RIC and DMP to be commemorated this month

smelly sock

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’ve never understood how one can describe the British executing the 1916 leaders as brutal or disproportionate.

When you and your squad run a suicide mission leading to half of Dublin being levelled, Widespread civilian death and the diverting of military resources during a world war because you thought you knew what what was good for the Irish people better than they themselves (it wasn’t like the Irish people had an assembly and decided to declare independence and sent Pearse in) and wanted to fulfil your dream of dying for the cause.

What does one expect the British to do in this situation? Sry, u don’t get to do all that and just walk away. The brits just wanted to deal with it so they could get back to fighting Germans.

One needs to educate ones self on genocides such as the great famine to understand the true brutality of ones Empire.

Sean.3516

lmimmfn wrote: »

Sorry but WTAF?
If you want to be brittish move up north or across the sea.

Soooooo much tolerance.

Sir Oxman

markodaly wrote: »

Ah but you see, the Christian Bother version of Irish Republicanism means that its better to starve or to emigrate to Britain then to take the Kings half crown.
All the while, the Christian Brothers raped their way through half of Irelands schools. A great bunch of lads who created a lovely state for us all.

FG and FF created that mess.

Sean.3516

smelly sock wrote: »

One needs to educate ones self on genocides such as the great famine to understand the true brutality of ones Empire.

This seems to be the default tact whenever anyone critiques the republican movement in anyway.

“Whataboutism”. Yes the brits should treated us appallingly during the famine.

What in the hell has this got to do with a bunch of fanatics deciding lead an unpopular revolt in the capital and destroying half the city?

Sean.3516

I’ve been thinking, since the War of Independence was not a conventional war (as in a war fought between recognised belligerent nations who’s soldiers wore uniforms etc.) but a guerilla war (where a faction within a country rebels in order to achieve recognition as an independent country) do we need to recalibrate our sense of what is and what isn’t a war crime?

For example the IRA obeyed literally none of the rules of warfare. The didn’t wear uniforms and they usually didn’t take prisoners or accept surrenders. Yet they claimed to be legitimate soldiers of a real nation.

The reason I think this is important is that in order for things like the Geneva Conventions to apply and for soldiers to have the rights of political prisoners, both sides have to be playing by the same rules. This is why (despite what you may hear) there’s nothing legitimately wrong with what the US is doing in Guantanamo Bay. Because ISIS/Al Qaeda doesn’t follow any of the rules of war, they are not entitled to the protections of prisoners of war.

Despite the War of Independence being an unconventional war, it most certainly was a war. Does it really make sense to describe certain things done by the British to prosecute an unconventional war where no rules are being observed by the opposing side as atrocities and war crimes?

Obviously I think there is a limiting principle here. Things like indiscriminately firing into Croke Park, burning Cork City and intentionally killing civilians are definitely atrocities.

But if the British do things like summarily execute IRA men or torture in order to gain information or crack down on the local population in ways like banning gatherings and suspending certain civil liberties. The fact is that expecting the British to follow all of the rules under these conditions is unreasonable. The RIC as a police force was forced to adopt different tactics suited to fighting a guerilla war if they hoped to win and for the IRA to not expect this or whinge when it happened would be moral cowardice on the part of the IRA.

I’m not suggesting that the IRA should have openly worn uniforms or fought like regular soldiers in a regular war. They wouldn’t have stood a chance that way. I’m saying that there is a certain responsibility in conducting a guerilla war. When you throw out the rule book, you should accept that the enemy will as well. This means forgoing the protections you would usually have as a soldier as well as incurring risk for the civilian population you’re hiding amongst.

Maybe we should remember this when judging the actions of the RIC during the War of Independence. We glorify the IRA as soldiers “fighting for the Republic” while vilifying the men of the RIC as brutalisers in every respect. Well, if “fighting for the Republic” means shooting detectives in the back, bombing, fighting with no uniform and giving little to no quarter well maybe certain actions by the RIC have to be re-examined.

lmimmfn

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Soooooo much tolerance.

Its not about tolerance, you're either Irish( protestant/catholic/Muslim whatever) or your not, the end result is we are a Republic and have been for a long time, portraying those who wanted independence when we were under brittish rule as terrorists is disgusting, I really don't understand what you're trying to achieve, move to the UK if you're not happy.

Edit: at this stage it just reads as you're trolling, added to ignore list

Zebra3

Let's do a timeline.

1100s First English forces occupy parts of Ireland. What follows for centuries in England is a period of supremacist anti-Irish propaganda labelling Irish people as savages, uncivilised and animals.

1297 First Irish parliament established. It is not a democracy and established by England.

1500s Irish people (catholics, jews, quakers and presbyterians and all) forced to pay a tax (tithe) to the British establishment's Irish church.

1600s Large scale ethnic cleansing of the native Irish by Britain begins. Apartheid style laws are enacted against catholics.

1800 Corrupt "Irish" parliament passes the Act of Union with many MPs bribed with promises of peerages, cash, and jobs. There was large scale Orange Order opposition to the Union.

1803 Robert Emmet rebellion fails. The civilised British then hung him and ripped him to pieces.

1845-1849 Millions left to starve as Britain exports food from Ireland. Population drops due to over a million deaths and mass emigration. Genocide.

1914 British Empire enters WWI claiming to be fighting for small nations despite occupying huge tracts of the globe and denying millions their human rights. Home Rule put on hold.

1916 IRB stage Easter Rising. Rising put down by British forces who bomb large parts of Dublin city center.

1918 SF win mandate from the Irish people to set up an independent republic. The idea was inspired by Hungarian MPs who walked out of the Imperial parliament in Vienna and established their own parliament.

1919 War of Independence starts. Britain declares democratically elected Irish parliament illegal.

So while both sides in the War of Independence committed atrocities, there is without doubt only one side that was fighting with any moral authority.

The people voted against the British presence in Ireland. They refused to leave. Those who sided with the British got what they deserved.

smelly sock

Sean.3516 wrote: »

This seems to be the default tact whenever anyone critiques the republican movement in anyway.

“Whataboutism”. Yes the brits should treated us appallingly during the famine.

What in the hell has this got to do with a bunch of fanatics deciding lead an unpopular revolt in the capital and destroying half the city?

The struggle for independence?

Their actions were a direct result of the British Empires treatment and behaviour in Ireland. Thats what it had to do with it.

Zebra3

Sean.3516 wrote: »

No no, it’s not that it didn’t exist as an independent state. It didn’t exist as a state full stop. There was no government there. The word “Palestinian” just refers to everyone living in the geographic area of Palestine. It doesn’t account for the fact there was no prevailing national identity or political movement. It was populated by nomadic tribes fighting each other half the time who hadn’t bothered cultivating the land for the hundreds of years they’d been there. It was a swampy wasteland before the Jews got there.

They Arabs sold them the crappiest swamps which they had to spend decades converting into fertile land which eventually was better than the Arab land and they were resentful for it.

If they didn’t want Jews coming in they shouldn’t have sold them the land. If they wanted to voice their objections they should have formed a government as they were allowed to do by the brits. If they didn’t want to get kicked out they shouldn’t have launched a war.

And you reveal your racism.

Lazy Palestinians. Superior jews.

Ergo the European jews should have the right to their land.

Shameless.

careless sherpa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’ve been thinking, since the War of Independence was not a conventional war (as in a war fought between recognised belligerent nations who’s soldiers wore uniforms etc.) but a guerilla war (where a faction within a country rebels in order to achieve recognition as an independent country) do we need to recalibrate our sense of what is and what isn’t a war crime?

For example the IRA obeyed literally none of the rules of warfare. The didn’t wear uniforms and they usually didn’t take prisoners or accept surrenders. Yet they claimed to be legitimate soldiers of a real nation.

The reason I think this is important is that in order for things like the Geneva Conventions to apply and for soldiers to have the rights of political prisoners, both sides have to be playing by the same rules. This is why (despite what you may hear) there’s nothing legitimately wrong with what the US is doing in Guantanamo Bay. Because ISIS/Al Qaeda doesn’t follow any of the rules of war, they are not entitled to the protections of prisoners of war.

Despite the War of Independence being an unconventional war, it most certainly was a war. Does it really make sense to describe certain things done by the British to prosecute an unconventional war where no rules are being observed by the opposing side as atrocities and war crimes?

Obviously I think there is a limiting principle here. Things like indiscriminately firing into Croke Park, burning Cork City and intentionally killing civilians are definitely atrocities.

But if the British do things like summarily execute IRA men or torture in order to gain information or crack down on the local population in ways like banning gatherings and suspending certain civil liberties. The fact is that expecting the British to follow all of the rules under these conditions is unreasonable. The RIC as a police force was forced to adopt different tactics suited to fighting a guerilla war if they hoped to win and for the IRA to not expect this or whinge when it happened would be moral cowardice on the part of the IRA.

I’m not suggesting that the IRA should have openly worn uniforms or fought like regular soldiers in a regular war. They wouldn’t have stood a chance that way. I’m saying that there is a certain responsibility in conducting a guerilla war. When you throw out the rule book, you should accept that the enemy will as well. This means forgoing the protections you would usually have as a soldier as well as incurring risk for the civilian population you’re hiding amongst.

Maybe we should remember this when judging the actions of the RIC during the War of Independence. We glorify the IRA as soldiers “fighting for the Republic” while vilifying the men of the RIC as brutalisers in every respect. Well, if “fighting for the Republic” means shooting detectives in the back, bombing, fighting with no uniform and giving little to no quarter well maybe certain actions by the RIC have to be re-examined.

Did you not post that rubbish already. There are very clear guidelines on international humanitarian law. Just because someone is a non state actor does not mean that their human rights evaporate

Sean.3516

Zebra3 wrote: »

And you reveal your racism.

Lazy Palestinians. Superior jews.

Ergo the European jews should have the right to their land.

Shameless.

Yes, the Palestinians were lazy and the Jews weren’t.

This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.

corner of hells

Zebra3 wrote: »

Let's do a timeline.

1100s First English forces occupy parts of Ireland. What follows for centuries in England is a period of supremacist anti-Irish propaganda labelling Irish people as savages, uncivilised and animals.

1297 First Irish parliament established. It is not a democracy and established by England.

1500s Irish people (catholics, jews, quakers and presbyterians and all) forced to pay a tax (tithe) to the British establishment's Irish church.

1600s Large scale ethnic cleansing of the native Irish by Britain begins. Apartheid style laws are enacted against catholics.

1800 Corrupt "Irish" parliament passes the Act of Union with many MPs bribed with promises of peerages, cash, and jobs. There was large scale Orange Order opposition to the Union.

1803 Robert Emmet rebellion fails. The civilised British then hung him and ripped him to pieces.

1845-1849 Millions left to starve as Britain exports food from Ireland. Population drops due to over a million deaths and mass emigration. Genocide.

1914 British Empire enters WWI claiming to be fighting for small nations despite occupying huge tracts of the globe and denying millions their human rights. Home Rule put on hold.

1916 IRB stage Easter Rising. Rising put down by British forces who bomb large parts of Dublin city center.

1918 SF win mandate from the Irish people to set up an independent republic. The idea was inspired by Hungarian MPs who walked out of the Imperial parliament in Vienna and established their own parliament.

1919 War of Independence starts. Britain declares democratically elected Irish parliament illegal.

So while both sides in the War of Independence committed atrocities, there is without doubt only one side that was fighting with any moral authority.

The people voted against the British presence in Ireland. They refused to leave. Those who sided with the British got what they deserved.

I love Irish history, theres no record of Quakers or Presbyterians in Ireland in the 1500s.

Sean.3516

careless sherpa wrote: »

Did you not post that rubbish already. There are very clear guidelines on international humanitarian law. Just because someone is a non state actor does not mean that their human rights evaporate

I posted it late last night and when most ppl were offline. Nobody really saw it and I genuinely wanted to hear ppl’s thoughts. So I deleted it and reposted it.

Being a non-state actor has nothing to do with it. The point I’m making is that it’s not clear to me that you should be allowed to fight an unconventional war and then expect the rules of conventional war to apply to you.

Those rules exist for good reason. For example, the purpose of wearing uniforms is to prevent civilian casualties by allowing both armies to see who is a combatant and who is not.

Nowhere in the post do I blame the IRA for fighting the way they did or suggest that they should have fought a conventional war. It’s highly unlikely that they ever could have won by fighting that way. But we should bear this in mind when we assess certain actions the British undertook to fight the IRA.

Sean.3516

smelly sock wrote: »

The struggle for independence?

Their actions were a direct result of the British Empires treatment and behaviour in Ireland. Thats what it had to do with it.

Mistreatment 70 years prior. I see, so the War of Independence was a response to the Famine. And the Easter Rising was a response to Cromwell I assume?

Sir Oxman

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yes, the Palestinians were lazy and the Jews weren’t.

This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.

That sounds disgustingly similar to the English view of the Irish throughout our lovely 'union with them'
Native Irish - barely human, lazy

English & planters - superior beings

lmimmfn

The worst thing about this is that it has soured the whole commemorations of our hero's who fought hard to provide us with the beautiful country we live in today(ok politics sux today), but it is a country of opportunity where the poorest can get degrees and socially no-one is that poor.

All the idiots supporting the RIC and questioning whether those who fought for our independence were terrorists in the eyes of the brits and therefore would prefer British rule here today, that might be ok if you're a brit but in the 2 tier society back then the Irish were shafted and it's obvious that what happened had to happen.

We should be celebrating our Republic and those poor souls who dies for it and looking forward to the future!!!!!

The Golden Miller

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’ve never understood how one can describe the British executing the 1916 leaders as brutal or disproportionate.

When you and your squad run a suicide mission leading to half of Dublin being levelled, Widespread civilian death and the diverting of military resources during a world war because you thought you knew what what was good for the Irish people better than they themselves (it wasn’t like the Irish people had an assembly and decided to declare independence and sent Pearse in) and wanted to fulfil your dream of dying for the cause.

What does one expect the British to do in this situation? Sry, u don’t get to do all that and just walk away. The brits just wanted to deal with it so they could get back to fighting Germans.

So when the Irish act, British violence in retaliation is fine? When Britain acts, the Irish must go down the route of diplomacy?

This is the thing with those who tend to defend Britain on these sort of threads, they can't seem to see the hypocrisy of their enlightened "matured" reflection. Never do they have a grievance with Britain taking up arms, infact at times actively defend it, and furthermore, insist we should remember it to show how progressive we are as a nation. And when the Irish take up arms, focus solely on that as the issue, and any criticism of Britain must be steered away from.

There's alot of talk from Britain's hat doffer's about this "commemoration" being hijacked by "RA head, Celtic jeresy wearing barstoolers" who "hate da Brits". When you have to keep reverting to such stereotypes you know your onto a loser. It's quite clear their is huge revulsion over this through-out the country, far outnumbering this near stereotypical demographic. But that doesn't suit the narrative of some. They want to pigeon hole and talk down to others, ala Varadkar, with their smug self-interested version of history.

Sean.3516

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yes, the Palestinians were lazy and the Jews weren’t.

This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.

You seem to be forgetting that the Israelis murdered a number of British personnel are were considered terrorists while they controlled Palestine.

lmimmfn

Sir Oxman wrote: »

That sounds disgustingly similar to the English view of the Irish throughout our lovely 'union with them'
Native Irish - barely human, lazy

English & planters - superior beings

He's trolling

Sean.3516

Sir Oxman wrote: »

That sounds disgustingly similar to the English view of the Irish throughout our lovely 'union with them'
Native Irish - barely human, lazy

English & planters - superior beings

My goodness. How people derive race from everything is beyond me.

The nomadic Arabs in Palestine spent centuries living in an unfertile swamp. European Jews purchase parts of said swamp and spend the next 20 years planting frigging eucalyptus trees to suck out the moisture and reclaim the land.

You have to be a buffoon to suggest that superior race was the cause of this. The Jews were able to do this due to knowledge, wherewithal and motivation. I don’t know why the Arabs didn’t do that. Maybe they were satisfied to live as they had always lived.

Billcarson

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Nowhere in the post do I blame the IRA for fighting the way they did or suggest that they should have fought a conventional war. It’s highly unlikely that they ever could have won by fighting that way. But we should bear this in mind when we assess certain actions the British undertook to fight the IRA.

The actions the British took was out of frustration because the IRA were not fighting a conventional war. Appalling rapisels by the black and tans etc which disgusted even the British Army. The British Army wanted nothing to do with the black and tans such was their behaviour.

gormdubhgorm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I posted it late last night and when most ppl were offline. Nobody really saw it and I genuinely wanted to hear ppl’s thoughts. So I deleted it and reposted it.

Being a non-state actor has nothing to do with it. The point I’m making is that it’s not clear to me that you should be allowed to fight an unconventional war and then expect the rules of conventional war to apply to you.

Those rules exist for good reason. For example, the purpose of wearing uniforms is to prevent civilian casualties by allowing both armies to see who is a combatant and who is not.

Nowhere in the post do I blame the IRA for fighting the way they did or suggest that they should have fought a conventional war. It’s highly unlikely that they ever could have won by fighting that way. But we should bear this in mind when we assess certain actions the British undertook to fight the IRA.

To me there are parallels to the American's foreign 'adventures' - surrounded by a populace any of whom could be the enemy.
Poeple hiding ammo in houses, messages in statues on the mantelpiece, or in bicycle. Women couriers. Plus a lot of the more unhinged former convicts taken in from the 'mainland' were already on edge.

Pearse wanted to fight like conventional army in 1916 because he wanted to make an honorable statement. But Collins was right to knock that craic on the head fairly sharpish.
The local volunteer flying columns also seemed to be given tremendous freedom to do what they wanted.

But while the IRA's/Volunteers guerrilla tactics contributed to the eventual half victory/draw/truce they certainly contributed to the viciousness and tit for tat reprisals.

Sir Oxman

Sean.3516 wrote: »

My goodness. How people derive race from everything is beyond me.

The nomadic Arabs in Palestine spent centuries living in an unfertile swamp. European Jews purchase parts of said swamp and spend the next 20 years planting frigging eucalyptus trees to suck out the moisture and reclaim the land.

You have to be a buffoon to suggest that superior race was the cause of this. The Jews were able to do this due to knowledge, wherewithal and motivation. I don’t know why the Arabs didn’t do that. Maybe they were satisfied to live as they had always lived.

*whoosh*

Sean.3516

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The reason I think this is important is that in order for things like the Geneva Conventions to apply and for soldiers to have the rights of political prisoners, both sides have to be playing by the same rules. This is why (despite what you may hear) there’s nothing legitimately wrong with what the US is doing in Guantanamo Bay. Because ISIS/Al Qaeda doesn’t follow any of the rules of war, they are not entitled to the protections of prisoners of war.

Rubbish. Rules for war are encouraged by the side with the most firepower. Which is why the Irish fought a guerrilla war. Any fighting done by conventional means would have brought a swift end to the rebellion, as had happened so many times before. The British Empire was still one of the worlds major empires at the time of the Rebellion.

As for those opposing the US, their conventional armies were crushed by a vastly superior and technologically advanced enemy. Obeying conventional rules simply makes them a target considering the wide range of weapons in the US arsenal. It makes no logical sense to follow such conventions since they had no input in creating them in the first place.

Anyway, the US has flouted the essence of the Geneva convention using word games and playing semantics to excuse their barbaric torture of anyone even remotely suspected of opposing their invasion. It's worth remembering that the invasion of Iraq was founded on a lie told to everyone. Hardly reason to trust the US to abide by any other pesky rules they find inconvenient. Especially since they just use private contractors to do the dirty work for them.

There is plenty wrong with what the US is doing. The ends do not justify the means (and I'm highly dubious about the ends here). Honestly, Bush should be strung up for war crimes along with all those who supported and encouraged this action that plunged the whole region into chaos. So, no, I don't buy into your logic, even slightly.

Despite the War of Independence being an unconventional war, it most certainly was a war. Does it really make sense to describe certain things done by the British to prosecute an unconventional war where no rules are being observed by the opposing side as atrocities and war crimes?

It was a rebellion. Rebellions of that time and previously were always put down using the harshest of tactics. The Republicans knew what would happen, and counted on it as a way of generating more recruits for the cause. Had the rebellion failed, they'd have further material for the next one. It's not as if Ireland had a scarcity of rebellions over the previous three hundred years.

The problem is that people are assigning relatively modern thinking to a far different time. It wasn't long previously that Churchill approved the use of chemical weapons on his enemies. He could have done the same in Ireland and few (both in the UK or abroad) would have objected.

Obviously I think there is a limiting principle here. Things like indiscriminately firing into Croke Park, burning Cork City and intentionally killing civilians are definitely atrocities.

Indeed they are. But they only stand out for the people who are being oppressed. To the ruling people, it's just another incident in a long line of similar operations. Look to India, or any of their other colonies, and you'll find a long list of atrocities designed to shock the local population into compliance through fear.

But if the British do things like summarily execute IRA men or torture in order to gain information or crack down on the local population in ways like banning gatherings and suspending certain civil liberties. The fact is that expecting the British to follow all of the rules under these conditions is unreasonable. The RIC as a police force was forced to adopt different tactics suited to fighting a guerilla war if they hoped to win and for the IRA to not expect this or whinge when it happened would be moral cowardice on the part of the IRA.

It's not unreasonable.. It's just unrealistic considering the history of Empires.

I’m not suggesting that the IRA should have openly worn uniforms or fought like regular soldiers in a regular war. They wouldn’t have stood a chance that way. I’m saying that there is a certain responsibility in conducting a guerilla war. When you throw out the rule book, you should accept that the enemy will as well. This means forgoing the protections you would usually have as a soldier as well as incurring risk for the civilian population you’re hiding amongst.

Hindsight is just wonderful, isn't it? The Irish use of guerrilla warfare was done in a vacuum. There wasn't the internet. There wasn't a helpful Amazon to send you books on whatever topic you wanted. Libraries and bookstores were heavily censored. They made it up as they went along, learning what worked and discarding what didn't. Advice came from third/fourth/fifth hand sources who heard something about other rebellions, or soldiers who had faced similar tactics while serving with British forces.

There was no rule book because there were no rules. They were rebelling against a legitimate monarch. Their actions were illegal unless they were victorious.

Maybe we should remember this when judging the actions of the RIC during the War of Independence. We glorify the IRA as soldiers “fighting for the Republic” while vilifying the men of the RIC as brutalisers in every respect. Well, if “fighting for the Republic” means shooting detectives in the back, bombing, fighting with no uniform and giving little to no quarter well maybe certain actions by the RIC have to be re-examined.

Or not. Or we could simply put all behind us as history and move on with our lives. Nobody here was alive back then. They're latching on to other peoples pain, and hatred of being oppressed. I don't like Republicans in the Republic, because they're harping on about oppression that they've never felt for themselves. They'll keep the hatred burning bright and seek to drag everyone in there with them, because misery loves company.

I have no issue with a remembrance for the RIC or other Irish who served. However, honestly, I wish they would just put all this **** in a history bin, and let the rest of us move on. Ireland doesn't need any of this crap being stirred up. It serves no useful purpose.

Zebra3

corner of hells wrote: »

I love Irish history, theres no record of Quakers or Presbyterians in Ireland in the 1500s.

The tithe was enforced into the 1800s.

Quakers and presbyterians were forced to pay it until it was abolished.

Zebra3

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yes, the Palestinians were lazy and the Jews weren’t.

This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.

So if one group of people deems another group lazy they can then claim their land and ethnically cleanse them?

gormdubhgorm

Sir Oxman wrote: »

That sounds disgustingly similar to the English view of the Irish throughout our lovely 'union with them'
Native Irish - barely human, lazy

English & planters - superior beings

This craic was done though.

The British tried to dehumanise the Irish similar to the way the American's did for 100's of years.








https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/28/irish-apes-tactics-of-de-humanization/


The irony is there is a fear in Ireland today of humanising those from the 'Crown forces', many of whom were born and bred in Ireland. It is much easier to hate someone if they are not given a character or a face. It is important for some Irish people that the British are always seem as 'other' not of us. They cannot be seen like any normal individual in those circumstances they were in. Some one's hardworking brother, father, husband, uncle, nephew etc.

Sean.3516

The Golden Miller wrote: »

So when the Irish act, British violence in retaliation is fine? When Britain acts, the Irish must go down the route of diplomacy?

If you can cite one instance of me ever saying this I’ll give you a cookie.

I’ve never said this ever. What I’m saying is that if you’re going to slay a dragon:

No.1, You better have a clear and good rationale for slaying this particular dragon.

No.2, You better not miss. If you do the dragons gonna eat you.

Pearse knew he hadn’t a hope in hell of winning. You know he hadn’t a hope of winning. Those of you who look at this objectively know that the vast majority of people in Ireland at the time disagreed with what he was doing and were happy to continue seeking Home Rule through peaceful means.

markodaly

Sir Oxman wrote: »

FG and FF created that mess.

The whitewashing of history perpetuated by fanatical Irish Republicans created that mess. The state they created was an economic black-hole, whos leaders were more intent on locking people up than providing the basic needs and who outsourced pretty much all social and education services to the Roman Catholic Church whose legacy on this Island still haunts us to this day.

To cover up the desperate score card, we created myth after myth about 'da Rising' and the flying columns, 800 years of oppresion, blah blah blah.
The Christian brother version of Irish history. The century long state backed amnesia when it came to Irish men serving in the British army in WWI or the RIC/DMP is par of the course.

We rarely get told what pre 1916 Ireland was like for the ordinary person. Not every Irish person was a rebel or republican, in fact the vast majority werent but did want to more self determination ala Home Rule.

As I said, the victors get the write the history, but by no means is it true.

James Brown

It's pretty straightforward.
The RIC were a mechanism for the British to maintain rule. The idea that we should be commemorating the very people who often through murder actively tried to stop Irish independence is farcical.

The civil war is a different story. Both sides were Irish and both had to come together afterwards. That's a good reason for giving respect to both sides. We come from both sides.