No mandate required from anyone read IRA army orders bud,army council is elected via executive ,chief of staff elected who generally appoints his an adjustment General , etc etc, IRA army council rules etc, SF are subservient to the army,which have autonomy to do what they do choose ,very rarely is an order turned,in layman’s terms SF have no direct influence ,do what they’re told and are useful for damage limitation etc
Only a stickie could write such revisionist drivel.
No population ever “desires” war, indeed even those participating in wars don’t desire war, except for perhaps a few psychopaths. The only relevant question is whether war is morally justified or not, in 1916, 1919, 1969 it was, in 2019 it isn’t.
After the famine (the effective genocide and forced exile of millions of Irish), removing the British cunts from Ireland by any means necessary was justified. 1916 kick started that effort and was absolutely justified, there would be no war of Independence if 1916 hadn’t happened, indeed the entire campaign was planned in British prisons. If the British had accepted the democratic will of the Irish people in 1918, there would have been no further bloodshed.
If the British hadn’t allowed a sectarian and effectively apartheid state in NI, and say responded to the Civil Rights movement as the US government did, there would have been no subsequent blood shed and no “troubles”. The brutal response of the security forces in NI and the British army taking sides when they arrived was what led to the IRA campaign. The IRA campaign however lost it’s moral mandate when victory was not secured quickly as in 1919-1921, the long war was always unwinnable. Sinn Fein should have made the transition to political struggle and abandoned the armed struggle in 1975 when it was obvious the war was unwinnable.
There is no moral justification for violent Republican action today, in particular as the path to a United Ireland is becoming quite obvious.
I’d agree with most of your post Labane,but each generation has been told the same ie " no moral justification etc"dare say back to 98 ,armed struggle doesent need a political mandate ( comes later in every republic) going to get a lot worse .Drip feed attacks / long war tactics etc, Irish/ UK/ unionists need to open up meaningful talks ASAP or another omagh/ patsy Gillespie/bloody Friday/ La Mon is around the corner,real Ra/ new Ra whoever have plenty of young men/ women to use,prisons are full of republicans who have families etc and so this shite will continue until talks start
To be fair, it is not drivel. While I do not agree with the perspective, in part or in whole, I would not engage with it were it merely at that level.
Back later.
2 Likes
There was a path to a united, independent Ireland in the 1910s, and certainly in 1918, which was essentially the same as it is today.
That is, by peaceful, democratic means and/or a mass campaign of civil disobedience. We can’t say exactly how history would have worked out had that path been taken, but in my view the very high likelihood is that an independent Irish state, partitioned or otherwise, would have happened sooner or later, probably by 1939 and at latest by 1949.
The 1916 Rising was “unwinnable” by conventional means. What changed matters was the brutal reaction by the British, which the protagonists effectively desired.
In the 1950s and 1960s Border campaign, there was never a prospect of victory. In 1969, there was never a prospect of victory by violence.
The 1919-1921 campaign did not achieve its aim, it ended up splitting the island.
The moral justification for violence today is the exact same one as in all the other instances.
That moral justification is that British rule is colonial, imperial rule and should be fought by all means necessary.
It’s up to the individual to decide whether that is sufficient justification for violence, but the moral justification remains the same as in all the other cases.
2 Likes
If Carles Puigdemont, Jordi Puyol and other assorted Catalan politicians and members of society marched into the Barcelona Generalitat and occupied it, and Spanish forces launched an armed assault on it which resulted in the death of the people inside, or captured them and later executed the leaders, how would that change public opinion in Catalonia?
Would it be morally justified?
Because the aim would be the exact same as that of the 1916 leaders - that being, to throw off the yoke of what they see as imperial rule.
Do we see the war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s as morally justified, resulting as it did in six new independent states?
1 Like
How in the name of Jaysis could British rule be called colonial and imperial when all they own is a rock in the Mediterranean and a few sheep in the south Atlantic? NI is still part of the UK because of the democratic will of it’s inhabitants, who choose in 1918 and in every subsequent election to remain part of the UK.
After the famine the removal of the British from as much of Ireland as possible wasn’t just moral it was imperative. 1916 was morally justified in that context as was 1919-1921.
There was a possibility of victory in 1969 for a few years, if the IRA had based their campaign solely on the UK mainland. As I said in another post, if you go to war, go to war to win.
I’m not sure what gave you that idea.
I haven’t even said whether I believed the 1916 Rising, the murders at Soloheadbeg, the Border campaign, the Provisional campaign or any dissident campaigns were justified, morally or otherwise, or not.
But it’s good to know that you deal exclusively in straw men, just so I now what I’m dealing with.
Let me get this right…
You’re saying that British rule in the 1910s was colonial and imperial, yet British rule over the six northeastern counties now and since 1922 isn’t?
That’s utterly bizarre and makes no sense at all.
Sidney and all here have their own ideas of freedom and how to/and not achieve it so I’ll agree to disagree with you both ( Labane agus tu fein)you both speak some sense but I differ a bit on yere ideas as I’m sure you both do with mine.p.s. jaw jaw not war war that’s what I hope for in the future.
Once you use the word “murders”…
1 Like
That, at least, is conjecture. It may just have provoked even worse atrocities. Ireland, North and south, once divided, with a loyalist majority in the North, was, I would say, never a problem that could be solved without a lot of violence in Ireland itself. As Syd says, justification is always a personal bias. I’d also agree that lasting peace will be best achieved gently, through a border poll, and some very tactful diplomacy on the part of Dublin thereafter, and even then, it will not be easy, and not without further violence I suspect.
Nonetheless, the people of Northern Ireland have demonstrated a capacity for forgiveness that goes beyond anything we in the Republic could stomach. In that lies the greatest hope.
What happened at Soloheadbeg was murder. There is no way around that fact.
The 1916 Rising involved murder, both by the rebel forces and by the British. There is no way around that fact.
The Troubles involved murder on all sides. There is no way around that fact.
Dissident actions involve murder. There is no way around that fact.
You can argue whether the War of Independence was morally justified or not, but only somebody who is trying to sugar coat the horrors of war and murder for jingoistic, ultra-nationalist purposes could deny that what happened at Soloheadbeg was murder.
Correct, you nailed it, for once.
For the simple reason that Britain was a colonial and imperial power in 1916 - 1921, but is no longer such. The sole reason that NI is part of the UK is because the majority (so far) desire that. Primarily as economically it made sense to, something that may no longer be the case.
Thanks for making my point. Your viewpoint is simplistic and you moralise, insult and accuse when presented with any nuance and complexity.
That’s utter bullshit.
Britian’s standing as a colonial power in the world has no bearing on whether their rule in Ireland is or was imperial or not.
In 1916, there was no political or democratic mandate whatsoever for a fully independent Irish state.
I just presented simple facts to you, I didn’t insult or accuse you of anything - in fact that’s exactly what you’ve done against me since you entered the thread, as has been the case, predictably, with @anon7035031.
On what basis is it murder? Are you going to invoke the Geneva Conventions like Tim? The conventions the British signed and didn’t play a blind bit of notice to, in Ireland and elsewhere. Killing in a just war is not murder.
You have to start with the moral question, is war justified or not. If a war is justified then any killing involved cannot be called murder. Removal of the British from as much of Ireland as possible after the famine by any means necessary was absolutely morally justified.
Apologies if I’ve insulted you.
Here’s a simple basic exercise for you:
Define what happened here.
Define when it started.
Define who started it.
(If you can arrive at 3 coherent definitions please share)
If you manage to shrug off the comfort blanket of absolutist position, then see if you can decide what degree of blame can be apportioned to the top 5 protagonists- whoever you decide they ate.
Then have a think about social issues, employment, democratic practice, sectarianism and education.
I’ve left out a lot, but it’ll get you started.
2 Likes