Sean Russell statue

true

Actually, Dub in Glasgow actually wrote once that he is indeed from Dublin, and he intends to return here after some time in Glasgow. I made the comment above given his pro-IRA statements in the past , among other things. All of which does not change hiis stance or my stance on the Russell statue.
I still think the Russell statue is offensive to the vast majority of Irish, British and European people.

FTA69

jbkenn wrote:

There's that "Free State" $hit again

The 26 County state did not declares itself a Republic until 1949, the Volunteers in question were executed prior to this so even by your own logic my terminology is correct.

The Minister and Department of Defence were working on that, and I cant find any reference to them requesting his assistance in this matter.

Óglaigh na hÉireann does not come under the remit of that government by any stretch of the imagination.

jank

Well IBM made money from the Nazis and the holocoaust itself, but i dont see one word of anger expressed against them.

In other words this thread is just another excuse to bash Sinn Fein. People are entitled to what they believe in but some are just fooling themsleves if they think the world is that black and white

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jun2001/ibm-j27.shtml

http://news.com.com/2009-1082-269157.html

http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

Another example of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" can be seen in WW2 itself.. well why was stalin on the side of the allies and even Churchill(sp?) said himself that Stalin was no better than Hitler. And USA siding with a communist socialist dictator :eek:

They all recognised that Hitler was the main danger to peace in europe so they banded togethor to fight it out another day. It was called the cold war

Which leads to another use of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" eh Iraq vs Iran...we all know about that so lets not go into it.

Or even USA supplying Osama Bin Laden with 2 billion dollors of CIA aid to fight the Russians in afghanistan. And i do believe the late Ronald Reagan used the very same words "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

So history has a tend for factions to use each other for there own gain even though they might hate each other.

IRA = Nazi's ..No

IRA = Opportunits alas yes.

sceptre

FTA69 wrote:

The 26 County state did not declares itself a Republic until 1949, the Volunteers in question were executed prior to this so even by your own logic my terminology is correct.

Er, no. We changed the name of the country in 1937 (it made all the newspapers and everything) so you're only correct with regard to people shot before then.

jbkenn

FTA69 wrote:

The 26 County state did not declares itself a Republic until 1949, the Volunteers in question were executed prior to this so even by your own logic my terminology is correct.

Grand, at least you accept it is a Republic.

Óglaigh na hÉireann does not come under the remit of that government by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh yes it does see here Óglaigh na hÉireann
Reality check, the problem is your imigination and that of your fellow travellers

jbkenn

FTA69

Many IRA Volunteers were executed prior to that period as well, 77 in the years 1922-23 in fact.

sceptre

FTA69 wrote:

Many IRA Volunteers were executed prior to that period as well, 77 in the years 1922-23 in fact.

Aye, I think many of us have a vague notion of the history of our own country but it'd be nice if you straightened up your dates as it just makes it look like you don't.

FTA69

Sleepy wrote:

If you must celebrate republicanism and IRA Volunteers surely a better person can be chosen to represent your cause than one who collaborated with such an evil regime?

All IRA Volunteers are equal within the Army regardless of their seniority. That statue was to commemorate fallen Volunteers in general and that was embodied by the Army's recently deceased Chief of Staff, Seán Russell.

The man was a opportunist

Correct, but so was Roger Casement and the men of 1916 who tried to import German arms while England was at war, so were the United Irishmen who exploited French ambition for a strategic base so as to encourage an invation. Irish Republicanism, owing to its weak military position, was never afraid to exploit precarious situations.

As I keep stating, when the crimes of your enemy's enemy are worse than the crimes your enemy has committed the maxim of "mine enemy's enemy..." has no validity.

True enough, and that is why I think Russell's policy was wrong.

So, let me clarify your position on this. You think the man was short-sighted and naieve yet still worthy of celebration?

As I said, the monument is a memorial to all IRA Volunteers who were killed. The IRA Border Campaign during the 50s was short sighted and unsuccesful too, but the Volunteers who died during it are commemorated all the same. Why? Because they died in the pursuit of breaking parition.

Should we take this to mean that short-sightedness and naieveté are worthy of celebration in Republican circles? If so, it would certainly explain your deification of Bobby Sands, who whilst I would consider him to have been incredibly naieve and quite stupid

You have demonstrated before your lack of understanding regarding the Hunger Strike of 1981 so I haven't become offended by that statement at all. You should also take note that the majority of people disagree with your assertion though.

even I would deem him to be more worthy a subject of a commemorative statue than someone who essentially betrayed his country to another purely to annoy the English.

Republicans don;t seek to annoy England, we seek to free Ireland, there's a difference. He also did not "betray the country" by seeking foriegn aid, to continue that logic would make the men of 1916 traitors.

true

Quote FTA69 : "All IRA Volunteers are equal within the Army regardless of their seniority. That statue was to commemorate fallen Volunteers in general ".

Ah, but as in the old Soviet Union are some not more equal than others? Have some not had lavish lifestyles and holiday homes , considering their legitimate income?

If you want to commemorate fallen volunteers in general, are there not other monuments, like at Milltown cemmetry in Belfast ? Why have a monument to terrorism , a monument to an ally of Nazism ( he described himself as a soldier, and he died on a german u-boat did he not ) in a Dublin residental suburb ? Would you like a monument to a UVF terrorist who sided with Nazism ? I would not either.

If the IRA was serious about peace, it would have thought this one through more.

Sleepy

FTA69 wrote:

All IRA Volunteers are equal within the Army regardless of their seniority. That statue was to commemorate fallen Volunteers in general and that was embodied by the Army's recently deceased Chief of Staff, Seán Russell.

So, essentially you agree that you're celebrating short sightedness and, frankly, stupidity.

Correct, but so was Roger Casement and the men of 1916 who tried to import German arms while England was at war, so were the United Irishmen who exploited French ambition for a strategic base so as to encourage an invation. Irish Republicanism, owing to its weak military position, was never afraid to exploit precarious situations.

Yet for some reason, Republicans have never been able to see that "weak military position" as a lack of a genuine mandate to carry out their terrorism. Surely if the majority of the country backed the IRA, their military position would be far from weak? But that's another thread...

True enough, and that is why I think Russell's policy was wrong.

So, why represent those you regard as 'heroes' with his image?

As I said, the monument is a memorial to all IRA Volunteers who were killed. The IRA Border Campaign during the 50s was short sighted and unsuccesful too, but the Volunteers who died during it are commemorated all the same. Why? Because they died in the pursuit of breaking parition.

You see FTA69, when a group chooses a representative of their organisation to be commemorated in such a fashion, it usually makes sense to choose one that isn't so easily dismissed as a lunatic.

You have demonstrated before your lack of understanding regarding the Hunger Strike of 1981 so I haven't become offended by that statement at all. You should also take note that the majority of people disagree with your assertion though.

I'd be surprised if a majority of people even have an opinion on the hunger strikers to be honest. Sure, I'm in a minority in thinking they were idiots, that doesn't invalidate my position though does it? Or does the fact you're in the minority in supporting terrorists actions in the north invalidate your position? I wouldn't call it a lack of understanding either, I've read a considerable amount of your own party's propoganda on the subject and just have a different opinion of it than you do.

Republicans don;t seek to annoy England, we seek to free Ireland, there's a difference. He also did not "betray the country" by seeking foriegn aid, to continue that logic would make the men of 1916 traitors.

I'm, sorry, I'd call inviting the German army to invade us being a traitor to the country. Maybe your definition of the word is different.

Lemming

Pardon me for asking. but what exactly did Sean Russell do that was so noble as to require a memorial statue of the man? Pearse, Connolly, Collins you can understand statues being erected of. But what did Sean Russell do for this country exactly that marks him out for greatness?

Besides collaborate with what (at the time would have been known) was a racist and aggressively expansionist government?

Sleepy

Lemming, I think it's also fair to say that it was well known that Hitler was also a war-monger...

Lemming

Sleepy wrote:

Lemming, I think it's also fair to say that it was well known that Hitler was also a war-monger...

Allow me to requote what I said Sleepy ....

lemming wrote:

aggressively expansionist government

AmenToThat

Lemming wrote:

Besides collaborate with what (at the time would have been known) was a racist and aggressively expansionist government?

As apposed to his fight against the lovely kindhearted British who never infered in the affairs of peoples or nations around the world.............

AmenToThat

sceptre wrote:

Yeah, Russell's involvement with the Americans and British is well documented. Deal with the subject at hand (I'm not pushed about which side of the fence you place yourself on as long as it's coherent) or bugger off.

You quiet sure about that?
I dont remember anyone else on here being talked to in the same way for going a little of topic....................


For the record I was just pointing out that the Nazi's and the IRA didnt have monopoly on violent or terrorizing tactics when dealing with what they deemed to be enemies, surely relevent to this thread I would have thought?

Lemming

AmenToThat wrote:

As apposed to his fight against the lovely kindhearted British who never infered in the affairs of peoples or nations around the world.............

His "fight" against the British? Exactly *what* did he do is what I'm asking. And so far nobody has been able to give me an answer other than the above espoused typical "management"-style speech.

We had our own governing body and the British had withdrawn their troops from the country previously - so exactly what did Sean Russell do? Come on people - tell me why we have this man's statue today!!!

Allow me to ask the question again, in a more direct manner:

"What the f*ck did Sean Russell do that deserved a statue to sit alongside the likes of Pearse, Parnell, Connelly, etc. What was his contribution exactly? Did he discover a cure for hangovers or something? What did he do?"

FTA69

jbkenn wrote:

Grand, at least you accept it is a Republic.

I never denied it was a republic in its institutions, it isn;t however, the Republic declared in 1916. The Republic to which I as a Republican aspire to.

Oh yes it does see here Óglaigh na hÉireann
Reality check, the problem is your imigination and that of your fellow travellers

Óglaigh na hÉireann ie the IRA never dispanded or re-constituted in any way. By your logic the term "IRA" is also the preserve of the Free State Army.

jbkenn

monument

Correct me if I'm wrong didn’t Russell fight in the Spanish civil war against the Franco's fascist side?... was Franco not allied with the Nazis and Italian fascists? So wasn’t he fighting against fascists, and against a Nazi ally?

The IRA of the day had a little talk with that guy Stalin of the Soviet Union, I think the SU were communist, oh that must mean the republicans are communist as well? Does that not conflict with what you guys are calling them?... Oh, it must not you lot wouldn’t lie or distorted the truth.

The current heightened campaign against SF (whether highly organized, or not) here on boards, in the letters pages of newspapers, and on the air waves started around the time of the last election results, not around the time of any killings or robberies, but at a time where SF were turning more and more to politics, AND doing well at such. The number of lies or distortions have being told in the campaign is questionable, Russell may have used the used the Nazis as a means to the end he wanted (not something I'd agree with), but calling him a fascist or a Nazi is complete rubbish.

The attack on the monument (not me! THE monument) and the aftermath where he becomes labeled as Nazi, rather then somebody who used any means of freeing they country fully (which is wrong), has only made him into a present day martyr and allowed him to be viewed thought rose-tinted windows – and has just like most ranting attacks on SF it’s probably very counter-productive – so please continue.

Redleslie2

monument wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong didn’t Russell fight in the Spanish civil war against the Franco's fascists side... was Franco not allied with the Nazis and Italian fascists? So wasn’t he fighting against fascists, and against a NAZI ally?

No Russell didn't fight in the spanish civil war. Frank Ryan (who was on the same Uboat as Russell) did. Ryan was captured by the fascists and sentenced to death but DeValera got him off and he was whisked off to Germany. The church and Fine Gael founder Eoin O'Duffy supported the fascists in the spanish civil war and urged people to join them (700 did and Ireland is the only country in the world that had more volunteers fighting for the fascists rather than the government). The IRA for the most part supported the government side or were neutral (Tom Barry banned any members from going to fight) So how about smashing up a few churches and Fine Gael offices?

Sand

Theres been an idea circulating, and I find it quite fitting, to replace the ruin of Sean Russells memorial to Nazi collaboration with a statue of Jean McConville, as a memorial to all the innocent victims of the Northern Irish terrorist groups.

Id certainly find it quite agreeable and would contribute happily, but Ive no doubt, given the fear in Ireland to be seen as anything less than blindly pro-republican, Sean Russells statue will be restored so that Ireland can once again be proud of his attempts to assist the lufftwaffe in bombing war time Britain - viewed so favourably by the Nazis that they sent him back using a U-boat which was a signficant show of faith given their cost and degree of usefulness elsewhere - and of his perverted belief that he could cut a deal with one of the most repellant doctrines in history.

jbkenn

FTA69 wrote:

I never denied it was a republic in its institutions, it isn;t however, the Republic declared in 1916. The Republic to which I as a Republican aspire to.

Great we are getting there, incidentally I would hazard a guess that most posters on this forum, including myself, are Republicans and Democrats so you don't grabs dibbs on that.
Republican: definition: a supporter of government by elected representative of the people rather than government by a Monarch
Democrat: definition: a person who believes in democracy
Democracy: definition: a country in which power is held by elected representatives:
Mandate: definition: the authority given to an elected group of people, such as a government, to perform an action or govern a country:

Óglaigh na hÉireann ie the IRA never dispanded or re-constituted in any way. By your logic the term "IRA" is also the preserve of the Free State Army.

No no, Óglaigh na hÉireann is the preserve of the Defence Forces, of which I am a former serving member, and, I take grave exception to a bunch of criminal low life scum laying any claim to it.

jbkenn
p.s. Just when I though you had woken up and smelled the coffee, they you go with that "Free State" $hit again

monument

Redleslie2 wrote:

No Russell didn't fight in the spanish civil war. Frank Ryan (who was on the same Uboat as Russell) did. Ryan was captured by the fascists and sentenced to death but DeValera got him off and he was whisked off to Germany....

I stand corrected.

Redleslie2 wrote:

...The church and Fine Gael founder Eoin 'Duffy supported the fascists in the spanish civil war and urged people to join them (700 did and Ireland is the only country in the world that had more volunteers fighting for the fascists rather than the government). The IRA for the most part supported the government side or were neutral (Tom Barry banned any members from going to fight) So how about smashing up a few churches and Fine Gael offices?

Because the church knew best, the elected left-wing parties were evil. I've being told, in the same kind of way the church told every one how to vote on the Treaty before the Free State, and the Irish Civil War. But it wasn’t unusual for churches to do this type of thing then, as it still isn’t now, it’s just done in a more hidden way.

Fine Gael/Blue Shirts? Fascists? Never

FTA69

jbkenn wrote:

Great we are getting there, incidentally I would hazard a guess that most posters on this forum, including myself, are Republicans and Democrats so you don't grabs dibbs on that.
Republican: definition: a supporter of government by elected representative of the people rather than government by a Monarch
Democrat: definition: a person who believes in democracy
Democracy: definition: a country in which power is held by elected representatives:
Mandate: definition: the authority given to an elected group of people, such as a government, to perform an action or govern a country:

The term "Republican" has vastly differing meanings all over the world, eg Spain, Ireland, America, England. There is no universal conformity to the term.

No no, Óglaigh na hÉireann is the preserve of the Defence Forces, of which I am a former serving member, and, I take grave exception to a bunch of criminal low life scum laying any claim to it.

Óglaigh na hÉireann was founded in 1913 (the Irish Volunteers) and subsequently participated in the 1916 Rising along with the Irish Citizen Army and the Irish Republican Brotherhood. It was during this rising that the IRA AKA Óglaigh na hÉireann was born and subsequently went on to fight the War of Independence in 1918.

After the Treaty was signed Óglaigh na hÉireann rejected it by majority vote and as we all know a split emerged with others going on to found the Free State Army while Óglaigh na hÉireann remained organised under the original constitution. The Civil War was then fought between this new Free State Army and the IRA AKA Óglaigh na hÉireann. And so on.

Now, could you please point out how the Free State Army can possibly lay claim to that title. (Or explain the fact that they call themselves "volunteers" when they are paid.)

FTA69

Sleepy wrote:

So, essentially you agree that you're celebrating short sightedness and, frankly, stupidity.

Not stupidity, a failed attempt is different to stupidity. Was Pádraig Pearse "stupid" for fighting in a Rising that could not have been won?

Yet for some reason, Republicans have never been able to see that "weak military position" as a lack of a genuine mandate to carry out their terrorism. Surely if the majority of the country backed the IRA, their military position would be far from weak? But that's another thread...

The majority backed the IRA in the 20s but they were unable to secure all their demands ie an independent united Republic. Military weakness is not automatically equated with being wrong.

So, why represent those you regard as 'heroes' with his image?

Because he was the head of the organisation which made those sacrifices at the time.

You see FTA69, when a group chooses a representative of their organisation to be commemorated in such a fashion, it usually makes sense to choose one that isn't so easily dismissed as a lunatic.

He wasn't a lunatic, merely the purveyor of a failed strategy.

I'd be surprised if a majority of people even have an opinion on the hunger strikers to be honest. Sure, I'm in a minority in thinking they were idiots, that doesn't invalidate my position though does it? Or does the fact you're in the minority in supporting terrorists actions in the north invalidate your position? I wouldn't call it a lack of understanding either, I've read a considerable amount of your own party's propoganda on the subject and just have a different opinion of it than you do.

Well you obviously fail to understand the motives behind the Strike, you dismissed it once as simply being over the cloth that makes up a uniform.

monument

jbkenn wrote:

Great we are getting there, incidentally I would hazard a guess that most posters on this forum, including myself, are Republicans and Democrats so you don't grabs dibbs on that.

This is a democrat republic after all, so republicans, and democrats, sure, but some posters prefer a distance republic, reserving little power to the key democrat part - local government… And most also prefer their way or no way.

jbkenn wrote:

Mandate: definition: the authority given to an elected group of people, such as a government, to perform an action or govern a country:

Just add: and what ever an elected party wants to include/exclude after they are elected and that would be just about right. Yes, mandates are supposed to be a central part in distance republic governs, but they are for the most part ignored.

FTA69 wrote:

Now, could you please point out how the Free State Army can possibly lay claim to that title. (Or explain the fact that they call themselves "volunteers" when they are paid.)

Because they joined the army in such a way?

Nuttzz

FTA69 wrote:

Óglaigh na hÉireann was founded in 1913 (the Irish Volunteers) and subsequently participated in the 1916 Rising along with the Irish Citizen Army and the Irish Republican Brotherhood. It was during this rising that the IRA AKA Óglaigh na hÉireann was born and subsequently went on to fight the War of Independence in 1918.

After the Treaty was signed Óglaigh na hÉireann rejected it by majority vote and as we all know a split emerged with others going on to found the Free State Army while Óglaigh na hÉireann remained organised under the original constitution. The Civil War was then fought between this new Free State Army and the IRA AKA Óglaigh na hÉireann. And so on.

Now, could you please point out how the Free State Army can possibly lay claim to that title. (Or explain the fact that they call themselves "volunteers" when they are paid.)

wrong!!!!

1913 Inaugural meeting of The Irish Volunteers (25 November).
1916 Easter Rising begins (24 April).
1919 Opening of First Dail (21 January), Establishment of Irish Republican Army, War of Independence begins.
1921 Truce comes into effect (11 July). Treaty signed in London (6 December).
1922 Dail approves Treaty (7 January). Beggars Bush Barracks taken over by Irish forces (31 January). Civil War begins with shelling of Four Courts (28 June)
1923 Aikens` order to the AntiTreaty forces to 'dump arms' ends the Civil War (24 May). First Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act brought into force (3 August).

the dail established the IRA in 1919, the dail accepted the treaty in 1921,
below is the irish armys cap badge which it has used since its inception, notice what its says, where is your bunch of murdering scum bags uniform and cap badge?

monument

FTA69 wrote:

The term "Republican" has vastly differing meanings all over the world, eg Spain, Ireland, America, England. There is no universal conformity to the term.

But there is a universal meaing to the term in lower case. As he posted, or see R/republican and R/republicanism on Wikipedia.

Redleslie2

Ello ello ello, what's going on here?

monument

Redleslie2 wrote:

Ello ello ello, what's going on here?

A bunch of lads pointing at Superman?

he's over there> ... <no he's over there

FTA69

Rubbish nutzz, the 1916 Rising is commonly accepted as the birth of the Irish Republican Army hence James Connolly referring to himself as "Commandant of the Army of the Irish Republic". In 1919 the Dáil did not "found" the Army, it took them under its auspices. There is a big difference. The Army then relinquished itself from the Dáil when it rejected the Treaty.

Showing the Free State Army's cap badge proves nothing, to reiterate myself, just because they make a half-hearted attempt to lay claim to the title does not make them worthy of it. Óglaigh na hÉireann never re-constituted itself or lent its support to the Free State.