RIC and DMP to be commemorated this month

intellectual dosser

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

The people of the south elected a government and President sworn to uphold to constitution. The IRA were never accountable to them or working on their behalf.

We won't agree but thats ok.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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.

My point is that the term 'terrorist' is redundant precisely because you can cherrypick who the terrorist was.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

So you view Saoradh and the Real IRA as terrorists?
But they have fundamentally the same belief system as all those other republicans of the past - Brits out - then anti partition / end partition.

But in your mind you can say they are terrorists simply because this island has forgone its constitutional claim? Convenient?

In 1916 those lads basically were today's Saoradh and Real IRA a small group of idealists, who had a view that went against the majority of the population in Ireland. They had zero mandate for what they did thier was no real 'claim' to the land.

KWAG2019

One of the methods used by the Ulster Unionist revisionist project is to apply the label terrorist to those who fought for Irish freedom in the WoI era. The trick and it is such is to set up their definition and then apply it. It’s important to recognize the intellectual dishonesty and the colonial political intent of it.

True terrorism can be seen in the UVF founded in 1912 importing arms and training as a military force under the direction of British army officers to explicitly threaten their own parliament and govt in Westminster with violence if that parliament implemented Home Rule which it had already enacted for the entire island.

These people are liars, hypocrites and propagandists

FrancieBrady

intellectual dosser wrote: »

The people of the south elected a government and President sworn to uphold to constitution. The IRA were never accountable to them or working on their behalf.

We won't agree but thats ok.

The IRA can answer for themselves.

I was asked did I consider the IRA of that period 'terrorists'.
I don't consider anyone who 'fought for freedom' or a British withdrawal as 'terrorists' as long as that constitutional claim was there.

That does not preclude me from finding actions of the IRA wrong, unjustified etc.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So you view Saoradh and the Real IRA as terrorists?
But they have fundamentally the same belief system as all those other republicans of the past - Brits out - then anti partition / end partition.

But in your mind you can say they are terrorists simply because this island has forgone its constitutional claim? Convenient?

In 1916 those lads basically were today's Saoradh and Real IRA a small group of idealists, who had a view that went against the majority of the population in Ireland. They had zero mandate for what they did thier was no real 'claim' to the land.

Nothing 'conveinient' about it. I would call it 'logical'.

gormdubhgorm

KWAG2019 wrote: »

One of the methods used by the Ulster Unionist revisionist project is to apply the label terrorist to those who fought for Irish freedom in the WoI era. The trick and it is such is to set up their definition and then apply it. It’s important to recognize the intellectual dishonesty and the colonial political intent of it.

True terrorism can be seen in the UVF founded in 1912 importing arms and training as a military force under the direction of British army officers to explicitly threaten their own parliament and govt in Westminster with violence if that parliament implemented Home Rule which it had already enacted for the entire island.

These people are liars, hypocrites and propagandists

Ok so mentally you have given the 1916 lads WOI lads a free pass. As that is what you were thought in history at school.

Do you consider the versions of the IRA after 1922 to today terrorists?
As Saoradh and Real IRA consider SF as traitors to the cause. Soaradh believe they are the ones who are the real continuance of the republican ideal.
'Unfinished Revolution'

If you do not view Saoradh and the Real IRA as freedom fighters you become the very same hypocrite - you despise.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Ok so mentally you have given the 1916 lads WOI lads a free pass. As that is what you were thought in history at school.

Do you consider the versions of the IRA after 1922 to today terrorists?
As Saoradh and Real IRA consider SF as traitors to the cause. Soaradh believe they are the ones who are the real continuance of the republican ideal.
'Unfinished Revolution'

If you do not view Saoradh and the Real IRA as freedom fighters you become the very same hypocrite - you despise.

There is an elephant in the room here Gormdubh....the GFA.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nothing 'conveinient' about it. I would call it 'logical'.

It is not logical at all there was no constitutional claim from the majority of the populace in Ireland in 1916 to a UI yet they are feted as glorious martyrs. Blood sacrifice and all that jazz.

Today's equivalent (Real IRA/Saoradh) are viewed as terrorists and those who murdered Lyra McKee as scum - 'Not in our name' etc.

You have already admitted that anyone who attacks the ROI are terrorists to you.
But like many 'republicans' you cherry pick a bit here and bit there, when it is palatable and when you feel you can justify it.

KWAG2019

"Here is a case of eleven girls who were selling flags in aid of the Gaelic League and were arrested by armed police. Here is a case of five girls arrested by the police and sentenced to four days' imprisonment in Mountjoy Criminal Gaol for collecting for the Irish Language Mmt“

A little more on the job of the ordinary working class Catholic members of the British colonial police the RIC/DMP.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is an elephant in the room here Gormdubh....the GFA.

No because Saoradh do not recognise it and they view the majority as wrong (like Dev after the treaty). Like the lads in 1916 who had no mandate.
They view SF as collaborators and false prophets.

So suddenly in your mind you are going to accept a mandate, when the birth of the ROI was founded with no mandate only fancy rhetoric.
Basically because it has achieved what you want, not what others want?

I know you view yourself as a staunch nationalist/republican but those who support Saoradh would have a different view.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No because Saoradh do not recognise it and they view the majority as wrong (like Dev after the treaty). Like the lads in 1916 who had no mandate.
They view SF as collaborators and false prophets.

So suddenly in your mind you are going to accept a mandate, when the birth of the ROI was founded with no mandate only fancy rhetoric.
Basically because it has achieved what you want, not what others want?

I know you view yourself as a staunch nationalist/republican but those who support Saoradh would have a different view.

You seem conflicted there on who you designate as 'terrorists'.

It is the height of illogical nonsense to try and label any side as exclusively the 'terrorist' in a struggle for independence or a civil war. Utter nonsense.

gormdubhgorm

KWAG2019 wrote: »

"Here is a case of eleven girls who were selling flags in aid of the Gaelic League and were arrested by armed police. Here is a case of five girls arrested by the police and sentenced to four days' imprisonment in Mountjoy Criminal Gaol for collecting for the Irish Language Mmt“

A little more on the job of the ordinary working class Catholic members of the British colonial police the RIC/DMP.

So if you are so pro the Irish language why are you conversing in the evil language of those oppressors? Going against the very ideals of the Gaelic League/Conradh na Gaelige.

I somehow doubt you have even ever darkened the doors of Conradh na Gaelige!?

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You seem conflicted there on who you designate as 'terrorists'.

It is the height of illogical nonsense to try and label any side as exclusively the 'terrorist' in a struggle for independence or a civil war. Utter nonsense.

Not nonsense at all, There is a legal definition in the state we reside in. It is you who seem conflicted.
Because Saoradh would view themselves as being involved as the struggle for independence . Then they gave a half apology for the killing of Lyra McKee and marched by the GPO a few days later.
The revolution is unfinished or did you not get the memo?

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So if you are so pro the Irish language why are you conversing in the evil language of those oppressors? Going against the very ideals of the Gaelic League/Conradh na Gaelige.

I somehow doubt you have even ever darkened the doors of Conradh na Gaelige!

That's a bit akin to sticking your tongue out in the school yard gormdubh.

Disingenuous debating in the extreme. Try to taunt somebody when you cannot address the point made.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Not nonsense at all, There is a legal definition in the state we reside in. It is you who seem conflicted.
Because Saoradh would view themselves as being involved as the struggle for independence . Then they gave a half apology for the killing of Lyra McKee and marched by the GPO a few days later.
The revolution is unfinished or did you not get the memo?

And in my opinion Saoradh are 'terrorists' as I and over 80% of the Irish people decided to give up our constitutional claim on NI.

If the IRA, SF, INLA, Saoradh, The Real IRA, use violence to try to achieve our constitutional aspiration to unity, they are the 'terrorists'.

KWAG2019

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So if you are so pro the Irish language why are you conversing in the evil language of those oppressors? Going against the very ideals of the Gaelic League/Conradh na Gaelige.

I somehow doubt you have even ever darkened the doors of Conradh na Gaelige!?

Lol. The triggered absurdity of this is delightful. I freely admit that one of the victories of British colonialism is the denigration of our language and our ingrained preference for the economic and international utility of English. Even 100 years after Independence we still have not overcome that. That revolution is unfinished.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's a bit akin to sticking your tongue out in the school yard gormdubh.

Disingenuous debating in the extreme. Try to taunt somebody when you cannot address the point made.

Not true. that very same poster has the neck to go about hypocrisy I am calling him/her out on it.
You cannot on the one hand give out about the treatment of the Gaelic League using them as paragons of Irishness yet on the other hand - not practice what you preach.
The irony is I regularly go to Conradh na Gaeilge.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Not true. that very same poster has the neck to go about hypocrisy I am calling him/her out on it.
You cannot on the one hand give out about the treatment of the Gaelic League using them as paragons of Irishness yet on the other hand - not practice what you preach.
The irony is I regularly go to Conradh na Gaeilge.

How spectacularly ridiculous. Because you suspect somebody doesn't speak Irish you cannot have an opinion on oppression???

An Ciarraioch

Kevin Myers takes revisionism to the ultimate degree by claiming there was no democratic mandate for the War of Independence. Furthermore, criticising one institution hardly equates to blanket Anglophobia:

https://thecritic.co.uk/policing-history/

gormdubhgorm

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Lol. The triggered absurdity of this is delightful. I freely admit that one of the victories of British colonialism is the denigration of our language and our ingrained preference for the economic and international utility of English. Even 100 years after Independence we still have not overcome that. That revolution is unfinished.

Again you do not see the irony you are a fella mouthing about the Gaelic League who has never been to Conradh na Gaeilge.
A fella who is going on about an unfinished revolution yet speaks only the language of his so called 'oppressor' makes no effort with the Irish language.
You are in fact part of the problem, rather then solution and a barrier to this 'unfinished revolution'.
You cannot even engage in Irishness in cultural sense the ideals of the original Gaelic League you prefer the barstool political republicanism. As evidenced by your posts on this thread and many other posters are the same.

KWAG2019

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Not true. that very same poster has the neck to go about hypocrisy I am calling him/her out on it.
You cannot on the one hand give out about the treatment of the Gaelic League using them as paragons of Irishness yet on the other hand - not practice what you preach.
The irony is I regularly go to Conradh na Gaeilge.

Lol again. What a surprising misreading of my post. The job of the RIC as an anti Irish colonial force was illustrated.

But you don’t condemn the RIC for their attempts to crush it? That’s surprising. I know of several unionists far more fluent in Irish than most Irish people. It could be cultural appropriation, it could be for propaganda purposes, it could be scholarly interest. It’s utterly irrelevant.

FrancieBrady

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Kevin Myers takes revisionism to the ultimate degree by claiming there was no democratic mandate for the War of Independence. Furthermore, criticising one institution hardly equates to blanket Anglophobia:

https://thecritic.co.uk/policing-history/

I need to be a bit more emotionally strong to click on that link!

Naggdefy

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Again you do not see the irony you are a fella mouthing about the Gaelic League who has never been to Conradh na Gaeilge.
A fella who is going on about an unfinished revolution yet speaks only the language of his so called 'oppressor' makes no effort with the Irish language.
You are in fact part of the problem, rather then solution and a barrier to this 'unfinished revolution'.
You cannot even engage in Irishness in cultural sense the ideals of the original Gaelic League you prefer the barstool political republicanism. As evidenced by your posts on this thread and many other posters are the same.

Such whataboutery. Many like myself constantly try to improve their gaeilge. Others find it difficult for a myriad of reasons, usually the bunscoil was poor.

The topic at hand is commemorating external forces trying to deny the will of the Irish people for Independence through terror.

No more strawmen arguments because you have a username as gaeilge.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How spectacularly ridiculous. Because you suspect somebody doesn't speak Irish you cannot have an opinion on oppression???

They are a continuance of the opression they claim to despise it is not that difficult to make an effort with a language.
It is completely hypocritical. It is not just you but many like you who claim to be Republican because as Pearse said -

Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam


--

Never mind all the cherry picking you do over who are terrorists on top of that - that is another layer of hypocrisy on top of the hypocrisy with the Irish language.

An Ciarraioch

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Lol again. What a surprising misreading of my post. The job of the RIC as an anti Irish colonial force was illustrated.

But you don’t condemn the RIC for their attempts to crush it? That’s surprising. I know of several unionists far more fluent in Irish than most Irish people. It could be cultural appropriation, it could be for propaganda purposes, it could be scholarly interest. It’s utterly irrelevant.

Indeed, Dr Eoin Malcolm is worth following on Twitter, and gave a measured response on RTE just now.

Naggdefy

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They are a continuance of the opression they claim to despise it is not that difficult to make an effort with a language.
It is completely hypocritical. It is not just you but many like you who claim to be Republican because as Pearse said -

Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam


--

Never mind all the cherry picking you do over who are terrorists on top of that - that is another layer of hypocrisy on top of the hypocrisy with the Irish language.

Middle class Dub gets sent to gaelscoill and has superiority attitude vibe.

gormdubhgorm

Naggdefy wrote: »

Such whatabboutery. Many like myself constantly try to improve their gaeilge. Others find it difficult for a myriad of reasons, usually the bunscoil was poor.

The topic at hand is commemorating external forces trying to deny the will of the Irish people for Independence through terror.

No more strawmen arguments because you have a username as gaeilge.

It is not strawman as you well know - the organisations were inextricably linked.

You know and I know there are many so called republicans who do not speak the Irish language yet protest the likes of this commemoration.
Yet at the same time cheer on PL clubs and say 'we' without a hint of irony.
We all know the likes I am on about.
We have all met those type of 'republican' normally they are on a barstool watching sky sports.

KWAG2019

But Ireland does have its own language and it is still alive. Despite the best efforts of British colonialism, West Brit sneering hypocrisy, Irish govt neglect and the out workings of colonial economic impoverishment. Despite the efforts of the DUP/UDA we have an ILA in the north. So there is a lot done and more to do. Welcome to the revolution!

KWAG2019

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Indeed, Dr Eoin Malcolm is worth following on Twitter, and gave a measured response on RTE just now.

I’ll look him up.