Irish governments turn to answer claims of collusion

[lawnseed]

How long after the events of 1916 did Ireland decide to hold dear the memory of our GPO heroes and why can we not use the same time frame, CD?

It's a myth that Irish Public Opinion was against the Rising from the start and that the subsequent treatment of the ringleaders coupled with British brutality led to a ground swell of support. Public sympathy for the goals of the 'rebels' was always there.
The same time frame can't be used because it's a different time.

its on public record that the rebels of 1916 were mocked and spat on by the good people of Dublin as there were lead to their execution..
so what changed? and when

[CD]

Regardless of the argument, SF have committed political suicide with Adams statement and then compounded it with the performance on Vincent Brown last night.

People suddenly find out Adams was an IRA supporter now just? 

Hypocritical or not the vast majority of people in the south have no interest in violence be it war or terrorism.

Yes they do. If they stand to benefit from it, that is. Come on to this thread on Easter Sunday 2016 when the thousands and thousands will be parading through Dublin and try telling me then that the good-two-shoes people of the 26 counties don't condone violence.

People, me for one, who had been warming a little to SF, in the belief that they had left the past behind have been shocked back into the cold reality of what SF really are.
Its a real pity, I thought they might develop into a credible alternative over time, but no votes from me Mr Adams.

So what exactly did Gerry say yesterday that upset you? That the RUC officers were too relaxed about their own safety? Wasn't he then only repeating what was stated in the report? Was you problem that he said the report was contradictory? Well it did say there was collusion but that there was no evidence found of collusion. Wasn't Gerry just calling a spade a spade? Or calling a contradiction a contradiction?

For someone who's freedom was won at gunpoint, but who is so appalled by violence, maybe you could tell us what your opinion was on the Gardaí openly co-operating with the RUC?

Michael Collins, the wind that shakes the barley every film depicting Irish life around the time 1916 has Irish volunteers shooting Brits ffs even far and away a film with tom cruise and Nicole kidman has a Irishman taking aim at a Brit, all are depicted as heroes i,ve yet to see a show where the old IRA man was the baddie the Irish government annually line up were mick Collins was shot he was a leader of the IRA and yet  for some reason blowing the brains out of a British soldier in 1900 is different than doing it in 1989. records show that turn of the century 'volunteers' shot their land owning proddy neighbours- fellow Irishmen in every sense of the word for their land. now we have the direct descendants in government in the south- actual blood relations of these same old IRA men feigning disgust at the same thing happing in south Armagh.. a warzone! a warzone recognised by the Brits and the yanks and anyone who cares to look at the history of the place.

I want to know what the difference is? why is OLD IRA = GOOD AND MODERN IRA=BAD

Time

So is it that time can make something (say a bullet in the head for instance) which was say morally wrong and unjustifiable, actually become moral and justifiable? Or is it just that time makes it easier to justify to ones self the holding of grossly hypocritical views?

History doesn't justify or profess to be a moral compass. People do that. I never said it was right. It isn't so long ago since The British Empire was taught in schools as something to be proud off. Now it's a taboo. Lance Armstrong won BBC oversea sports personality of the year ten years ago. I used to like Bono.

All I'm saying is, History, and what we believe to be historical facts, are constantly being challenged and reappraised in the light of new evidence, changing social norms and of course, by the media.

(Now I remember why I don't contribute to the political discussions on here!)

[CD]

How long after the events of 1916 did Ireland decide to hold dear the memory of our GPO heroes and why can we not use the same time frame, CD?

It's a myth that Irish Public Opinion was against the Rising from the start and that the subsequent treatment of the ringleaders coupled with British brutality led to a ground swell of support. Public sympathy for the goals of the 'rebels' was always there.
The same time frame can't be used because it's a different time.

its on public record that the rebels of 1916 were mocked and spat on by the good people of Dublin as there were lead to their execution..
so what changed? and when

All the people of Dublin? Or Some? There is an Ireland beyond the pale you know!

[deiseach]

its on public record that the rebels of 1916 were mocked and spat on by the good people of Dublin as there were lead to their execution..
so what changed? and when

All the people of Dublin? Or Some? There is an Ireland beyond the pale you know!

Precisely. The 'public record' to which lawnseed refers is the Irish Independent of William Martin Murphy. The rebels were attacked all right - by a rent-a-mob consisting of the families of Castle Catholics. Joe Lee actually took the time and effort - imagine that! - to check the reaction of the populace in the uncensored provincial newspapers and found them to be very sympathetic to the rebel cause, and all before the executions.

[Jeepers Creepers]

What was said in the dail yesterday in reaction to the 'probable' collusion by repesentative (s) of the state,

http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2013-12-04a.206

[deiseach]

What was said in the dail yesterday in reaction to the 'probable' collusion by repesentative (s) of the state,

http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2013-12-04a.206

Speaking of rent-a-mobs...

[sheamy]

Anyway, to answer the proposition posed by the title of thread, YES, the Irish government should have to answer claims of collusion with the RUC.

[lawnseed]

its on public record that the rebels of 1916 were mocked and spat on by the good people of Dublin as there were lead to their execution..
so what changed? and when

All the people of Dublin? Or Some? There is an Ireland beyond the pale you know!

Precisely. The 'public record' to which lawnseed refers is the Irish Independent of William Martin Murphy. The rebels were attacked all right - by a rent-a-mob consisting of the families of Castle Catholics. Joe Lee actually took the time and effort - imagine that! - to check the reaction of the populace in the uncensored provincial newspapers and found them to be very sympathetic to the rebel cause, and all before the executions.

'the rebel cause' emmm? forgive me but could you define the rebel cause..?

[Nally Stand]

It's a myth that Irish Public Opinion was against the Rising from the start and that the subsequent treatment of the ringleaders coupled with British brutality led to a ground swell of support. Public sympathy for the goals of the 'rebels' was always there.

Collins an co were described at the time of the rising as being "a minority, within a minority within a minority". Connolly's Irish Citizen Army was tiny. His political party, The Irish Socialist Republican Party, was described in a newspaper of the time as having "more syllables than members" and he himself was a failed election candidate.

[deiseach]

Precisely. The 'public record' to which lawnseed refers is the Irish Independent of William Martin Murphy. The rebels were attacked all right - by a rent-a-mob consisting of the families of Castle Catholics. Joe Lee actually took the time and effort - imagine that! - to check the reaction of the populace in the uncensored provincial newspapers and found them to be very sympathetic to the rebel cause, and all before the executions.

'the rebel cause' emmm? forgive me but could you define the rebel cause..?

Based on omission, I take it that you accept that support for the rebels was not a function of some after-the-fact conversion by the people of Ireland, a conversion that is bound to happen with respect to Provos in some twisted theory of Calvinist predestination. There was no such Pauline moment for the people of Ireland with respect to the Easter Rising and it would be nice if you factored that into your world view. But I imagine it's more likely you'll simply regurgitate it the next time the topic comes up.

Now, getting back to your question, the 'rebel cause' was for an independent Irish republic, something that hasn't been properly fulfilled and therefore the modern IRA are the legitimate descendants of the rebels and you can't approve of the Rising and not approve of the Provos. My response to the question you no doubt have prepared in response is that the rebels of 1916 would quickly be able to claim the support of the Irish people. This is in sharp contrast to the Provos, who throughout the Troubles couldn't even claim majority support among Nationalists in the North, let alone Nationalists throughout the island. Of course they had 'support' and I think they could claim a degree of soft support throughout the Nationalist population. But if you are going to say that 'support' of any description is enough to justify taking up arms in the cause of Irish freedom, no matter how small that support might be, then you must view Martin McGuinness as having committed an act of unspeakable treachery when he denounced the killers of Ronan Kerr as 'enemies of peace'. The so-called dissident Republicans are the true heirs of the rebel cause of 1916, right? No accommodation with British imperialism, right?

[Nally Stand]

My response to the question you no doubt have prepared in response is that the rebels of 1916 would quickly be able to claim the support of the Irish people.

So the rising was legitimate because of the potential for a retrospective mandate for it?

[lawnseed]

Precisely. The 'public record' to which lawnseed refers is the Irish Independent of William Martin Murphy. The rebels were attacked all right - by a rent-a-mob consisting of the families of Castle Catholics. Joe Lee actually took the time and effort - imagine that! - to check the reaction of the populace in the uncensored provincial newspapers and found them to be very sympathetic to the rebel cause, and all before the executions.

'the rebel cause' emmm? forgive me but could you define the rebel cause..?

Based on omission, I take it that you accept that support for the rebels was not a function of some after-the-fact conversion by the people of Ireland, a conversion that is bound to happen with respect to Provos in some twisted theory of Calvinist predestination. There was no such Pauline moment for the people of Ireland with respect to the Easter Rising and it would be nice if you factored that into your world view. But I imagine it's more likely you'll simply regurgitate it the next time the topic comes up.

Now, getting back to your question, the 'rebel cause' was for an independent Irish republic, something that hasn't been properly fulfilled and therefore the modern IRA are the legitimate descendants of the rebels and you can't approve of the Rising and not approve of the Provos. My response to the question you no doubt have prepared in response is that the rebels of 1916 would quickly be able to claim the support of the Irish people. This is in sharp contrast to the Provos, who throughout the Troubles couldn't even claim majority support among Nationalists in the North, let alone Nationalists throughout the island. Of course they had 'support' and I think they could claim a degree of soft support throughout the Nationalist population. But if you are going to say that 'support' of any description is enough to justify taking up arms in the cause of Irish freedom, no matter how small that support might be, then you must view Martin McGuinness as having committed an act of unspeakable treachery when he denounced the killers of Ronan Kerr as 'enemies of peace'. The so-called dissident Republicans are the true heirs of the rebel cause of 1916, right? No accommodation with British imperialism, right?

or I could point to the gfa and the political accommodation put in place by reps of all the parties including the two governments and say republicans should support that and theres is no reason to kill psni officers in light of that agreement. right?

[CD]

It's a myth that Irish Public Opinion was against the Rising from the start and that the subsequent treatment of the ringleaders coupled with British brutality led to a ground swell of support. Public sympathy for the goals of the 'rebels' was always there.

Collins an co were described at the time of the rising as being "a minority, within a minority within a minority". Connolly's Irish Citizen Army was tiny. His political party, The Irish Socialist Republican Party, was described in a newspaper of the time as having "more syllables than members" and he himself was a failed election candidate.

"a minority, within a minority within a minority" Who said this? The IRA's (IRB's) first and best PR man himself - Michael Collins
There was little support for Connolly's socialism in Ireland at this time - remember he was a socialist first - not a republican and his rhetoric made this clear.

There's a distinct difference between actively supporting and sympathy for the goals of the rebels in 1916. There was public sympathy and aspirations for nationhood - this is well documented - the rising and aftermath helped to provide a catalyst and a focus that turned sympathy into support.

[lawnseed]

My response to the question you no doubt have prepared in response is that the rebels of 1916 would quickly be able to claim the support of the Irish people.

So the rising was legitimate because of the potential for a retrospective mandate for it?

yeap! lets all just 'want' a free Ireland but then when the shooting starts get disgusted and then support it if theres a chance the brits are too busy fighting the germanst too take notice. also worth mentioning that Britain was giving norn iron away for support in the war.. Ireland/dev refused and Irishmen died in british uniforms anyway

[deiseach]

or I could point to the gfa and the political accommodation put in place by reps of all the parties including the two governments and say republicans should support that and theres is no reason to kill psni officers in light of that agreement. right?

The GFA is no different to the Anglo-Irish Treaty. It is not supported by all parties. Why should the dissidents accept it? Why should all Republicans not support their continuing struggle? Bear in mind you are not defending the GFA from attacks by me. It's the dissidents who would brand everyone in SF as traitors for supporting it.