RIC Commemoration

[Purple]

No, it is an organisation that is defunct. And according to every recent security assessment from Gardaí and PSNI its has wound down its military capabilities and its members are engaged in exclusively democratic programs. I take their word for it, do you?

Okay. That clarify things. You don't think that an organisation which blew up children, planted the bomb at Enniskillen and so many other attacks targeting civilians was a terrorist organisation.

I have no time for the Tories and Loyalists who murdered people (directly and indirectly) in Northern Ireland. I consider them unsuitable for high office. If the present British Conservative Party was, at its core, a personality cult dedicated to the glorification of those people I would consider it unsuitable to be in power and condemn all of its membership as fellow travellers with child killers.

The fact is that the Shinners are just that. While they are, and while they give deflective answers about the atrocities committed by their masters and at the same time eulogising the bombers and murderers I will consider them fellow travellers of murderers and child killers.

I don't or a moment think that the IRA would think twice about blowing up children again if their political base collapsed. They are democrats in name only. It is nothing more than expedience.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@WolfeTone are you looking for Kerrigan's job? I didn't get the €9.99 reference.
I agree that the extract of O'Malley's piece that you have picked out was dubious, didn't go along with it myself at time of reading. But the general thrust I supported and especially the "when PIRA ceased firing everybody ceased firing". But let me state that the lowest of the actors in terms of moral squalor were the loyalist gangs who seemed to kill innocent Catholics for psychopathic fun. I was actually surprised that after all this had a political dimension to it - a tit for tat to PIRA atrocities.
But the real eye opener for me arising from Lynch's and O'Malley's pieces is the public reaction of SF to Stanley's tweet. My understanding is that SF believe that the Provo campaign was justified in the face of the BA imposing a "Protestant state for a Protestant people" in your own words. If their campaign was justifiable then Warrenpoint was justifiable, a legitimate and well executed strike at the military oppressors. Yet do SF annually make a big deal of commemorating that achievement? No they prefer to celebrate victimhood such as the 8 IRA men killed at Loughall.
So what gives here? SF realise that their support for the Provo campaign is a big electoral negative in the South. Yes there are folk here who go along with that but they are in the SF bag, amounting to maybe 8% core support. But in the 20%s it is a big brake on progress. So Stanley is being dumped on because his public airing of SF orthodoxy is very negative electorally.
If SF did not have this Provo baggage there is no doubt Mary Lou would now be Taoiseach. Thankfully because of that baggage we have been spared this capitulation to leftist populism for at least another 5 years.

 

[WolfeTone]

are you looking for Kerrigan's job? I didn't get the €9.99 reference.

I subscribed online for a month - it was too cold out to go to shops and buy a paper!

@Duke of Marmalade Just to refresh, the 'slow learners' quip originates from Seamus Mallon, on the signing of the GFA. Mallons quip was directed at the political protanganists both on republican side and the unionist side. Make no mistake, while the Unionist political hierarchy was in favour of Sunningdale, its core base and membership were certainly not. The Ulster Unionist Party would eventually vote against continued participation in the executive forcing Faulkners resignation. Anti-Sunningdale Unionists would dominate at the following general election. The collapse of Sunningdale was inevitable regardless of anything republicans were doing.

We are in peace-time today. A decade of commemoration should, in peace-time, be a time to reflect and hopefully further embed the culture of peace. Which, given the sensitive nature of events we are talking about, has the potential to incite anger which I don't think is useful for anyone. Stanley referenced 'slow learners' not at some of his political opponents, that forms part of the general cut and thrust of political activity. Instead he used the memory of soldiers who lost their lives in service to their country. This is the insensitivity, and stupidity, of Stanleys tweet, and hence the subsequent reprimand.

See @Purple continued use of vile accusations targeted at democratically elected representatives of this State. Purple will attribute these accusations based on nothing more than guilt by association and political bias. It is designed to provoke, clearly so, as he is not willing to answer direct questions put to him about attributing the same accusations to other armed protaganists of the conflict who also killed children.

If Stanleys tweet was insensitive, Purples outright debased accusations thrown at innocent people are surely on par? How such accusations have been allowed to stand on a social media platform like AAM for days now is a bit troublesome I have to say. I will give the benefit of the doubt that the moderators have not twigged the potentially reputational damage to AAM for allowing vile unsubstantiated accusations to sit unchecked.

This topic began with the sensitivities aroused following proposals to commemorate the memories of RIC members. I'm prepared to engage in honest open truthful debate, mindful of the sensitive nature of what we are discussing.
My overall view is that we have reached a space where finally the constitutional political path has taken outright ascendency and has nullified any proclamation for armed revolt. Some will argue it could have been done a long time ago, Sunningdale, for example. I would argue that the violence of the past century from 1916 onwards achieved nothing more than what a constitutional path would have achieved at a minimum over the same period anyway. But hindsight is a wonderful thing so I am not going to try disqualify some elements of the violent past while placing other elements of violence on a pedestal for hero worship. I'm not going to pretend that planting bombs in 1991 is an act of terror but planting bombs in 1881 was not. Or that torture, killing and disappearing alleged informers in 1972 was any more despicable than torture, killing and disappearing in 1920. Nor will I ever accept that continued cover-ups of heinous murders from Miami Showband, Dublin/Monaghan, Loughinisland, Ballymurphy etc is not part of a collaboration to protect criminal elements within the British State system.

Unless there is anything of substance to add, I will reflect once more on the speech of Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth in Dublin. I would recommend others to remind themselves of the content also.

The Queens speech

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@WolfeTone It occurs to me that there are much of your comments that I agree with. Where we differ is in the interpretation of their relevance. For example I do not deny that there was some dirty work in the State system, possibly mostly confined to elements of the UDR and RUC. I don't believe for example that the murder of Pat Finucane was sanctioned at any senior level within the British establishment. But I just don't see that on a par with the PIRA campaign which I see as totally unjustifiable at least for the its last 20 years and the prime driver of the continuation of the Troubles.
Take another example. You are factually correct on the collapse of Sunningdale narrative. You may even be right that the Paisleyites would have doomed it even if the PIRA had announced an end to their campaign with the fulfillment of the civil rights demands of Catholics in sight. Ironically the PIRA may even have agreed with the Paisleyites that if the Brits can cave in so quickly - only 2 years after the start of the violent campaign, maybe one more push would see them capitulate altogether.
But as the years rolled on and the senseless campaign continued it was obvious to all that an agreement along Sunningdale lines was always there for the taking. As I said the game changer was when SF/PIRA realized that Sunningdale suited them electorally.
On Stanley, I do not believe that Mary Lou was offended by the substance of the comments, she simply recognised that it would not do the party any electoral favours.

 

[Purple]

My overall view is that we have reached a space where finally the constitutional political path has taken outright ascendency and has nullified any proclamation for armed revolt. Some will argue it could have been done a long time ago, Sunningdale, for example. I would argue that the violence of the past century from 1916 onwards achieved nothing more than what a constitutional path would have achieved at a minimum over the same period anyway. But hindsight is a wonderful thing so I am not going to try disqualify some elements of the violent past while placing other elements of violence on a pedestal for hero worship. I'm not going to pretend that planting bombs in 1991 is an act of terror but planting bombs in 1881 was not. Or that torture, killing and disappearing alleged informers in 1972 was any more despicable than torture, killing and disappearing in 1920. Nor will I ever accept that continued cover-ups of heinous murders from Miami Showband, Dublin/Monaghan, Loughinisland, Ballymurphy etc is not part of a collaboration to protect criminal elements within the British State system.

I agree with most of that but none of the people who planted the bombs in 1881 are still alive and none of their comrades in arms are now in public office. It's not just that the Shinners refuse to condemn the murder of children in the recent past by people who are in the same Party as them but when those killers die they attend their funerals and eulogise about what great people they were.
I don't for a moment think that Mary Lou is comfortable with that which leads me to conclude that there are still other forces directing things in the party she supposedly leads. Therefore the links to that violence are still there.

 

[WolfeTone]

Where we differ is in the interpretation of their relevance.

Yes that would appear to be the case. The 'some dirty work' suggests to me that perhaps we have different views on the extent of the dirty work.
Britain's propaganda was to tell the world that there was no war in Ireland just a criminal conspiracy. But under British law, alleged criminals are entitled to legal defence, trial by jury and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty etc. It was clear that what Britain was engaged in summary executions of those it saw as a threat. This was a low-level covert war.
The Finucane case is just one of hundreds of cases. It is prominent because of his standing as a solicitor. He was part of the legal system, he used the legal system as it was supposed to be used. So they killed them. That a government Minister was to make mention of solicitors being "sympathetic to the IRA" in HoC three weeks before he was murdered suggests Finucane was that solicitor they were talking about. Why would government ministers be discussing Finucane at all? We won't know until there is a public inquiry.

But as the years rolled on

Indeed, not disputing it. But can you pick to a point in time in all those 20 years where the impetus for a peaceful resolution was being fostered? By anyone? Internment was still in place at the time of Sunningdale and we know how the British Army treated protestors to that policy.
After internment came Thatcher and her policy of criminalisation which only hardened the resolve of IRA, not weakened it, culminating in the Hunger Strikes and driving up the tensions again.
The policy of the British in the 1980's was to crush the IRA, and by that I mean applying the covert war, colluding with loyalist paramilitaries.

A little anecdote. Adams was shot in 1984, I've seen mentioned somewhere that the word 'peace' or 'peaceful resolution' began appearing on SF pamphlets for the first time by 1985.

In Oct 1984, the Brighton bomb occured, Thatcher up to that point had been intransigent about any Irish government interference in NI affairs. By November 1985 she had signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

 

[WolfeTone]

I agree with most of that but none of the people who planted the bombs in 1881 are still alive and none of their comrades in arms are now in public office.

No disrespect Purple, but in 2016, President Higgins attended a bridge re-naming ceremony in Dublin in honour of Thomas Clarke. In which he waxes lyrical about Clarkes great resilience and determination. Arrested in London in 1883, but does not mention what for - (possession of explosives, as part of the Fenian campaign to blow up bridges and train stations).

Can I ask, what sort of message do you thinks that sends to Unionist community we hope to share our island with? What message does it send out to future generations of Irish people who may be inclined someday to want to look to draw inspiration from violent revoluntionaries?


Im not condemning Clarke, I think everyone is entitled to commemorate their dead comrades. But the guy tried to blow up bridges. Surely there is a more apt way to commemorate his revolution rather than name bridges after him?

I'm not sure who you are referring to exactly about bomb planters in public office. Dessie Ellis is the only convicted bomber I know of. I dont think he killed any children.

 

[Purple]

Dessie Ellis is the only convicted bomber I know of. I dont think he killed any children.

I don't think Dessie will provide an exhaustive list of what he was up to during his previous career.

As for the rest of your post, I agree with your point about Clarke and others.

Time turns politics into history (just as it turns cults into religions). In 120 years what the IRA did will be history with no clear and unbroken lines into the present but at the moment the people who ran the PIRA campaign in Northern Ireland, Ireland and Britain are still heavily involved up front and particularly behind the scenes in SF. The level of barbarity and the indiscriminate nature of their PIRA's actions differentiates them from what happened 100+ years ago, as does the fact that there was a viable alternative in Northern Ireland, particularly after direct rule was imposed.

 

[WolfeTone]

the moment the people who ran the PIRA campaign in Northern Ireland, Ireland and Britain are still heavily involved up front and particularly behind the scenes in SF.

So what? By every security assessment by Gardaí and PSNI they are engaged in exclusively democratic programs - the exact thing they were being called upon to do for so long. Now that they are doing it, its not acceptable?

The level of barbarity and the indiscriminate nature of their PIRA's actions differentiates them from what happened 100+ years ago, as does the fact that there was a viable alternative in Northern Ireland, particularly after direct rule was imposed.

Thats where we disagree. The Rising alone, in one week left hundreds of civilians dead, including some 40 children, and brought a city to ruin.
The WoI, according to one historian, resulted in 4 times as many persons abducted, killed
and their bodies disappeared in 2yrs than the Provos did in 25yrs.

Barbaric

What viable alternative in NI was there? How can you have a viable alternative when policies of internment, criminalisation, censorship, shoot-to-kill, collusion and cover-up are being operated against a section of the population?

Notions that the armed campaign could have stopped at any given time unconditionally is pie in the sky stuff. At any given time it would have been seen as a surrender with the liklihood of those proposing it being shot, then replaced by more militant leaders.

I would challenge anyone to point to a specific moment in time during the conflict when the conditions existed, and what those conditions were, that would allow for a political strategy to emerge over a military strategy.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@WolfeTone I agree with you on the historical facts up to a point. I probably also agree with your perspective of the WoI. I will never agree with your perspective of the Provo campaign, you know that.
On Stanleygate I see positives. I think Mary Lou might have been genuinely abhorred by the sentiments. This belies the theory that she is in thrall to West Belfast Provos who would be out and out Stanleyites. More significantly she sees how counterproductive Stanleyism is to her sustaining and increasing her 25% share of our electorate.

 

[WolfeTone]

I will never agree with your perspective of the Provo campaign, you know that

I don't doubt it. A lot of the discourse and petty political mud-slinging is centred around the 'narrative' of our violent past. Each bloc accusing others of trying to change or re-write history.
Diarmuid Ferriter on the Claire Byrne show states that there are many narratives, not one single narrative. I would agree, and it is in that context that he espouses our need to be acutely aware of sensitivities. As the proposed RIC commemoration showed, it doesn't take much to stoke the tribal embers within. What the mud-slinging relates to is who controls the narrative, as opposed to establishing the truths of each narrative.

I'm reading some such narratives from articles from my newly acquired Independent.ie subscription. Shane Ross, another commentator that has suddenly acquired arithmetic deficiencies, he too claims that Stanleys tweet was offensive, but to only 18 of the dead British soldiers who died at the hands of IRA, not 35.
Has anyone told the Unionists, the people of Britain, that while our some our political and media establishment are comfortable wearing poppies some of their colleagues are quite comfortable with the memories of their fallen being used as Twitter fodder?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I see that the Brits have chosen an Irish woman as their first guinea pig for the vac. 800 years victimisation and still counting.

 

[Purple]

Has anyone told the Unionists, the people of Britain, that while our some our political and media establishment are comfortable wearing poppies some of their colleagues are quite comfortable with the memories of their fallen being used as Twitter fodder?

The Unionists are aware of every slight, real or otherwise. The British don't care either way.

They'd just like shot of the whole mess that is Northern Ireland. As far as I'm concerned they can keep it; you break it you bought it.

If they want us to take it off their hands we'd need a 20 year transition period and about €20 billion a year for the next 100 years (index linked) with the option of walking away if it wasn't working out. Of course we should aim higher but that should be our bottom line.

 

[WolfeTone]

The British don't care either way.

The British care profoundly about the memory of all their fallen service officers, as evidenced each November. The soldiers who lost their lives at Kilmichael were all veterans who served in WWI. That significant elements of our media can pontificate the outrage of Stanleys tweet for referencing the killing of British soldiers in N Ireland in 1979 only, and not the lives lost in 1920, is a demonstration of efforts to control a particular narrative of our past rather than establishing the truths of each narrative.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Stanley features at least 3 times in the IT today, its Editorial, Michael McDowell and Kathy Sheridan. The Editorial makes my point that Stanley is simply echoing the SF line that the Provo campaign was every bit as justified as the WoI but that SF see this as electorally damaging and would prefer to keep that to themselves.

 

[Peanuts20]

Stanley features at least 3 times in the IT today, its Editorial, Michael McDowell and Kathy Sheridan. The Editorial makes my point that Stanley is simply echoing the SF line that the Provo campaign was every bit as justified as the WoI but that SF see this as electorally damaging and would prefer to keep that to themselves.

Quiet in the South but not in the North where they will continue to push that line

 

[Purple]

The British care profoundly about the memory of all their fallen service officers, as evidenced each November. The soldiers who lost their lives at Kilmichael were all veterans who served in WWI. That significant elements of our media can pontificate the outrage of Stanleys tweet for referencing the killing of British soldiers in N Ireland in 1979 only, and not the lives lost in 1920, is a demonstration of efforts to control a particular narrative of our past rather than establishing the truths of each narrative.

I agree. I was talking about Northern Ireland in general.

 

[WolfeTone]

Stanley features at least 3 times in the IT today, its Editorial, Michael McDowell and Kathy Sheridan. The Editorial makes my point that Stanley is simply echoing the SF line that the Provo campaign was every bit as justified as the WoI but that SF see this as electorally damaging and would prefer to keep that to themselves.

I suppose it all boils down to interpretation. My view is it is not the referencing of Kilmichael and Warrenpoint that is at issue, as from a purely historical military context the parallels are there to see. It was the manner in which he communicated it. This is in the IT editorial "He was criticised by party colleagues for his tone and the manner in which he expressed himself – but the party did not, and will not, retract the sentiment which gave rise to the ill-judged tweet."

The theory of the Provo campaign not being electorally advantageous is correct - it is after all peace-time. It does not serve on the one hand to pushing a peace agenda, while simultaneously glorifying armed resistance against the enemy.
It is no different for FF or FG. When was the last time you heard them glorifying the actions of Kilmichael? Or the Civil War? Each party commemorates the memories of its past associated veterans, Collins, De Valera, etc but they refrain from glorifying specific military operations. Rightly so, its peacetime, to do so is insensitive to those who were victims in those military operations, invariably represented by others on the other side of the peacetime equation.

Even the commemorations of 1916 are washed in the ideals of the Proclamation, the gallantry of the participants, but rarely the specifics. Nobody I know from the Labour party gloats about the ICA putting a bullet in the head of constable O'Brien of DMP. O'Brien, a Limerick man, just doing his job preventing unauthorised access to Dublin Castle, was summarily executed.

It is notable that the IT recognises that the WoI "enjoyed widespread support", it has never been established if it ever enjoyed majority support from the public. The 1918 election sweep of SF is used as evidence of majority support. SF winning 70% of the parliamentary seats, however only 47% of the popular vote. More significant imo is the SF manifesto, upon which that election was won. It falls short of explicitly declaring it will wage war against Britain. Albeit war is implied, I think it is cleverly and deliberately omitted.
There is no record, vote or account from the First Dáil or its cabinet that authorises war against Britain. As well as that, the Catholic Church, and significant elements of media were vehemently opposed to the violent actions and the methods of the IRA at the time.

They called them savages and murderers!

The argument against the Provo campaign about lack of popular support is valid, but also a little trite.
Similar to when violence erupted in 1916 there was no popular political support. That in the years following 1916 SF organised into an effective political entity by 1918 is probably more testament to the existing and well established acceptance of free-and-fair UK elections in Ireland at that time.

The Stormont regime under the Government of Ireland Act was a different beast altogether and there was a not insignificant amount of the nationalist population in NI who were disenfranchised from the system, saw it for the gerry-mandered, discriminatory operation it was and simply did not recognise nor participate in it. For instance, SF as a political organisation was already banned in NI before the violence began.

When violence erupted in 1969, it came from the communities, not private armies. Rather than the political system acting as the valve to demonstrate legitimacy, as in 1918, it was the Stormont political system itself that was targeted as an already discredited entity and it was subsequently collapsed. The IT editorial lazily ignores that that was one of the consequences of partition. The reality is that while the Provo campaign never enjoyed majority support even amongst nationalists, it did enjoy significant support from nationalist communities. It is the only plausible way in my opinion that it could have sustained itself for 25yrs.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@WolfeTone We are approaching making a deal! You haven't left much for me to argue with there. I pick out:

The reality is that while the Provo campaign never enjoyed majority support even amongst nationalists, it did enjoy significant support from nationalist communities. It is the only plausible way in my opinion that it could have sustained itself for 25yrs.

There was quite a bit of support in the RC ghettos of Belfast and Derry. These could never have sustained such a sophisticated campaign without substantial support from elements within the Southern Irish establishment. I see Arlene is now on this case.

 

[WolfeTone]

These could never have sustained such a sophisticated campaign without substantial support from elements within the Southern Irish establishment. I see Arlene is now on this case.

Absolutely, lets see what becomes of it.

That brings me neatly onto Michael McDowell, a pillar of the Southern Irish establishment in his own right, whom I think we can all testify has never provided succour or any support for the Provo campaign.

McDowell, being a barrister, in my opinion is in the top echelons of political debating in this country. A formidable orator.
It doesn't mean he doesn't have a biased agenda, as all politicians do, propagating their own version of events to control a particular narrative rather than accept and provide space for, the many different narratives that prevail.
I don't take issue with his valid criticisms of SF, certainly the week-off work for Stanley does give the impression of planning for an orchestrated response. I dont think SF are singularly guilty in that regard, when backs are against the wall it all forms part of the cut and thrust of party political point-scoring. The "democratic centralism" and Leninism was a new one on me. A quick search of it and, in a one-party state, like Soviet Union and China you can sense the obvious concern.
But we don't live in a one party state, and what "democratic centralism" amounts to is little more than the party whip system.

With regards Stanleys tweet, true to form, it is for the narrative of all things SF/PIRA - bad, all things SF/GOIRA - good. McDowell lets slip the clear and obvious bias in his piece when he too, along with O'Malley, Browne, Collins, Ross, et al cannot bring themselves to report accurately on Stanleys tweet.

"His [Stanley] underlying views on the killing of 18 paras at Warrenpoint are exactly the same as those of the vast majority in the Provisional movement."

What about Stanleys underlying views of the killing of 17 Auxilliaries at Kilmichael that he clearly referenced in his tweet? Don't the 'Provisional movement' share the same views as Stanley in that regard also? I would think so.

So why can't these commentators bring themselves to mention this in their articles? The obvious and clear omission is beyond coincidental, it is deliberate.
Because theirs is an agenda to propagate a singular narrative that PIRA can have no commonality whatsoever with former incarnations of the GOIRA. That in their narrative, there can be no equivalence allowed to develop. To do so, risks opening the door to retrospective justification for their armed campaign. This cannot be allowed to happen as it will ultimately expose the partitionist position, and folly, of 26-county party politics in the face of Irish republican ideals set out in 1916 Proclamation.