On the twenty-eighth day of November....

[Hardy]

So how many people does it take to give authority to an armed campaign? (I'll leave organised crime in the guise of patriotism out of it for now). Can I decide in the morning that I'm the anointed successor to the generations who opposed oppression, announce myself as "working for the establishment of the Irish republic" (a la the Continuity IRA or the Omagh bombers, as somebody brought up) and claim the moral right to target representatives of the people or their "collaborators" in either state (or statelet) for execution as I see fit? What makes the provos right and the Real IRA wrong? If you suggest it's the outcome of the GFA referendum, then I refer you to the numerous elections, north and south, during the troubles that utterly rejected SF.

What would be the position of those who propose the legitimacy of the provo campaign on the basis of some undefined moral authority, if I decided that Martin McGuinness had betrayed the cause and murdered him in pursuit of my task of "working for the establishment of the Irish republic". How could they condemn me? How can his position as Deputy First Minister in a British administration be seen as furthering the establishment of the Irish republic? Surely I would have as much moral authority in such an action as the provos had for theirs, by the logic of those who seem to be suggesting that no authority, other than the conviction that you're right, is required for waging war?

[scalder]

Yes I'm saying that the actual figures point to the conclusion that people in 1922 voted for coalition and not for the treaty, Collins pulled the rug on this coalition and then claimed he had a mandate for the treaty and for war – it could be argued that he pulled off a Coup, as his actions were in contravention of the will of the 2nd Dáil, which he ignored and set up the "3rd Dáil."
Funny thing though, regarding the north we know that neither Collins or the anti treaty side accepted that the war was over in that part of Ireland and Collins continued to arm and work with the northern army (mostly anti treaty!).

Hardy you ask an interesting question and its something I've wrestled with, for example does one generation, i.e. this generation have the right to, borrowing a phrase from Parnell, to "set the boundary to the march of a nation" – can we accept the border and say now it's legitimate when generations have strived for Irish independence. Then again we can't remain trapped by the past either.

Interesting point regarding the French resistance, if Nazi occupation had not ended in 1945 the when would their resistance have ceased to be legitimate, 10 years, 100 years?

[Evil Genius]

Hardy you ask an interesting question and its something I've wrestled with, for example does one generation, i.e. this generation have the right to, borrowing a phrase from Parnell, to "set the boundary to the march of a nation" – can we accept the border and say now it's legitimate when generations have strived for Irish independence. Then again we can't remain trapped by the past either.

The very crux of this (and just about every other Irish) issue! And I personally have come firmly to believe that Ireland's Curse is not the English/Catholicism/poverty/famine etc, rather, it is our own inability, even unwillingness, to put our History in its rightful place, whilst we deal with the Present.

Of course it is nice if our forefathers did great things and we should be proud of that, but can we really claim "credit" for that, or be bound by them? Do the "great deeds" of ancestors long dead give someone the right to dictate to the people around him? And if so, if it should turn out that our ancestors were rogues, does that mean we should be ashamed, and apologise on their behalf? And who decides whether these people really were heroes or rogues, terrorists or freedom fighters?

Which is why all the never-ending debate - in this case, about the "legitimacy" or otherwise of the 2nd or 3rd Dail etc - is so much bollox. Nor is it mere academic bollox, to be debated in dusty Professor's Rooms in ancient Universities etc. Rather, it is much more dangerous than that that, since it allows anyone involved to claim a spurious legitmacy - in this case, all of the "pre-Ceasefire" IRA, the "cessation" IRA, the "Real" IRA and the "Continuity" IRA etc - to justify their actions, when it should be patently obvious that if one group is "right", then the other(s) must be "wrong".  

Quite simply, those Irish people who point to Historic Ireland to "justify" their actions, whether it be 1690 or 1916, are the real reason why so much of Modern Ireland is so fucked up. In the end, the land belongs to the people who llive on it and its destiny should be decided by those self-same people, between themselves. And to do so, we must all take responsibility for our own actions when they go wrong, as well as expecting recognition for when they turn out right.

Meanwhile, our History shold be assigned to its rightful place - our history books, libraries and museums, to be consulted for its own sake, or as a guide to our present, but never as a ball and chain to constrict our future.

Here endeth the Lesson for Today...

[Main Street]

So how many people does it take to give authority to an armed campaign? (I'll leave organised crime in the guise of patriotism out of it for now). Can I decide in the morning that I'm the anointed successor to the generations who opposed oppression, announce myself as "working for the establishment of the Irish republic" (a la the Continuity IRA or the Omagh bombers, as somebody brought up) and claim the moral right to target representatives of the people or their "collaborators" in either state (or statelet) for execution as I see fit? What makes the provos right and the Real IRA wrong? If you suggest it's the outcome of the GFA referendum, then I refer you to the numerous elections, north and south, during the troubles that utterly rejected SF.

What would be the position of those who propose the legitimacy of the provo campaign on the basis of some undefined moral authority, if I decided that Martin McGuinness had betrayed the cause and murdered him in pursuit of my task of "working for the establishment of the Irish republic". How could they condemn me? How can his position as Deputy First Minister in a British administration be seen as furthering the establishment of the Irish republic? Surely I would have as much moral authority in such an action as the provos had for theirs, by the logic of those who seem to be suggesting that no authority, other than the conviction that you're right, is required for waging war?

Hardy I don´t know who you are asking these questions from. You are really into right and wrong issues.
I´d suggest you do some research into history.
In 1972 the IRA demands at talks between them and the Labour Gov to end armed conflict
were
a bullish British declaration of withdrawl
British Army back to bases
Political prisoners released

1n the GFA agreement after some 25 years later of armed conflict
2 of those conditions have been met and and a satisfactory framework to replace the British withdrawl demand.

Anybody can claim a self rightuos moral authority of a sell out to pure republican ideals and  find that a justification for violent actions. They will not succeed because they do have not the discipline, a modicum of popular support nor have the basic conditions that create that popular support - military occupation and repression.

[Hardy]

I was simply asking a general question, of nobody in particular. What authority is required to justify waging war? I posed a set of simplistic hypothetical questions by way of illustration of the conundrum. Scalder posed some interesting questions to ponder in return.

I can't see how your post addresses the question(s) I posed at all. Here's a more direct question - under what authority were the IRA acting from the start of the troubles to 1998?

You are really into right and wrong issues.

I have no idea what to make of that. I thought a concern with right vs. wrong that was one of the distinguishing features of the human race.

(Good post, Evil Genius).

[MW]

Erm...can someone explain to me how we've suddenly jumped to the Orange Order?

MW with your Q, it looks like the thread has moved to asking any old dumb question.

I didn't realise the point I was making was all that subtle, but evidently it was too subtle for your understanding.

I'll try to break it down for you.

This thread headed in the direction of Donagh (and others) asking how a Blueshirt could commemorate and (retrospecrively) support the actions of the IRA during the Anglo-Irish War given that they opposed the actions of the Provisional IRA during the Troubles. Donagh talked of a line of continuity and of attacks of a similar nature being carried out in both periods.

My point being, surely those who make this argument leave themselves open to the question of why they oppose the same actions now that they might have seen as legitimate ten, fifteen or twenty years ago.

You must be  joking trying to explain your question, it´s as an obvious a hob nail boot. 

Yes, I thought my question was pretty obvious, you however didn't seem to get the point of it.

[Main Street]

I can't see how your post addresses the question(s) I posed at all. Here's a more direct question - under what authority were the IRA acting from the start of the troubles to 1998?

I replied that you should do some research
The IRA's justification for war has been well documented. For example check out Tim Pat Coogan's dissertation on the Green Book
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/docs/coogan/coogan93.htm
Unless of course you are fishing for personal opinions?

I have no idea what to make of that. I thought a concern with right vs. wrong that was one of the distinguishing features of the human race.

Maybe as you see it.
Morality issues of right v wrong was my stock answer in English class in first year secondary school.
Beware of people who think they are right with God on their side

[Hardy]

The IRA's justification for war has been well documented. For example check out Tim Pat Coogan's dissertation on the Green Book
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/docs/coogan/coogan93.htm
Unless of course you are fishing for personal opinions?

Fishing? I'm discussing, questioning. Forgive the hackneyed phrase, but isn't this a discussion forum? Of course I'm asking for personal opinions. I hardly expected to find holy writ on this site.

I have no idea what to make of that. I thought a concern with right vs. wrong that was one of the distinguishing features of the human race.

Maybe as you see it.
Morality issues of right v wrong was my stock answer in English class in first year secondary school.

I don't know what that means, so I can't respond.

Beware of people who think they are right with God on their side

Well, I agree with the second part of that sentence. As for the first part, don't we all think we're right or do you think you're wrong?

[MW]

The IRA had claimed a moral right to fight against both occupation and oppression. Afair a mandate from the majority was never a claim nor a requirement. Has it ever been a requirement in our history? I don´t think so.

This "occupation" of which you speak - do you mean the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom?

Those who led the Provo mass murder campaign and are now in positions of political responsibility have accepted and recognised :

1 - "the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland"
2 - "while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people"
3 - "the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British" (i.e. the majority of people in Northern Ireland are British)
4 - that the following should be included in a Northern Ireland Act, passed by the UK Parliament: "It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1"
5 - that the following should be included in the Irish republic's constitution: "a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island"
6 - that there would be a Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, and that "The Westminster Parliament['s]...power to make legislation for Northern Ireland would remain unaffected"
7 - "the reduction of the numbers and role of the Armed Forces deployed in Northern Ireland to levels compatible with a normal peaceful society"


Occupation?

The Provos claimed the right to perpetrate violence and mass murder until there was a united Ireland, until the Union was ended and there were no more Northern Ireland institutions, and no "British presence". Indeed they actually claimed they were the sole legitimate government of the island of Ireland.

Even in the era of the peace process they claimed a prerequisite for an agreement was the end of the 'unionist veto' - i.e. the principle of consent by the people of Northern Ireland.

[his holiness nb]

The very crux of this (and just about every other Irish) issue! And I personally have come firmly to believe that Ireland's Curse is not the English/Catholicism/poverty/famine etc, rather, it is our own inability, even unwillingness, to put our History in its rightful place, whilst we deal with the Present.

EG, not having a go here, but given that you are a Northern Unionist, and given the current status of Northern Ireland, the above is not a bit surprising.
Its one "sides" standard viewpoint on the situation.

Its obvious too that Nationalists would disagree with this viewpoint.

[Evil Genius]

The very crux of this (and just about every other Irish) issue! And I personally have come firmly to believe that Ireland's Curse is not the English/Catholicism/poverty/famine etc, rather, it is our own inability, even unwillingness, to put our History in its rightful place, whilst we deal with the Present.

EG, not having a go here, but given that you are a Northern Unionist, and given the current status of Northern Ireland, the above is not a bit surprising.
Its one "sides" standard viewpoint on the situation.

Its obvious too that Nationalists would disagree with this viewpoint.

For someone who is "not having a go", why do you make me feel as if I'm being "got at"? 

When I ascribed our recent/present problems in Ireland to "our own inability, even unwillingness, to put our History in its rightful place" I made no distinction between those Irish people who are Unionist or those who are Nationalist. (I had hoped including "1690" alongside "1916" was a clue).

My contention was that entirely irrespective of our History, with all its conflicting interpretations, "In the end, the land belongs to the people who llive on it and its destiny should be decided by those self-same people, between themselves. And to do so, all must take responsibility for their own actions when they go wrong, as well as expecting recognition for when they turn out right"

Do you disagree with that? If so, I'd be interested to hear why. In particular, I'd like to know why an Irish Nationalist would take greater exception than someone of a different political affinity (or none).

[Billys Boots]

I don't disagree with the sentiment that we should deal with the here, now and future.  But it is easier for those to whom history has been kind/favourable/favoured to do so - that's what I take holiness's statement to mean. 

[Main Street]

The IRA had claimed a moral right to fight against both occupation and oppression. Afair a mandate from the majority was never a claim nor a requirement. Has it ever been a requirement in our history? I don´t think so.

This "occupation" of which you speak - do you mean the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom?

In this context the occupation is referring to the British Army occupation.
As in earlier mentioned French Resistance justification  against occupied forces.

[Evil Genius]

I don't disagree with the sentiment that we should deal with the here, now and future.  But it is easier for those to whom history has been kind/favourable/favoured to do so - that's what I take holiness's statement to mean. 

If that is Holiness'es explanation, then he is (you are?) entirely missing my point.

Are Gerry Adams and John Hume entitled to extract some sort of extra allowances when dealing with their Unionist counterparts at Stormont, on the basis that those counterparts had ancestors who displaced their (Adams and Hume) own ancestors from their land four hundred years ago? Hardly, because if that is the conclusion to be drawn, then people with good Gaelic surnames like (Ken) McGuinness must just as easily be entitled to extra consideration from the descendants of people with solid Planter names like, ahem, Hume and Adams...

If I have to sit down and negotiate with you the political settlement which should prevail on this island, I will make absolutely no apology whatever for any advantage which you deem some of my long-dead ancestors to have had, nor can I expect some sort of leniency for any grievance on their part which I might consider they suffered at the hands of your ancestors.

Moreover, if I feel you (not your ancestor) have done or said something wrong, I will ask you to account for it - just as you surely must demand of me, should you consider I have said or done the same.

Ultimately, everyone can point to some grievance in their past and no-one can gainsay them, since these events occurred beyond anyones living memory. Therefore, to engage in some sort of "Historic Mopery Bingo" as a basis for determining how we should try to get along in the here and now is absolutely f**king bonkers - as my Great-Great-Great-Great-Great Grandfather always used to say...

[his holiness nb]

For someone who is "not having a go", why do you make me feel as if I'm being "got at"? 

Sorry EG, no idea what you are on about here.

When I ascribed our recent/present problems in Ireland to "our own inability, even unwillingness, to put our History in its rightful place" I made no distinction between those Irish people who are Unionist or those who are Nationalist. (I had hoped including "1690" alongside "1916" was a clue).

I know that EG, but by forgetting the past and dealing with the present as it is now, who does the current situation suit best, nationalists or unionists?
I'll give you a clue, NI is currently part of the "Union".
So my point that your thoughts on how things should be dealt with co-incides with the general unionist idea stands.

My contention was that entirely irrespective of our History, with all its conflicting interpretations, "In the end, the land belongs to the people who llive on it and its destiny should be decided by those self-same people, between themselves. And to do so, all must take responsibility for their own actions when they go wrong, as well as expecting recognition for when they turn out right"
Do you disagree with that? If so, I'd be interested to hear why. In particular, I'd like to know why an Irish Nationalist would take greater exception than someone of a different political affinity (or none).

I dont disagree with that at all. And am very curious as to how you got the inclination I did from my last post   But some would argue that the land does not belong to the people who live on it at all, but instead belongs to Britain. A seperate land to many on this land of Ireland.

As you know EG, its not as black and white as you might like to think, otherwise things would have been sorted out a long long time ago.