*
it's a new day, I'm refreshed again!
The occupied 6 county area is not Ireland or the State, McGuinness was not in the government of Ireland. Fact.
He was a member of a government recognised by the Irish people as legitimate is the point.
The leaders of 1916 had no mandate from the Irish people to act as they did.
The portraits of these people who triggered an insurrection in which hundreds of Irish civilians would die violently, adorn the walls of the highest offices of this State. I'm suggesting, given that the political class is now opposed to such type of unsanctioned, unauthorised military actions, it is time to take down the portraits and stop commemorating them in gallant form?
The War of Independence clearly had a mandate (1918 election before war 1919 to 1921).
Again, factually incorrect. The 1918 election was not a vote to go to war, it was a Westminster election in which the SF
proposed to use 'any means necessary' to establish an independent Ireland. 'Any means necessary' could mean anything. It could mean war, or it could mean agitating for international recognition, as De Valera sought to do in US, as is actually in the SF manifesto - war is not explicitly referred, albeit it is implied.
Nevertheless there was no vote, no authorisation given to go to war as a means to attaining Irish independence by the First Dáil. The war commenced when rebels, acting on their own authority (and presumably interpretation of the SF manifesto) took up arms by themselves.
There is no such thing as a retrospective mandate. It the Brits hadn't handled the aftermath so badly then 1916 would not have been the event it became,
If it had no mandate, it was illegal? That is my point. People in government who commemorate illegal suicide missions leading to the deaths of hundreds of Irish civilians are in no position to lecture others on their illegal violent insurrections.
Unless of course, they
retrospectively legitimise the actions of 1916?
This i believe, is a concern of yours and others with regard to SF today?
That if they get into power that they will retrospectively legitimise the Provos just as the rest of our political class has retrospectively legitimised 1916 and WoI for their own political expediency.
but if Home Rule was not delivered there would always have been a justifiable war.
The Home Rule Parliament of 1914, as passed by Houses of Parliament has never been delivered. It was usurped by the threat of Unionist violence.
Until 1998, this State never recognised the authority of British rule in any part of Ireland. This State deemed it an illegal occupation.
Relative to previous insurrections, the justification to wage war against Britain has always been there, until 1998.
I'm fairly sure most of the civilians were killed by the Brits.
I know, you don't have to remind me of their atrocities. It's the atrocities of our own side that I don't gloss over.
What the men of 1916 did not do was plant bombs in civilian areas, often crowded shopping areas, sometimes with no warning or sometimes at such a scale or intensity there would have to be lots of civilan casualties (Bloody Friday).
No, they didn't. But innocent people they did kill. Without no authority other than their own self-imposed authority to murder innocent unarmed people as they went about their livelihoods. If you can legitimise that, and not recognise the crimes committed you have no moral authority over those who try to legitimise the atrocities you outline.
and handpicked the 10 protestants to execute them (Kingsmill)
This atrocity has been referenced earlier. It was a despicable criminal act. I took sometime to remind myself of events. This massacre followed a massacre of six Catholics the night before. The perpetrators were made up of British army and security personnel. The same British army which this State recognised as an illegal occupation, just as they did in 1916 and 1918.
We could spend all day selectively point scoring atrocities. It is futile.
In 1998 the people of Ireland,
collectively,(Sunningdale was indeed for slow learners, even the Loyalists saw through the politics of exclusion inherent in it) expressed their will to take a different path in the interests of resolving our difficulties in a peaceful path.
There are many unpalatable aspects of this agreement. The release of murderers of Gerry McCabe for instance and SF waiting at the gates. But it wasn't SF who authorised their release in the first place. You have to thank Irish and British governments for that, as mandated by the people of Ireland.
Equally unpalatable is the continued cover-up by the PSNI of information relating to Miami Showband massacre. The implications of law & order authorities engaging in the cover up of murder is undoubtedly unpalatable to most . I know this because I know the how unpalatable the continued cover up of Robert McCartney murder by members of SF is.
The cover up of information pertaining to a murder investigation is unpalatable in one instance, it surely is in all instances? Yet, unpalatable as it is, I have to accept that PSNI are a lawful authority in this country.
PSNI files delay
You have a 30 year sectarian campaign versus 3 or 4 isolated incidents (West Cork & maybe 1 in the midlands)
In the interests of common sense, it wrong to describe the IRA campaign as a 30yr sectarian campaign. Yes, undoubtedly there were far more sectarian atrocities, but it wasn't waged by one side over another. The British State also participated and colluded in sectarian murders throughout the period.
It is the tragedy of the whole affair.
But for a sectarian campaign, the Provos were woeful as I think they actually killed more Catholics than Protestants.
He's right, there were always be some, the bit he leaves out that when we bomb recklessly you are knowingly the author of those deaths.
Reckless bombing, reckless shooting, is there an order of merit in how one should die in a conflict?
Do you think perhaps had the IRB got access to explosives they would have used it? Considering their abject disregard for the ordinary citizens of Dublin that week I think it highly likely. Not to mention, Tomás Clarke who had previously participated in an bombing campaign in Britain that included indiscriminate targets such as public bridges, train stations and London underground.
Clarke is revered amongst our political class. There are bridges, monuments named after him. His portrait adorns the walls of public institutions such as the National Library of Ireland.
By any measure today, he was surely a terrorist?
The actions of our political class in commemorating Clarke would suggest they think otherwise.
Pearse as I've said was a strange character, he didn't strap a bomb to himself but death was always on the agenda. He wrote some strange poetry, but that of itself is not a crime.
Indeed it is not, it is only speculation.
MLM attended the funeral of Bobby Storey, he too was not a paedophile nor an apologist for paedophilia.
