between one political party and another

Source? I would have expected literacy rates to be 80-90% by the time of the rising due to 80+ years of the national school system

MOC88

Andrew_Doran wrote: »

Source? I would have expected literacy rates to be 80-90% by the time of the rising due to 80+ years of the national school system

True enough - but I would question what quality of literacy they ahd and how many read regularly eg. newspapers, even then I'd still argue most people still had no awareness of politics and little time to concern themselves with a new party and representatives when they ultimately were going to vote the way the always voted without a strong trigger to do so... much as they do so today Irish people have and will continue to support what they know. Once they became aware of the Sinn Fein as an entity and its ideal they grabbed a majority. Besides I'd imagine, most people would have assumed they were insane thinking about taking on the U.K. to win full independence anyway. Same as now, Ireland votes for as close to the centre as they can get and most people who are outside of it and seen as dangerous (rightly in some cases).

Many people became politicised when they were taken off to Wales sitting around in prison camps when they were lukewarm before. They then came back after listening to the ringleaders spread across the country.

To say that they were terrorists as the psoter has claimed because the polled poorly is imo niamhe at best. And as I've pointed out the was the American Revolution a terrorist act, HUngarian Uprising, etc.

Nodin

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Another modern 'hero' I'd be sceptical of would be Nelson Mandela. He was a co-founder (..........)there are legion in this country)

Justified use of force against an evil regime. It strikes me as bizarre that somebody would question it.

--Kaiser--

Nodin wrote: »

Justified use of force against an evil regime. It strikes me as bizarre that somebody would question it.

I find it equally bizarre that any rational human being* would excuse the murder of innocent civilians to support a political cause. There are better ways of doing things. Supposedly you support the IRA, Basque separatists and the like also?

*Not implying you are a rational human being, BTW

Chinasea

JACKIE HEALY RAE & SONs

Nodin

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I find it equally bizarre that any rational human being would excuse the murder of innocent civilians to support a political cause. There are better ways of doing things........

This is really strange. You seem to be a bit confused on the nature of Apartheid South Africa. It was not a democracy in the Western European sense. It classified peoples as inferior and superior. It imposed a systematic regime to disempower and impoverish the majority, keep them that way, and supress dissent. This was done by both overt and covert violence.

Yes, I have supported a number of groups over the years. If you'd like to discuss them, feel free to start a thread and I'll be along presently.

--Kaiser--

Nodin wrote: »

This is really strange. You seem to be a bit confused on the nature of Apartheid South Africa. It was not a democracy in the Western European sense. It classified peoples as inferior and superior. It imposed a systematic regime to disempower and impoverish the majority, keep them that way, and supress dissent. This was done by both overt and covert violence.

Yes, I have supported a number of groups over the years. If you'd like to discuss them, feel free to start a thread and I'll be along presently.

I am not in the least bit confused about the nature of Apartheid. I just don't support the murder of innocent civilians for any reason. Call it principles, morals, whatever you want. And you can leave off the mock shock at people who don't support terrorism, if you can't understand that then you are either a psychopath or an imbecile

I am pie

Chinasea wrote: »

JACKIE HEALY RAE & SONs

tis more of a tale of the misguided electorate than misguided hero! (and sons!)

MOC88

I am pie wrote: »

tis more of a tale of the misguided electorate than misguided hero! (and sons!)

I don't know if there was ever a hero of getting funds for roads, but if there was it'd be him

April O Neill

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I think there's a bit of a bandwagon going re Mother Teresa.

No, there isn't.

Yes, what she was actually like is really only coming to light in ther last while, but hearing about it and being horrified isn't bandwagon-jumping.

the_syco

Sergeant wrote: »

Yet he has managed to become a poster-child and an iconic figure planted on many a cheap sweatshop manufactured t-shirt.

I'm pretty sure this was because the photo could be produced royalty free.

April O Neill

bnt wrote: »

JFK's adulterous affairs were legendary, too many to go in to here, but they continued while he was in the Oval Office.

Yeah, I mean I know it shouldn't matter that much, but JFK really was ridiculous in this regard. Could NOT keep it in his trousers.

April O Neill

MYOB wrote: »

Basically he had the altitude to glide the plane in to Teterboro Airport, a large but private only airport in NJ. But he refused and insisted on going in to the river, something relatively un-done. Showboating with peoples lives and a multi-million dollar plane.

Seems a bit conspiracy theory-ish to me, TBH. The existence of a book doesn't make it less so.

Nodin

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I am not in the least bit confused about the nature of Apartheid. I just don't support the murder of innocent civilians for any reason. Call it principles, morals, whatever you want. And you can leave off the mock shock at people who don't support terrorism, if you can't understand that then you are either a psychopath or imbecile

...with that attitude the Nazis would have won the war. Well done you.

Riddle101

Does DeValera get counted as a hero? If so then i'd go with him. Allowed the church to influence Ireland with it's conservative policies, started a trade war with Britain, his role during the Easter Rising may be over exaggerated in the sense that there are reports that he may have had a breakdown during the conflict and thus was not of right state of mind at the time and singed the book of condolences for Hitler.

Killinator

Bobby Sands,
Don't get the big deal!

Yitzhak Rabin

MOC88 wrote: »

True enough - but I would question what quality of literacy they ahd and how many read regularly eg. newspapers, even then I'd still argue most people still had no awareness of politics and little time to concern themselves with a new party and representatives when they ultimately were going to vote the way the always voted without a strong trigger to do so... much as they do so today Irish people have and will continue to support what they know. Once they became aware of the Sinn Fein as an entity and its ideal they grabbed a majority. Besides I'd imagine, most people would have assumed they were insane thinking about taking on the U.K. to win full independence anyway. Same as now, Ireland votes for as close to the centre as they can get and most people who are outside of it and seen as dangerous (rightly in some cases).

Many people became politicised when they were taken off to Wales sitting around in prison camps when they were lukewarm before. They then came back after listening to the ringleaders spread across the country.

To say that they were terrorists as the psoter has claimed because the polled poorly is imo niamhe at best. And as I've pointed out the was the American Revolution a terrorist act, HUngarian Uprising, etc.

So essentially you believe that the Irish were too thick to know what's good for them, so Pearse and his merry bunch of warrior poets were right to ignore what people voted for a go ahead with their moronic uprising.

Nodin

Killinator wrote: »

Bobby Sands,
Don't get the big deal!

Facing a slow death like that for any cause takes serious commitment.

Nodin

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

So essentially you believe that the Irish were too thick to know what's good for them, so DeValera and his merry bunch of warrior poets were right to ignore what people voted for a go ahead with their moronic uprising.

......sez oul arm breaker Rabin.

April O Neill

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Another modern 'hero' I'd be sceptical of would be Nelson Mandela. He was a co-founder of the militant wing of the ANC which deliberately targeted civilians in a campaign of terror (if this is a surprise to you, look up necklacing, a common punishment for enemies of the ANC

Awww, you slayed the sacred cow I wanted to before I could, boo to you!

Yitzhak Rabin

Nodin wrote: »

......sez oul arm breaker Rabin.

What's your problem with Yitzhak Rabin. Widely regarded as a progressive leader. Won a nobel peace prize and had his life taken off him for his efforts to reach a peaceful settlement with the palestinians.

Killinator

Nodin wrote: »

Facing a slow death like that for any cause takes serious commitment.

The cause he was starving for was not noble and he wasn't in prison unjustly.

Being commited to something so awful doesn't make him a hero in my book.
Plenty of people throughout history have been pretty commited to their beliefs and they wouldn't be considered heroes,
Maniacs yes, but not heroes.

April O Neill

Prettyblack wrote: »

But we all love Lennon cos he wrote "Imagine"

I don't love him for that.

Nodin

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

What's your problem with Yitzhak Rabin. Widely regarded as a progressive leader. Won a nobel peace prize and had his life taken off him for his efforts to reach a peaceful settlement with the palestinians.

....who was partly responsible for the situation in the first place (the ethnic cleansing of lydda), whose notion of dealing with demonstrations was systematic bone-breaking....while he may have done good, he was far from a saint.

Nodin

Killinator wrote: »

The cause he was starving for was not noble and he wasn't in prison unjustly.
.

A matter of opinion. Few would have the strength to carry out the same act, however.

--Kaiser--

Nodin wrote: »

...with that attitude the Nazis would have won the war. Well done you.

You got me there. I don't support terrorism therefore I'm a Nazi supporter

Nodin

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You got me there. I don't support terrorism therefore I'm a Nazi supporter

Not what I said. To be precise, you don't recognise that certain extremes require a certain response - fighting a greater evil with a lesser, in effect.

Killinator

Nodin wrote: »

A matter of opinion. Few would have the strength to carry out the same act, however.

But few people would have the 'guts' to walk into a school and shoot it and the people in it up and eventually killed themselves!

Should they be admired for their conviction of their beliefs or cause.....of course not.
A guy starving himself for better conditions in prison( or more so to be treated better than 'regular' criminals) who subsequently dies has done nothing heroic in my opinion.

--Kaiser--

Nodin wrote: »

Not what I said. To be precise, you don't recognise that certain extremes require a certain response - fighting a greater evil with a lesser, in effect.

So you're saying that the SA regime caused suffering (a fact I'm not disputing) and the way to fight that was to cause more suffering? How necessary was the death of innocent civilians? How many of the civilian deaths in the Church St bombing were necessary? How much quicker did those deaths end the oppression of the South African people? Could it not have been done better, perhaps through more political means?

--Kaiser--

Killinator wrote: »

Bobby Sands,
Don't get the big deal!

Convicted terrorist tries to dictate the terms of his imprisonment and starves himself to death when he doesn't get his way. It's almost comedic

Nodin

Killinator wrote: »

But few people would have the 'guts' to walk into a school and shoot it and the people in it up and eventually killed themselves!.

....emmm.....whats that to do with bobby sands?

charlemont

downonthefarm wrote: »

the scissor sisters,they gt jail but should of been given a meadal

I ended up drinking with Farah one night and he was nothing like those sisters portrayed him as..

I personally think he was naive and innocent to get involved with the kind of people who killed him, For a man who probably never drank or took drugs till he came to Ireland spending months, days fighting, popping pills and drinking with that crowd probably seriously fúcked his head up.

Nodin

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

So you're saying that the SA regime caused suffering (a fact I'm not disputing) and the way to fight that was to cause more suffering? How necessary was the death of innocent civilians? How many of the civilian deaths in the Church St bombing were necessary? How much quicker did those deaths end the oppression of the South African people? Could it not have been done better, perhaps through more political means?

...both political and direct means were nessecary. For most of the period the US government backed the apartheid regime.

Killinator

Nodin wrote: »

....emmm.....whats that to do with bobby sands?

Sorry I was using it as a means to suggest commitment to a cause does not a hero make,
Extreme I know but I believe it's a valid point.

Killer Wench

Why would you expect a hero to be unflawed? Every human being is flawed whether physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually.

Nodin

Killinator wrote: »

Sorry I was using it as a means to suggest commitment to a cause does not a hero make,
Extreme I know but I believe it's a valid point.

....seeing as this was commitment to self sacrifice, not really the best comparison.

Dancor

The Barcelona team of the last 5 or so years. Drugged up little bastards.

SniperSight

Nodin wrote: »

....seeing as this was commitment to self sacrifice, not really the best comparison.

Self sacrifice for himself.

--Kaiser--

Nodin wrote: »

...both political and direct means were nessecary. For most of the period the US government backed the apartheid regime.

Perhaps they would have backed the ANC if they weren't (rightly) considered a terrorist organisation? (though their links with communism certainly didn't help). Attack the army and police force, sure. These people can defend themselves and know the risk they can be taking in their role. Attack innocents with no more crime than being in the wrong place at the wrong time and you are showing yourselves to be morally vacuous cowards. And who would back them?

Killinator

Nodin wrote: »

....seeing as this was commitment to self sacrifice, not really the best comparison.

Okay, what about a suicide bomber, that's self sacrifice and requires alot of commitment,
Hell Bobby could have stopped and had every opportunity to do so, he didn't start off thinking he would die, he thought the other side would give in, they didn't, he died, tough sh*t!

I still don't see how him starving himself makes him a hero though!

Nodin

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Perhaps they would have backed the ANC if they weren't (rightly) considered a terrorist organisation? (though their links with communism certainly didn't help). Attack the army and police force, sure. These people can defend themselves and know the risk they can be taking in their role. Attack innocents with no more crime than being in the wrong place at the wrong time and you are showing yourselves to be morally vacuous cowards. And who would back them?

....communism is worse than a regime founded on racist ideology? This is news to me.

Considering that the US itself during the period was carrying out mass bombings on both Vietnam and Cambodia, as well as programmes of covert assassination, not to mention the methods of the South African regime itself, its rather hard to see where you get the notion they had some principled objection to "terrorism". Even more so when you consider that the ANC never renounced violence.

Nodin

Killinator wrote: »

Okay, what about a suicide bomber, that's self sacrifice and requires alot of commitment,

Its over in an instant. However you seem to be using the notion that a suicide bomber can't be heroic or is somehow morally wrong from the outset....

Killinator wrote: »

Hell Bobby could have stopped and had every opportunity to do so, he didn't start off thinking he would die, he thought the other side would give in, they didn't, he died, tough sh*t!

I still don't see how him starving himself makes him a hero though!

Dear o dear.....hard to know where to begin with ye.

Killinator

Nodin wrote: »

Its over in an instant. However you seem to be using the notion that a suicide bomber can't be heroic or is somehow morally wrong from the outset....




Dear o dear.....hard to know where to begin with ye.

Sure go ahead and try, I'm desperate to hear, enlighten me, etc, etc....

So far you've explained why Bobby sands was commited, not why he's a hero.

Nodin

Killinator wrote: »

Sure go ahead and try, I'm desperate to hear, enlighten me, etc, etc....

.......do you not think that enduring a long painful demise for a cause you believe in takes a heroic effort?