Sean Russell statue

Redleslie2

monument wrote:

A bunch of lads pointing at Superman?

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

And so the fledgling Irish fascist movement was torn asunder by another split.

Stabshauptmann

I have little to say on the subject.
I read this, found it accurate and so recommend it to you: http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=68249

One question, the allies needed to defeat the fascists, were they right to enlist the aid of Stalin?

Stalains purges cost 20m ppl their lives. He lead an oppressive and undemocratic reigeme. Britain allied themselves with a nation they were at ideological difference with because they had a common enemy.

Likewise, the IRA, while being clearly anti fascist, asked the enemy of their enemy for aid. This isnt about the validity of their strugle its about the ethics of that one decision, a decision in line with rebuplican policy as can be and a strategy as old as war itself.

I think destroying the statue was a work of cowardice, you dont like something so you impose your will on others, how can someone who thinks like this claim the moral high ground against the IRA?

Hypocracy. Pure and simple hypocracy.

Stabshauptmann

Nuttzz wrote:

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?

So close but then comes the arrogant belligerence...

Anyway, the IRA wasnt created by the Dail nor was it controlled by it, the Dail associated itself with the IRA for various reaons

Redleslie2

Necromancer wrote:

I think destroying the statue was a work of cowardice, you dont like something so you impose your will on others, how can someone who thinks like this claim the moral high ground against the IRA?

Maybe they'll do Brendan Behan's statue next. He did a bit of time.

Lemming

I notice that nobody has answered my rather fundamental question yet ....

the silence speaks volumes

Nuttzz

Necromancer wrote:

So close but then comes the arrogant belligerence...

The provos murdered Jean McConville amongst many others, not the actions of soliders but the actions of a bunch of murdering scum bags IMO. Perhaps you think they were right do so though..........

jbkenn

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.

No, I have given you the universally accepted definition of the term.

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.

Not quite, you need do a little research there my son.

Jan-21 1919
Ambush at Soloheadbeg, Co Tipperary. In what is normally given as the first act of the War of Independence

Volunteers become IRA

Aug-20 1919
Motion passed by Dail that an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic should be taken by all
(1) Dail deputies;
(2)Volunteers;
(3) officials of the Dail and
(4) others as determined by the Dail.
In practice Volunteers (who henceforth known as IRA) remained a separate organisation. The Oath states "I will support and defend the Irish Republic and the Government of the Irish Republic, which is Dail Eireann, against all enemies foreign and domestic."

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.

That a fact? It was fought between the majority Pro Treaty National Army and the minority Anti Treaty Irregulars

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.)

Do a little research and see if you can find out.
All members of Óglaigh na hÉireann are volunteers in that they are not conscripted into military service

jbkenn

jbkenn

Nuttzz wrote:

The provos murdered Jean McConville amongst many others, not the actions of soliders but the actions of a bunch of murdering scum bags IMO. Perhaps you think they were right do so though..........

Did you not hear the bould Mitchell on Q&A the other night? murder is a crime, and he quite clearly stated her killing was not a crime it was a "wrong"
The PIRA do not commit crimes they commit "wrongs" because as Gereen says
"You cannot be a criminal and be a member of the PIRA"

jbkenn

Redleslie2

Lemming wrote:

I notice that nobody has answered my rather fundamental question yet ....

the silence speaks volumes

I don't know what he did. I haven't seen anyone present any proof that he was a fascist either. The IRA was utterly useless and totally unreliable during the war according to German intelligence anyway. Eoin O'Duffy's mob and the church were enthusiastic supporters of fascism though and they get off scot free. If whoever damaged the statue had smashed up a church or something instead, but for the same reason, I doubt whether this discussion would be going the same way.

FTA69

jbkenn wrote:

No, I have given you the universally accepted definition of the term.

That doesn't change the fact that the term has widely differing connotations.

Not quite, you need do a little research there my son.

People here seem to have an unhealthy preoccupation with my age, but whatever floats your boat, son .

On 1916 the amalgamation of 3 organisations resulted in the proclamation of the Irish Republic thus embodied by the Army fighting on that day, as James Connolly described himself, "Commandant of the Army of the Irish Republic" ie the IRA ie Óglaigh na hÉireann.

Volunteers become IRA

That is true, they became such in 1916. The Volunteers were organised as the IRA since 1916, most specifically in Welsh internment camps.

That a fact? It was fought between the majority Pro Treaty National Army and the minority Anti Treaty Irregulars

The Free State Army did have majority support of the people, that is true, but that is not relevant to the discussion at hand. The fact was that the majority of Óglaigh na hÉireann as an organisation rejected the Treaty and remained organised as the Irish Republican Army.

Do a little research and see if you can find out.
All members of Óglaigh na hÉireann are volunteers in that they are not conscripted into military service

Being a soldier in said army is a career, they get paid for their actions and activites. They are not "volunteers". Look at it this way, when one describes a volunteer charity worker they are referring to those who give up their free time and money.

jbkenn

FTA69 wrote:

That doesn't change the fact that the term has widely differing connotations.

I repeat, I have given the universally accepted definition of a Republican, the only fact, is, you insist on applying your own definition.

People here seem to have an unhealthy preoccupation with my age, but whatever floats your boat, son

No your age, just your level of immaturity

On 1916 the amalgamation of 3 organisations resulted in the proclamation of the Irish Republic thus embodied by the Army fighting on that day, as James Connolly described himself, "Commandant of the Army of the Irish Republic" ie the IRA ie Óglaigh na hÉireann.

There you go "interpreting" the facts to suit yourself

That is true, they became such in 1916. The Volunteers were organised as the IRA since 1916, most specifically in Welsh internment camps.

Supply some info to back that up.

The Free State Army did have majority support of the people, that is true, but that is not relevant to the discussion at hand. The fact was that the majority of Óglaigh na hÉireann as an organisation rejected the Treaty and remained organised as the Irish Republican Army.

Wishfull thinking, check the facts.

Being a soldier in said army is a career

There are 3 branchs in Óglaigh na hÉireann, Army, Aer Corp and Naval Service

jbkenn

FTA69

I repeat, I have given the universally accepted definition of a Republican, the only fact, is, you insist on applying your own definition.

No I didn't, the IRA and Sinn Féin fit the category you detailed with your definition. I simply pointed out the term has different connotations around the world, ie an English Republican is different from an American Republican.

No your age, just your level of immaturity

Insulting people during a debate smacks of desperation and indicates real immaturity as far as I'm concerned.

There you go "interpreting" the facts to suit yourself

So are you saying that James Connolly never declared himself "Commandant of the Army of the Irish Republic"?

Supply some info to back that up.

Quote from wikipedia regarding the "Irish Republican Army";

its modern history can be traced to a declaration issued during the 1916 rising declaring that the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizens Army would be merged into one organization. While the Volunteers and the Citizens Army continued in existence after this date, they effectively became one organisation and eventually the remnants of the Citizens Army merged with the Volunteers (all the modern organisations which have arisen from this grouping still use the Irish form of the name for their organisation

The one below outlines the mergence of a few revolutionary groups into one which formed an organisation reffered to as the Irish Republican Army or Óglaigh na hÉireann. Sinn Féin's unwitting credit for the Rising forged the alliance between the Party and the Army that has existed ever since.

By 1916, the demands of World War I had sapped the British military machine, and the Irish Republican Brotherhood and the Irish Volunteers (or, in Irish, Óglaigh na hÉireann), the two main rebel movements of the time, the Irish Volunteer and the Irish Citizens Army, had resolved on a rebellion to force the British to concede Irish independence. Weapons were to be supplied by Germany, under the auspices of a leading human rights campaigner, Sir Roger Casement.

Wishfull thinking, check the facts.

http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/eng/stamps/eire01.htm

There are 3 branchs in Óglaigh na hÉireann, Army, Aer Corp and Naval Service

The Army doesn't have an air core, unless of course you count hijacked helicopters!

To be honest though, this has gone way off topic about Russell so start a new thread if you wish to continue this discussion.

Redleslie2

An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern was at the unveiling of Brendan Behan's statue. Behan, as I said, did time for IRA activity during the war. Ergo, Mr.Ahern is a nazi. Everybody connected with FF must be.

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote:

The Army doesn't have an air core, unless of course you count hijacked helicopters!

http://www.military.ie/aircorps/

jbkenn

FTA69 wrote:

No I didn't, the IRA and Sinn Féin fit the category you detailed with your definition. I simply pointed out the term has different connotations around the world, ie an English Republican is different from an American Republican.

I was going to ask how? but whats the point.

Insulting people during a debate smacks of desperation and indicates real immaturity as far as I'm concerned.

Aw Jeez

So are you saying that James Connolly never declared himself "Commandant of the Army of the Irish Republic"?

No

Quote from wikipedia regarding the "Irish Republican Army";

Authoritative source alright

The one below outlines the mergence of a few revolutionary groups into one which formed an organisation reffered to as the Irish Republican Army or Óglaigh na hÉireann. Sinn Féin's unwitting credit for the Rising forged the alliance between the Party and the Army that has existed ever since.

http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/eng/stamps/eire01.htm

This is your source? goes a way to explain how your views are formed
"Effects of the Partition of Ireland on the postal service (1920-1922)"

The Army doesn't have an air core, unless of course you count hijacked helicopters!

All right I will point you there again http://www.military.ie/aircorps/index.html

To be honest though, this has gone way off topic about Russell so start a new thread if you wish to continue this discussion.

Agreed, this has nothing to do with some IRA gob****e dying on a Nazi submarine
jbkenn

Stabshauptmann

Lemming wrote:

I notice that nobody has answered my rather fundamental question yet ....

the silence speaks volumes

Perhaps you will find some answers here: : http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=68249

Stabshauptmann

Nuttzz wrote:

The provos murdered Jean McConville amongst many others, not the actions of soliders but the actions of a bunch of murdering scum bags IMO. Perhaps you think they were right do so though..........

Arrogance is a condition arising from lack of knowledge or miseducation.

Jean McConville was a british informant. When her cover was blown the IRA gave her a warning but spared her because she was a woman. She then went back to her handler and asked for a new radio, which she was given. She was very poor at her job and once again was cought. She was killed in secret because of the negative PR that was inevitable. The IRA and British Army flooded the streets with lies of what had happened both trying to cover up their parts in her death and place the blame with the other.

I think it was wrong that the British recruited her,
I think it was wrong that she informed,
I think it was wrong to spare her simply for being a woman
I think it was wrong for her handlers to give her a new radio knowing full well that she would be cought and killer. They used her.
I think it was wrong that she was dissappeared.
I think it was wrong that both sides denied what they did.

What I really have a problem is the double standards of the British during the troubles. Either the IRA are criminals and you apply the law of the land to stop them or they are an Army and you use the rules of war. The way the British mixed and matched as they saw fit was at best unethical but in truth illegal.

bonkey

FTA69 wrote:

That doesn't change the fact that the term has widely differing connotations.

Thats correct. There is the standard - dare I say 'correct' - meaning of the word, and then various "not quite that" interpretations by various groups/individuals who want to believe that it means something different, as suits their purpose.

Being a soldier in said army is a career, they get paid for their actions and activites. They are not "volunteers".

Look at it this way, when one describes a volunteer charity worker they are referring to those who give up their free time and money.

So...what you're saying is that we shouldn't use words in any context - no matter how common it may have become - other than their strictest and most accurate meaning?

So tell me...which are you....a Republican, or a selective hypocrite regarding the accurate use of english words? From what I can see in that post, you can't be both.

jc

Lennoxschips

They should just ban all statues of anyone who has ever fired a gun.

Let's make statues of peace time heroes instead.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

they should make a statue of a pigeon.

lets see if the ****ers ****e on that!"

Lennoxschips

hehe, very good

jbkenn

Necromancer wrote:

I think it was wrong that she was dissappeared.

The woman was murdered.

jbkenn

true

Jean McConville was not an informer. The woman was murdered because when a British soldier was shot near her house she went to comfort him as he was dying. How dare the IRA abduct her, tell lies to her family, shoot her, and not reveal her body whereabouts until they are revealed by coast erosion decades later? Then to add insult to injury someone comes up with a story about a radio ( where was / is it then ? ) and IRA / British army collusion !

She was a Prod who married a Catholic, converted, and found to her cost that that was not enough. You had to become inhuman enough not to want to comfort a dying human being also.

Stabshauptmann

jbkenn wrote:

The woman was murdered.

jbkenn

I’m saying it was wrong that the IRA denied what it did and denied her relatives her corpse by "disappearing" her. I’m not using disappear as a euphemism

Stabshauptmann

true wrote:

Jean McConville was not an informer. The woman was murdered because when a British soldier was shot near her house she went to comfort him as he was dying. How dare the IRA abduct her, tell lies to her family, shoot her, and not reveal her body whereabouts until they are revealed by coast erosion decades later? Then to add insult to injury someone comes up with a story about a radio ( where was / is it then ? ) and IRA / British army collusion !

She was a Prod who married a Catholic, converted, and found to her cost that that was not enough. You had to become inhuman enough not to want to comfort a dying human being also.

Incorrect. The British army no longer denies its roll in her death. Its not collusion to recruit informers, its a legitimate act in fighting criminals, however if you apply that set of standards (ie that the IRA are criminals) then you cant have a shoot to kill policy against them. Thats British law not some crazy notion I have, there are different laws for fighting criminals and soldiers.
What Im telling you was widly reported not too long ago when the truth came out and if you want more I suggest you either dig up some old copies of the Sunday Tribune or read "A secret history of the IRA".

oscarBravo

Necromancer wrote:

I’m saying it was wrong that the IRA denied what it did and denied her relatives her corpse by "disappearing" her. I’m not using disappear as a euphemism

Just clear this up for me: killing her was OK, but hiding the body was the crime? Is that what you're saying?

Sleepy

Redleslie2 wrote:

Maybe they'll do Brendan Behan's statue next. He did a bit of time.

But he also had the decency to say that he wouldn't become active against the British again until Hitler had been dealt with first. (unless that part of the Borstal Boy is bull$hit).

Stabshauptmann

oscarBravo wrote:

Just clear this up for me: killing her was OK, but hiding the body was the crime? Is that what you're saying?

Where on earth did I say that??

oscarBravo

Necromancer wrote:

Where on earth did I say that??

You didn't - not in as many words. That's why I'm looking for clarification. Was her murder a crime, or was it not?

true

Necromancer wrote:

Incorrect. The British army no longer denies its roll in her death. Its not collusion to recruit informers, its a legitimate act in fighting criminals, however if you apply that set of standards (ie that the IRA are criminals) then you cant have a shoot to kill policy against them. Thats British law not some crazy notion I have, there are different laws for fighting criminals and soldiers.
What Im telling you was widly reported not too long ago when the truth came out and if you want more I suggest you either dig up some old copies of the Sunday Tribune or read "A secret history of the IRA".

Please provide a link to where it states "the British army no longer denies its roll in her death". I sometimes, but not usually, read the Sunday Tribune. Was it reported in any of the other newspapers ? I do not think so. Remember paper does not refuse ink. I would not believe everything in "A secret history of the IRA".

Re "informers", is it not every citizens right, if not duty, to communicate with the democratically elected security services of the state ? She lived in part of the UK and since when had some IRA thugs the right to abduct , torture, shoot and hide her remains? Re." shoot to kill policy ", if there had been one there would have been a lot more dead IRA men. The only people who shot to kill were the terrorists.