RIC and DMP to be commemorated this month

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I fully agree, and have heaped praise on him in the Brexit thread as well as McEntee, and Maread McGuinness and the other Brexit spokesman (can't think of his name)
Coveney as a politician is leagues ahead of Leo.
But in my mid 50's having followed politics all my life I can give you a tip, at some point in his career boards,ie will be awash with posts about his arrogance, the specific FG type arrogance, that turns on the people if he doesn't get his way.

Agreed but he has all the charisma of a wet fish - that is his main problem.

jmcc

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Nothing hyperbolic about that at all.
In your head Fergal Keane has committed a dasterdly crime just because he clearly stated that he had descendants who were members of the RIC.
Also getting an OBE is a crime in your eyes.

Did he get his OBE for inventing time travel?

Regards...jmcc

1800_Ladladlad

Number 1 on the Scottish charts

spurious

Is wikipedia really being cited as a serious source by some people?

PeteEd

Lest we forget
Mary Lou and Arlene can translate for the language sensitive souls

Fann Linn

spurious wrote: »

Is wikipedia really being cited as a serious source by some people?

By Varadakar and FlanaganðŸ˜

McMurphy

spurious wrote: »

Is wikipedia really being cited as a serious source by some people?

Are you saying Wikipedia isn't very accurate about certain pages it hosts?

The Rape of Lucretia

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No they aren't confidential. A good researcher could find them on google I am sure. I would only remember them if specific numbers mattered. What matters for me is that a lot of people died.

Possibly up to 20 killed by the B&Ts it seems which is indeed dreadful.

The terrorists killed over 1800.

The Rape of Lucretia

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No it doesn't that is just the child like simple meaning, that the American's are prone to latch on to.

A terrorist is more often then not a member of an unlawful group with political aims.

Much like the lads from 1916 would be strictly defined as terrorists no matter what the spin nowadays, and morally as well because they had no mandate.

But even the war of independence the Volunteers can be deemed as a terrorist organisation as they were an unlawful group with political aims.

Also the anti treaty side can be termed as terrorists during the Civil war because they were an unlawful group with political aims.

If you look at the CJ Terrorist offences act 2005

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/2/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4
It defines terrorist activity under s4 of the act -

“terrorist activity” means an act that is committed in or outside the State and that—

(a) if committed in the State, would constitute an offence specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 , and

(b) is committed with the intention of—

(i) seriously intimidating a population,

(ii) unduly compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act, or

(iii) seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a state or an international organisation;

Easy now. Facts and definition make it very difficult to turn a blind eye to the truth or to mistake fiction for reality.

fundi

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Possibly up to 20 killed by the B&Ts it seems which is indeed dreadful.

The terrorists killed over 1800.

+1.
Yet to listen to the school propoganda machine in this country, it was the B and T's who were the main terrorists, not the IRA.

Edgware

J Mysterio wrote: »

Doesn't mean I will go along with that. As things stand, he is deserving of a medal for his service to Ireland.

Doesn't he get well paid?

FrancieBrady

On the subject of 'terrorism' and it's redundancy as a term or name to call somebody in the context of our history, I suggest people read this and maybe if still confused do some more reading on it. If you want to call a freedom fighter a 'terrorist' then it is quite right and legitimate to call the person they are fighting against a 'terrorist' too.

There are many reasons for the failure to achieve universal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism. In a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament, Angus Martyn stated that "the international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination." These divergences have made it impossible to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal-law definition of terrorism.

And another word of advice, take anything the 'UN' has to say on this with a pinch of salt, a the 5 veto holding main members are among the biggest colonists, imperialists, international bullies and self appointed international policemen the world has ever known.

fundi

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Possibly up to 20 killed by the B&Ts it seems which is indeed dreadful.

The terrorists killed over 1800.

So for every one person the black and tans killed, the IRA killed 90 ? Looks to me the Republicans were the real terrorists.

gormdubhgorm

jmcc wrote: »

Did he get his OBE for inventing time travel?

Regards...jmcc

that was his desecendants name yes also a fergal name passes on jmcc was his middle name.

gormdubhgorm

jmcc wrote: »

That's a bit offside. So you agree that the Black and Tans were the RIC and the RIC where the Black and Tans

No I have already explained why they were fundemently different in character both in uniform mindset and where they were recruited from. Even in colloquial name.
I have said this numerous times at this stage.

I am starting to get the impression you only read the posts you want and ignore the others you also repeatedly refuse to answer any of my questions.
For instance you did not give your views on the pro treaty forces the anti treaty forces in the civil war.
Also you did not give your views on the provos in recent history because if you follow strict logic you should be supporting republican SF as the current DE are traitors etc
You would not be using the oppressors toungue if you had a true hatred of the former colonial oppressors.
To call you a barstool republican would be an insult to the stool!

Also I notice you refer to Charlie Flanagan in the exact same way as the poster maireholmfan does which leads to the impression that you are the same poster or in the very least in cahoots.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

On the subject of 'terrorism' and it's redundancy as a term or name to call somebody in the context of our history.

Rubbish now you are just going ah but, yeah but. The definition of terrorism does not count in Irish history!
Just because the truth makes you very uncomfortable. The definition counts worldwide!

It is a similar definition used by governments defending thier state against violent political aggressors worldwide.

This is what you said

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who's laws?

'Terrorist' means one who uses terror.'

If I believe the man in front of me is an illegal invader and he kills me...who is the 'terrorist'?

It is not about what you believe - there is a group who is the established state and the others wish to over-throw that established state.
The ones who are against the established state are the terrorists -

ipso facto - 2005 CJ terrorism act

“terrorist activity” means an act that is committed in or outside the State and that—

(a) if committed in the State, would constitute an offence specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 , and

(b) is committed with the intention of—

(i) seriously intimidating a population,

(ii) unduly compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act, or

(iii) seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a state or an international organisation;

For example Saoradh/Real IRA believe they are still fighting against the invaders - and would view DE and those republicans in Stormont as collaborators/traitors with those invaders.
Sound familiar?

Hypothetically if they blew up DE and Stormont would that be considered an act of terrorism in your view?

McMurphy

Forgot about this one.


https://twitter.com/Desbishop/status/1215347512137125892?s=09

Fair play to Charlie and Leo, the meme's and video clips surfacing/resurfacing this week have been gold.

KWAG2019

The FG/IT//Unionist cabal are in full flow with their re-education process. Arguments invented to promote a diminution of our country and to rewrite history are pumped out repeatedly despite having been gutted up and down the country. O’Toole the latest. Expect more on RTE. They are threatened and fearful because people have rejected their abuse and their thought police. There’s the smell of fear off their frantic efforts to reconstruct history and reconstruct their anti nationalist project.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No I have already explained why they were fundemently different in character both in recruitment, uniform mindset and where they were recruited from.
I have said this numerous times at this stage.
.

I'm going to KEEP saying this to you. If that is what you believe, fair enough, nobody can change your mind. But, as an argument against what happened here in the last week it is immaterial what YOUR opinion is. It is Charlie Flanagan's mind you need to change as he very clearly believes the Tans and the RIC where one and the same, as he asked the Irish nation to IGNORE them so we could commemorate the good men of the RIC.
The Irish nation, rightly, said NO emphatically and explained why.

There were those in the RIC who committed atrocities. The horrific record of the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries is well known. But there were thousands of other officers who behaved with dignity and honour in serving their communities. And we should not seek to airbrush these people from our history.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No it doesn't that is just the child like simple meaning, that the American's are prone to latch on to.

A terrorist is more often then not a member of an unlawful group with political aims.

Much like the lads from 1916 would be strictly defined as terrorists no matter what the spin nowadays, and morally as well because they had no mandate.

But even the war of independence the Volunteers can be deemed as a terrorist organisation as they were an unlawful group with political aims.

Also the anti treaty side can be termed as terrorists during the Civil war because they were an unlawful group with political aims.

If you look at the CJ Terrorist offences act 2005

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/2/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4
It defines terrorist activity under s4 of the act -

“terrorist activity” means an act that is committed in or outside the State and that—

(a) if committed in the State, would constitute an offence specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 , and

(b) is committed with the intention of—

(i) seriously intimidating a population,

(ii) unduly compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act, or

(iii) seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a state or an international organisation;

Absolutely no problem agreeing that somebody who attacks our own sovereign state is a terrorist by definition.

However that is not what I said. Read it again.

On the subject of 'terrorism' and it's redundancy as a term or name to call somebody in the context of our history, I suggest people read this and maybe if still confused do some more reading on it. If you want to call a freedom fighter a 'terrorist' then it is quite right and legitimate to call the person they are fighting against a 'terrorist' too.

There are many reasons for the failure to achieve universal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism. In a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament, Angus Martyn stated that "the international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination." These divergences have made it impossible to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal-law definition of terrorism.

And another word of advice, take anything the 'UN' has to say on this with a pinch of salt, a the 5 veto holding main members are among the biggest colonists, imperialists, international bullies and self appointed international policemen the world has ever known.

fundi

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Absolutely no problem agreeing that somebody who attacks our own sovereign state is a terrorist by definition.

.

So we can agree that people , without mandate, who attacked and murdered in the United Kingdom of Gt. Britain and Ireland were terrorists too. Especially as Republicans murdered 90 people for every one person the b and t's murdered.
Glad that is clarified so.

KWAG2019

There are obviously people tasked by Ulster unionism for many years to promote a revisionist view of Irish history. They have concentrated on the North but obviously there are those in the Republic who are now promoting their project.

Resignations should be demanded from govt. it is not acceptable that a Minister of Justice promote this vile project.

FrancieBrady

fundi wrote: »

So we can agree that people , without mandate, who attacked and murdered in the United Kingdom of Gt. Britain and Ireland were terrorists too. Especially as Republicans murdered 90 people for every one person the b and t's murdered.
Glad that is clarified so.

I can make the writing bigger if you want 'clarification'

Angus Martyn stated that "the international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."

intellectual dosser

Out of interest FrancieBrady, how would you view the IRA active in Northern Ireland throughout the 1970s, 80s and 90s?

Terrorists?

fundi

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can make the writing bigger if you want 'clarification'

They all agree that anyone who murders the police of a government in a country is a terrorist, be it in Adare, Dublin Castle, Tower Bridge or at the twin towers.nyc.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Absolutely no problem agreeing that somebody who attacks our own sovereign state is a terrorist by definition.

However that is not what I said. Read it again.

It does not make any sense though as you have this wild claim at the start that the term is redundant in our history. While at the same time many on this very thread, have countered that by reffering to the RIC as terrorists! So much for redundancy!

That makes zero sense - the real reason is that you want to cherry pick what you consider terrorism.

Yet many on here who have stated that the RIC were terrorists conveniently ignore other events.

Such as the Dunmanway killings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmanway_killings

And killings in Newry in 1922

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0511/962718-ira-records/

and so on because it would confuse thier whole belief system and narrative.

Sectarianism was not the sole preserve of the troubles the IRA engaged in it during the war of independence.

But it is far more palatable for some people to ignore that and view all those in the WOI as glorious freedom fighters. Following in the line of Emmet, Tone and those from old Irish mythologies -Fionn mac Cumhaill.

To think anything else would require cognitive dissonance otherwise, and would be uncomfortable.

FrancieBrady

intellectual dosser wrote: »

Out of interest FrancieBrady, how would you view the IRA active in Northern Ireland throughout the 1970s, 80s and 90s?

Terrorists?

No.

Up until 1998 the British presence in the north was defined by our constitutional claim on that territory. If we claimed it, therefore the occupation was unlawful.

I think that is beautifully summed up by the UN's inability to come up with a comprehensive definition in national liberation and self determination contexts.

Using TROL and fundl's 'body count' method results in the ridiculous situation where the British and Irish vie with one another for the classification like a Top of The Pops(Terrorist) chart.
'After Bloody Sunday in Derry the British are up one place to Number 1' etc.

Naggdefy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Possibly up to 20 killed by the B&Ts it seems which is indeed dreadful.

The terrorists killed over 1800.

Interesting to know what your real background is. Are you British? Irish wannabe British? Self loathing Irish? Attention seeking pseudo intellect? Eoghan Harris? Prince Andrew or a minor Royal?! You post with a superiority complex.

Out of curiosity what do you identify as Irish or British?

I'd be disappointed if you turned out to be a WUM and of course you think your very clever with your username initials.. TROL.

fundi

After Enniskillen the IRA were condemned by virtually every country in the world as being terrorists. Yet Francie does not think they were terrorists. Says it all.

Naggdefy

fundi wrote: »

After Enniskillen the IRA were condemned by virtually every country in the world as being terrorists. Yet Francie does not think they were terrorists. Says it all.

Enniskillen and 1920 Southern Ireland are vastly different.

Democratic route for Home Rule/Idependence blocked 1886 to 1918 by the special position of unionists and connection with Conservatives especially. You then fight for Independence with a massive mandate. Fight like a regular army get anhillated.

Nobody called Fabius the Cunctator (Latin for Lingerer) a terrorist throughout history or now when he employed similar tactics against Hannibal when he occupied the Italian peninsula.