RIC Commemoration

WolfeTone said:
They don't govern over the UVF. When was the last time (or first time) you heard a Tory or Labour government minister condemn the British Army
Click to expand...
And that goes to the heart of the matter. When has an Irish (insert any nation except possibly Australia here) government condemned its nation's army? If SF ever get into power they would begrudgingly respect the official army but the real army that would be beyond criticism would be the Provisional IRA.
 
Is your argument that because the British Army kills children (but doesn't deliberately target them) it's okay for people who killed children and are unapologetic about it to be elected politicians in this country and it's not okay to mention it?

WolfeTone said:
The reference 'Child Killers' is clearly a highly charged and emotive term designed to provoke.
Click to expand...
No, it's designed to point out who these people are, what they believe in and who they support.

Who is doing that? The only person on this thread proposing a hierarchy of victims is you. You have stated it in unequivocal terms.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Sinn Fein seem to firmly believe that the PIRA campaign was a glorious affair.
Click to expand...

I dont think 'glorious affair' is appropriate in fairness. Certainly they are proud of their comrades and the resistance they showed, but this is no different to any other supporters of any other military force and their expeditions, regardless of the atrocities that are directly attributable to them.

Duke of Marmalade said:
I am not a great fan of the WoI but the idea that there is equivalence between that IRA and the PIRA either in terms of their behaviour or in terms of their democratic legitimacy.
Click to expand...

I have this view trotted out many a time, I have never been convinced. The WoI derives its moral justification from the 1916 Proclamation and the subsequent SF landslide election of 1918. The first Dáil convening on 21 January 1919 never gave any authorisation then, or after, for the use of military force against the British, certainly not for the attack in Soloheadbeg the same day shooting dead two police officers. In the words of Dan Breen himself "…we took the action deliberately, having thought over the matter and talked it over between us. Treacy had stated to me that the only way of starting a war was to kill someone, and we wanted to start a war, so we intended to kill some of the police whom we looked upon as the foremost and most important branch of the enemy forces … The only regret that we had following the ambush was that there were only two policemen in it, instead of the six we had expected…”

The "good 'ol 'Ra" were a law unto themselves for the most part. They tortured and killed innocent civilians, wrongly identifying them as informers or spies, disappeared their bodies etc....and had no authorisation from any legal authority nor were accountable to anyone for their actions.
 
Purple said:
Is your argument that because the British Army kills children (but doesn't deliberately target them) it's okay for people who killed children and are unapologetic about it to be elected politicians in this country and it's not okay to mention it?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. You are going to provide an exclusive here? Which elected people in this country have killed children and are unapologetic about it?

My argument is that your reference to SF as 'Child Killers' is an emotive politically charged term. There are no child killers elected to our parliament, if there were you should pass on whatever information you have to the Gardai.
You are attributing guilt by association, something you are not prepared to do for other protaganists of the conflict.


Purple said:
The only person on this thread proposing a hierarchy of victims is you. You have stated it in unequivocal terms.
Click to expand...

I made the distinction between innocent civilians and combatants, yes. Where I believe there should be no hierarchy is between innocent civilian victims of the IRA and innocent civilian victims of the British Army or any other armed grouping.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
If SF ever get into power they would begrudgingly respect the official army but the real army that would be beyond criticism would be the Provisional IRA.
Click to expand...

And as we are discovering, the Good 'ol IRA (GOIRA). It is something that hasn't past my attention how some commentators referencing the Stanley controversary placed their disdain at Stanleys reference to dead soldiers at Warrenpoint but ignored the reference to Kilmichael - I can only assume that in the minds of many today, GOIRA are beyond criticism too.
 
I'm not going to post stuff about former IRA members on a public forum. I don't want to cause a legal issue for Brendan and I'm fond of my knees.
If you think there are no former IRA members in elected office as members of the Shinners then you are willfully ignoring their history. Anyone who was in the IRA is a child killer, directly or indirectly.
Other foreign based protagonists are not running a political party in this country which is fronted by Mary Lou.
People are entitled to vote for them and I'm entitled to remind them that they are voting for child killers.

WolfeTone said:
I made the distinction between innocent civilians and combatants, yes. Where I believe there should be no hierarchy is between innocent civilian victims of the IRA and innocent civilian victims of the British Army or any other armed grouping.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you don't think any of the soldiers or RUC officers shot in their homes, blown up in front of, or with, their families were innocent. Wow.
 
The whole think was in bad taste. Glorifying our bloody past makes it more likely we'll repeat it or, as happened in Northern Ireland, what in latter years turned into nothing more than a criminal gang used that past as a cloak for their criminality.
 
Ok, as I said I am not a fan of the WoI and I will take you word for it that they were just as great a bunch of thugs as the Provos. Though the former did achieve democratic legitimacy and for some including Purple a worthwhile result - our independence. The latter never attained democratic legitimacy and achieved nothing* during the long bloody campaign before they learnt Sunningdale. There is absolutely nothing in the Provo campaign that is worthy of commemorating, and yet SF seem fixated on doing just that.
The British Army have I am sure in their time committed war crimes and they have crimes to answer for in the Troubles but the idea that there is some sort of equivalence between BA and the PIRA in terms of either honour or shame whichever you wish is a myth that SF desperately try to make stick but is a grotesque caricature of what actually happened.

* Correction: I think the GFA had more references to the Irish Language than Sunningdale.
 
Purple said:
I'm not going to post stuff about former IRA members on a public forum. I don't want to cause a legal issue for Brendan
Click to expand...

That is understandable, I wouldnt not be fair to expect you to.

Purple said:
If you think there are no former IRA members in elected office as members of the Shinners then you are willfully ignoring their history.
Click to expand...

I never said that, please do not try put words in my mouth.

Purple said:
Anyone who was in the IRA is a child killer, directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...

This is guilt by association. It stands to reason then that you think anyone who was in the British Army is also a child killer, directly or indirectly?
Personally I do not draw such equivalence, for members of SF or for members of the British Army.

Purple said:
Other foreign based protagonists are not running a political party in this country which is fronted by Mary Lou.
Click to expand...

You have lost me on that one. Mary Lou is the leader of SF, she is from Dublin. The entire parliamentary party of SF is from Ireland. I think we had this discussion before about members of the Green Party from NI voting on the Programme for Government? I think you are opposed to their interference, in the end though, you were happy that they went into government despite the 'foreign' interference.

Purple said:
Ah, so you don't think any of the soldiers or RUC officers shot in their homes, blown up in front of, or with, their families were innocent. Wow.
Click to expand...

Again, please do not try put words in my mouth. Anyone who joins any military and takes up a gun is far from innocent. As for the RUC, I do not doubt that many of them were ordinary decent family people trying to build careers as police officers. But you would be naive in the extreme to not know that many of them were members and collaborators with the UDR and UVF. And that they scale of collusion insofar as not investigating crimes of murder by loyalist paramilitaries went beyond a few bad apples. It was systemic.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Though the former did achieve democratic legitimacy
Click to expand...

In what sense? For sure they brought the British government to the negotiating table and established the Free State. But they failed to repeal the Government of Ireland Act which established NI and in turn led to a century littered with political and sectarian violence in a basket case, church controlled, State.
The Provos too brought the British government to the negotiating table and, like GOIRA, failed to repeal the GoI Act. At best, the Provo campaign may have hopped one of those stepping stones (backwards or forwards) that Collins mentioned in his push for peace. A derisory return either way.

Duke of Marmalade said:
they learnt Sunningdale
Click to expand...

Ah yes Sunningdale, for slow learners, the quip associated with Séamus Mallon. Sunningdale collapsed at the hands of loyalists who brought the economy and society to a standstill. The irony being lost on Mallon that you cannot come to a political settlement for peace if the protagonists engaged in violence are excluded from the negotiation. It was a stance he would hold firm to for the rest of his political life only for Hume to undercut this position with his engagement with Adams. After which ceasefire would eventually emerge despite all the obstacles, obstructions and disdain he had to endure.
Slow learners indeed.

Duke of Marmalade said:
There is absolutely nothing in the Provo campaign that is worthy of commemorating
Click to expand...

Obviously, depending on your perspective, this is a legitimate held view but from a SF perspective and the communities they represent they consider otherwise. Obviously they failed, like GOIRA and all others before them, to forceabley move Britain out of Ireland entirely. But they would hold the struggles of those who stood against internment, criminalisation, collusion, shoot-to-kill, in the face of a military might of the BA. The sacrifices of the Hunger Strikers - regardless of what you think of the individuals or their cause, the act of self-sacrifice resonated around the world smashing the policy of criminalisation.
From a military perspective, and this brings us back to Stanley, Warrenpoint was considered a huge success, similar to Kilmichael before it.
Striking at the heart of the political establishment, twice, in Brighton and in Downing St*

Duke of Marmalade said:
The British Army have I am sure in their time committed war crimes
Click to expand...

I sense you are leaving room for doubt?

Duke of Marmalade said:
that there is some sort of equivalence between BA and the PIRA in terms of either honour or shame
Click to expand...

In terms of shame there is little difference. They murdered innocents, children, the unborn. They cover-up their atrocities protecting the perpetrators from justice. They engaged in torture and they conspired to plant bombs indiscriminately.

In terms of honour, the only honour is for ourselves as a people to ensure it never descends into bloodshed again.

*I don't proclaim these as events worth commemorating, rather from an objective military view they would be considered as a success. Similarly events like Loughgall and Gibraltar would be considered successes on the British side.
 
WolfeTone said:
Ah yes Sunningdale, for slow learners, the quip associated with Séamus Mallon. Sunningdale collapsed at the hands of loyalists who brought the economy and society to a standstill.
Click to expand...
I won't let you away with the that. I was a resident of a staunchly republican ghetto in West Belfast at the time of Sunningdale. The earlier suspension of Stormont was even more pleasurable to me than the more recent defeat of the Trump. I would have been happy enough with direct rule. Sunningdale righted or set the stage for all the RC grievance, real or imagined, to be righted. I thought to myself the civil rights movement has been vindicated, I even had to concede that the Provo campaign, by triggering internment which ultimately led to Bloody Sunday and the inevitable demise of the junta, was instrumental in achieving this big win for nationalists.
But there was something missing. The Provos had no electoral presence at all. The new dispensation spelt the demise of their whole raison d'etre with nothing to show for it. So under the guise of continuing to fight for an all Ireland socialist republic they intensified their terrorist campaign. No wonder this proved intolerable to unionists and yes Wilson should have stood up to them.
But make no mistake the initiator of the Troubles for their whole duration was the Provos as evidenced by the fact that when they ceased fire everybody ceased fire. Your tecate like insistence that the British were equal stokers of the Troubles would have meant that they would have continued with their (according to you) vile aggression of the nationalist population. I don't recall after the IRA declared their ceasefire that we were all holding our breaths to see if the British would stop this supposed aggression against the RC population.
 
Purple said:
Glorifying our bloody past makes it more likely we'll repeat it
Click to expand...

Indeed, we should cut the carp and stop glorifying GOIRA and Kilmichael whilst condemning Warrenpoint. It is a contradiction.

Purple said:
what in latter years turned into nothing more than a criminal gang used that past as a cloak for their criminality
Click to expand...

There are of course war crimes attributable to them but at the heart of the issue is political legitimacy of those in authority.
The British state had lost its legitimacy in the eyes of many, the RUC had no authority in nationalist areas. The BA were guilty of war crimes, the irony of those who purport to uphold law & order, justice and democracy being lost on some.
In such circumstances it would be hard to find a conflict area in the world where gangsterism does not emerge (not exclusively just the paramilitary sides either).
After the peace deal emerged, it was still a long road until the unwinding of the paramilitaries. A generation knowing no different will not automatically revert to trusting state institutions because a handful of politicians tell them to.
But Ive followed the events closely for over 35yrs. One of the most significant events for me is a little known passage in Peter Taylors 'Provos & SF' book published in 1995. In it is an interview with then SF chairperson Mitchell McLaughlin - McLaughlin quite explicitly states that the SF leadership objective is to get rid of the IRA. This was 1995, before Unionists would even share a TV studio with SF, before British government would enter talks, when trust was so fickle that all negotiation stalled on words like 'permanent' and 'complete'.
It is clear to me, although many still hanker for the illusion that SF is run by an Army Council, that the IRA as we knew it is gone.
Every security report from Gardaí and PSNI indicates that PIRA members are engaged exclusively in peaceful and democratic programs and that recruitment to any military apparatus is non-existent.
SF would be insane to tie themselves to any military organisation, other than what it was tied to in the past. On an island wide basis they are the largest party in the country with the most votes - political legitimacy defined.
 
Last edited:
I'm not suggesting that the Provos were not aggressors in their own right and that opportunities for peace were missed on their side. I simply think the attribution of 'slow learners' exclusively to the Provos, or all paramilitaries, is a little glib considering the events of the time. It is all well and good that political establishment leaders congregate and tell the populous that the solution is some grandiose power sharing arrangement to a population who broadly felt had no political stake, and were under attack from loyalists, abandoned by the police....it was a hard sell I would imagine?

Duke of Marmalade said:
But make no mistake the initiator of the Troubles for their whole duration was the Provos as evidenced by the fact that when they ceased fire everybody ceased fire.
Click to expand...

No disrespect Duke, but you know as well as I do that the Provos did not even exist at the commencement of the Troubles.

Duke of Marmalade said:
Your tecate like insistence that the British were equal stokers of the Troubles would have meant that they would have continued with their (according to you) vile aggression of the nationalist population.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm sure you are quite aware of this. The British government policy was that there was no war, just a criminal conspiracy. There was nothing for them to 'cease fire' to, as officially they were not at war.
Unofficially however, the proof is the pudding, summary executions, collusion with loyalists, arms shipments, shoot-to-kill, subverting criminal investigations and public inquiries (Stevens) etc... etc...

I'm minded to think of the words of Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II in Dublin, "With the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see some things we wish could have been done differently, or not at all."
 
Troubles score card:
Provos 10 bad 0 good
Loyalist murder gangs 7 bad 0 good
British Army 1 bad 6 good
Charles Haughey et al 4 bad 0 good
Garret Fitgerald 5 good
John Hume 10 good
Seamus Mallon 10 good
David Trimble 3 good 2 bad
Ian Paisley 6 bad
Gerry Adams 10 bad 3 good
Martin McGuinness 10 bad 5 good
The Queen 5 good
Mary McAleese 5 good 1 bad
 
I lived in London for 10 years and in my time there I heard 2 bombs go off. One was Canary Wharf which rattled the windows of my house. The 2nd one was when I was walking from Tottenham Court Road tube station to a theatre to see a show when a "litter bin" bomb went off in a side street. it was a "small bomb", injured no-one Thank God but I can hear the noise in my head as I type this.

I also worked for a company whose main office was blown up in Bishopsgate. I had to to go to work the following Monday morning, bricking myself for the reaction from the English and to be honest, it could not have been better. To them, we were all in the one boat, regardless of where we came from and I will always be grateful for that.

The IRA in the War of Independence were no angels, they did not always get it right and innocent people were killed and injured by them. However, the Provos deliberately set out to kill people simply because they were English in an effort to destablise their economy and scare the British into withdrawal. Think the bombs mentioned above, think the pub bombs in the 70s, the list goes on.
 
Peanuts20 said:
However, the Provos deliberately set out to kill people simply because they were English in an effort to destablise their economy and scare the British into withdrawal.
Click to expand...

As did the Fenians before them, including Thomas Clarke, revered in political establishment circles in this country so much so that they named bridges and train stations after them.

Peanuts20 said:
The IRA in the War of Independence were no angels, they did not always get it right and innocent people were killed and injured by them
Click to expand...

What is the difference between these two comments? Is there some distinction, some higher level of repulsion and indignation to be applied to innocent English people killed by Provos and the innocent people killed by GOIRA?

What is the difference between what Thomas Clarke was engaged in, planting bombs on public bridges and underground train stations in England and the bombings that Provos were engaged in?
 
Your whole argument seems to be that it's okay for a modern political party to have unrepentant bomb makers in its parliamentary ranks and terrorists running the show from behind the scenes because some dubious moral equivalence with something that happened 100 years ago. Am I missing something or is that it?
We are ignoring their recent links to bank robbery, the murder of Gardai, extortion and racketeering, secret courts which exonerate murderers, kneecappings and assaults (punishment beatings), intimidation and some very dubious party funding.

The only political party representatives I wouldn't feel comfortable having a frank discussion with are those from the Shinners.
 
Purple said:
Am I missing something or is that it?
Click to expand...

Yes, a lot, and by some margin.

I wasn't arguing anything, I was asking questions. Planting bombs and indiscriminately killing children in 1881 was as morally repugnant then as it is today. I'm asking how the perpetrators of such savagery can be revered by our political establishment?
 
Okay, so you have deflected from the topic which you started which is why I refer to Sinn Fein as the Child Killers.
You seem to think that it's not okay because other people killed children 100 years ago.

In the here and now and in the specific context of this country (not what you think this country should be comprised of), and without any whataboutism relating to other countries and members of other parliaments, do you think that the very recent history and utterly unrepentant recent past of prominent members of Sinn Fein make them unsuitable for high office?
Do you think that people who were active members of a terrorist organisation, and are proud of their membership, are hypocritical when they criticise other TD's about relatively minor transgressions.
Do you regard the PIRA as a terrorist organisation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register