‘Irish Republicanism – a Progressive Political Movement’ by Tárlach Russell

It is 99 years since President Wilson of the United States professed his ‘Fourteen Points’ speech to portray his vision for the future of international politics. Perhaps most notable for 21st century international accord was the idea that the nation would be the basis for statehood, and all would be viewed as equal in international affairs. In President Wilson’s own words to Congress: “That in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined”.

This has come to be known as the principle of self-determination, that the people of a country have final reign over who shall legislate and govern a nation.

It was in the same year, in 1918, that the Irish people exercised this right of self-determination at the ballot box. In the 1918 UK general election, Sinn Féin won 73 of 105 constituencies in Ireland with the promise of the creation of the Irish Republic as declared in Easter Week of 1916 and the creation of a new Irish legislature to govern the whole of Ireland, Dáil Éireann.

At the opening of the First Dáil in January 1919, the 1916 Proclamation was ratified within the Declaration of Independence. The 1916 Proclamation was issued by the leaders of the 1916 Easter Rising as a manifesto for governance in Ireland and the loyalty of all citizens of the island. The ensuing War of Independence and Anglo-Irish Treaty have seen Ireland partitioned since 1921 and the Wilsonian plea for self-determination has never been applied to this Irish Republic declared in 1916.

Today, Irish republicans look to the 1916 Proclamation as the benchmark by which Ireland should be governed because it lays out a programme whereby all the people of the island are considered equal citizens with undertones of socialism brought forward by James Connolly. Sinn Féin, as the mainstream voice of Irish republicans in Ireland today, outlined in their 2016 manifesto that “…that historic document [the 1916 Proclamation] is a clear statement of intent for an all-Ireland Republic built on the foundation of civil and religious liberty, social justice and equality for all citizens”.

Too often, the Proclamation is dismissed as a historical relic when in fact it is just over 100 years old. The US Constitution, still revised and changed, is over 200 years old. The Proclamation isn’t definitive because it is quite vague, but nonetheless it says enough that it is a useful benchmark for 21st century progressive governance.

There are some remarkable features of the 1916 Proclamation that were ahead of its time and seen Irish republicans remain progressive over the past 100 years. It was the first constitution anywhere in the world to acknowledge the female franchise. It was also Constance Markievicz who was the first female elected to the House of Commons in the UK under the banner of Irish republicanism.

This progressivism has continued in Irish republicanism to the present day, with Irish republicans a part of the civil rights demonstrations in the north in the 1960s which were oppressed by the police and army. Today, Sinn Féin push for the equality of the LGBT community in Ireland and their right to marriage equality which is still blocked in the north.

When history and Sinn Féin are considered together too many people dismiss Sinn Féin and Irish republicanism due to what is perceived as an unjust armed struggle. Even today, 19 years on from the Good Friday Agreement and over 10 years since the complete decommissioning of the Provisional IRA, Sinn Féin are portrayed in this negative light as if we are somehow a threat to national security. It is Sinn Féin who have been most enthusiastic in rolling out the provisions of the Peace Process and reaching across the political divide in order to reconcile with the past. What contemporary attitudes to Sinn Féin in some quarters suggest is either outright ignorance, or a fear from the establishment that what Sinn Féin and Irish republicanism offer is a threat to their agenda. Irish republicanism has actually been at the forefront of promoting progressive politics for quite some time, but has never got the time or recognition a true progressive political movement deserves in the media or amongst the population.

Any republican movement by its very nature and being is progressive. The very term ‘Republic’ itself is a Latin translation of ‘public affair’, in the sense that governance is a public matter and political offices aren’t inherited. It was the American and French revolutions which initially gave republicanism its embedding as a progressive political force. It was the success of these revolutions that inspired the earliest Irish republicans like Wolfe Tone to establish a Republic in Ireland, independent from the British state and monarchy. Instead of allowing the continuity of governance in the hands of an unelected and undesired aristocracy, the existence of a republic allows any citizen to aspire for public office and prevents the abuse of power via election cycles and public accountability.

It was Abraham Lincoln at his Gettysburg address who epitomised this perfectly when he professed “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. Five times in Ireland’s history in 1798, 1803, 1848, 1897 and in 1916 have the values and ethos of republican governance been fought for via revolution in Ireland.

Progressive republican movements can be undermined by social conservatism, right-wing capitalism and extremist nationalism. In Ireland, republican movements have historically been left-wing and accommodating of all social classes and religious groups in Ireland in the hope of creating united fronts. Thomas Davis, one of the Young Irelanders from the 1840s, promoted the idea that all sections of the Irish population could be Irish via a willingness to be part of the nation. Wolfe Tone was also a Protestant, as were other notable Irish republicans such as Erskine Childers and Ernest Blythe. Irish republicans today continue to emphasise this message, that people who identify as British from the north of Ireland can become a part of the Irish nation. Parity of esteem in the north exists to accommodate for people who identify as Irish or British, which means the door to the Irish nation is still open, along the lines of willingness, as opposed to blood, as expressed by Davis in the 1840s.

Irish republicanism today is also synonymous with democratic socialism in that mainstream Irish republican movements have been socialist republican movements. Today Sinn Féin align themselves at the European level with the European United Left and Nordic Green Left, alongside parties like the ruling Syriza Party in Greece. Sinn Féin has appeared at the front of anti-austerity campaigns in Ireland, north and south, against British- and European-imposed measures harmful to the people of Ireland.

Irish republicans in Sinn Féin accept that for Ireland’s self-determination to be exercised, a majority of people in the north must consent to the north becoming part of a united Ireland. The principle of consent is being abused and ignored by Brexiteers today who wish to pull the north out of the EU, despite 56% of the north voting to Remain. Sinn Féin continue to push for Special Designated Status in the EU because having an internationalist outlook and access to the world’s largest common market is in the interests of the island, because Brexit would have catastrophic consequences on cross-border trade and create further problems beyond what is already an inefficient way of running a small island with two alternative state bureaucracies, differing tax systems and public services each side of the border.

Sinn Féin and Irish republicans strive for what progressives strive for globally, which is the redistribution of wealth and true governance for the people, not governments fulfilling narrow agendas in the interests of the few. When socialism is taken alongside Irish republicanism and the extension of civil rights to all the people of Ireland to protect minorities from persecution or discrimination, what is there is a genuine 21st century progressive political movement.

Sinn Féin and Irish republicans seek to accommodate and protect British culture in the north because it cannot be expected to just disappear, protect the LGBT community, protect immigrants who we have the privilege of having because they have actively chosen Ireland to build their new lives, and show solidarity with the Palestinian, Basque and other peoples worldwide who are denied the basic dignity of statehood.

In Ireland, we must persuade northern unionists that a united Ireland is in their interests because their culture and way of life can be protected, alongside their religious freedom. What Irish republicans want is a new and agreed Ireland where beyond mere co-existence, the Irish will work with one another to make the island a welcome and free home for all who inhabit it. All we ask in return is the recognition by the free press that Irish republicanism, a true 21st century progressive political movement, is treated fairly like other mainstream political movements, and not attacked and stigmatised at every opportunity.



99 Responses to ‘Irish Republicanism – a Progressive Political Movement’ by Tárlach Russell

  1. Emmet July 29, 2017 at 1:06 pm #

    I don’t think we need to convince unionists anymore- that time has passed. The people of Derry weren’t convinced that they should remain part of the UK in 1920. Unionists are ,by nature, anti progressive and will never be convinced (even when the British economy comes crashing down). James Connolly gave up trying to fight for the unionist working class- their leaders played the religion card and it was too strong given the centuries of religious conflict fanned by Britain. Once in a United Ireland, that is when we should show the Protestant community what republicanism truly means.

    • huge Celt. July 29, 2017 at 1:21 pm #

      When did James Connolly give up fighting for the “unionist working class”?

      • Tam July 29, 2017 at 6:17 pm #


      • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 2:08 am #

        Not sure exactly but I’d guess around the time he realised the link with Britain must occur and maybe when he moved to the south. Read some of his writings were he seemed almost disillusioned- possibly after he was attacked? Will dig out some of the books, I am shocked you don’t know this as Connolly is one of your heroes. PBP probably haven’t told you because it doesn’t fit with their narrative.

        • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 2:32 pm #

          Do you mean “unionist” or the Protestant “working class”?

          Connolly never fought for Unionism, unless you mean Trade Unionism

  2. huge Celt. July 29, 2017 at 1:56 pm #

    I’m intrigued.

    Why does Tarlachs precis of Sinn Fein’s history start with 1918?
    Surely they were formed in 1905 – retrospectively named by Sir Edward Carsons cousin apparently – on a not-so-radical programme of anti-Semitism, economic centrism, national chauvinism, and in favour of not just a British Monarchy, but in favour, bizarrely, of an Irish Monarch as well.
    (Queen Michelle of Clonoe does have a ring to it though – the O’Neill’s will rise again).

    Those, in Tarlachs narrative, are just some uncomfortable truths to be skirted over.
    “Whatever you say, say nathing”.

    Furthermore, I am always both impressed and appalled simultaneously, as Shinners construct their fake history, and half-narratives to leave the impression for the unwary that they, the Shinners, had something to do with the 1916 Easter Rising.
    I never tire of explaining to open mouthed Shinners in disbelieving gormlessness, that Sinn Fein, as a party, had nothing to do with 1916.
    Despite that fact, modern day Shinners never cease to parrot this sincerely held belief that the Proclamation as theirs or something to do with them, and images of James Connolly always seem to subliminally appear in Party Political Broadcasts as Gerry Adams reaches out in vain for some historical foundations that don’t embarrass the modern day movement.
    It’s historical revisionism gone mad.
    Or more colloquially, a load of balls.

    The harsh facts remain that it was the British occupation, with their lap-dog media that ascribed it as “The Sinn Fein Rebellion”.
    Whether that was deliberate, or accidental, is open to debate, but it certainly had the net effect of steering the subsequent narrative towards a right-wing, conservative movement in revolt, rather than the “Looney Lefties” who actually drove the thing forward.

    For his part, Arthur Griffith was completely against the 1916 Rising, and later described it as “miserable”.
    Tarlach, in his narrative, appears to have missed that point.
    I wonder why.

    • Tarlach Russell July 29, 2017 at 6:01 pm #

      I don’t name Sinn Féin exclusively from 1905-1916 because in this period they weren’t a republican party. Remember that Griffith originally supported a dual monarchy along the lines of the Austro-Hungarian empire and was one of the strongest Treaty supporters. And it has to be remembered that Pearce was a Home Rule supporter until 1913, it was only after this he came into contact with Sinn Féin members who pushed him towards his romantic nationalism. And as for Griffith, I certainly wouldn’t call him a prototypical Irish republican.

      • huge Celt. July 29, 2017 at 6:38 pm #

        @ Tarlach.
        So essentially, you’re saying that Sinn Fein were nationalist/Monarchist/ Pro Cobsent from 1905-1918.

        Then they became Republican/Partitionist/ Anti Consent between 1918-1923ish.

        Then they descended into irrelevance.

        Then they popped up in the 1960s to declare themselves anti-Partitionist/Marxist/Abstentionist/Against Consent.

        Then they declared themselves Not Marxist/Abstentionist/Anti EEC/Against Consent

        Then they declared themselves Democrats/A wee bit Abstentionist/Anti EU/ Against Consent.

        Then they declared themselves Nationalist/Not at all Abstentionist/ Pro EU/ For Consent.

        At every juncture they shot the arses off each other, and declared their erstwhile colleagues as heretics.
        They demanded blind obedience in the name of dear old Ireland, as they convulsed themselves in permanent U-turns, My head is spinning.

        Yet they now ask northern Protestants to throw their lot in with a united Ireland, and to trust the Shinners to be kind, and stick to their promises.
        It’s preposterous.
        Simply preposterous.

        I wouldn’t trust the Shinners to do my lottery numbers.
        And, for the record, I don’t even do the fecking lottery.

    • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 2:13 am #

      @ KC
      Same old points- it has already been explained to you that the party evolved (as good parties do). Modern SF roots really lie in 1918.

      You seem to have inserted some lies/inaccuracies in your timeline- when were they not abstentionist?

      Have a look at your own parties contradictions (lol).

      • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 8:50 am #

        @ Paddy Daly.
        If Sinn Feins roots “really lie in 1918”, why is there a photo of the 1916 Proclamation at the head of Tarlach’s article?

        Isn’t this an example of the misappropriation / historical revisionism / horseshit that I was referring to?

        • Tarlach Russell July 30, 2017 at 9:30 am #

          The relevance of the Proclamation is that this article is about Irish republicanism, hence the title. Sinn Féin were the political mechanism after 1916 in which progressive Irish republicans have operated.

          • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 9:50 am #

            You’re putting the cart before the horse.

            At 1916, the time of the Proclamation and the Rising, Sinn Fein were reactionary, Monarchist, nationalist, reformist.
            Arthur Griffith was not a Signatory to.the Proclamation, nor would he have agreed with the vast majority of it.
            He described the Rising as “miserable”.

            Yet, by continual fraudulent association, you attempt to trap the unwary into believing that Sinn Fein had some significant role in the 1916 Rising and Proclamation.
            The truth is that they didn’t have any role.

            I dont blame you personally – you are merely regurgitating the Sinn Fein propaganda that you were spoonfed since infancy. A lie oft told, does not become a Truth.

            In all sincerity, John Terry had more right to lift the European Cup (for which he was rightly ridiculed) than Sinn Fein have to claim the legacy of the Rising and the Proclamation. At least John Terry played in some of the earlier rounds.
            Sinn Fein weren’t even in the competition in 1916.

        • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 10:39 am #

          @KC, are you that silly? There would also be a picture of Wolfe Tone and Sinn Fein weren’t around then. Misappropriation????? So which party would you say has exclusive rights to 1916? As I said before SF became the vehicle of revolution after 1916. SF are the only party that know of that has continuously commemorated the sacrifice of the men and women of 1916- many of its members have died in the same struggle. Now are you going to tell us that PBP have a greater claim on it?

          • Tam July 30, 2017 at 10:51 am #

            SF was only formed in 1970 so how could they have commemorated 1916 continuously since 1916?

          • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 11:25 am #

            @ Tam.
            You have to appreciate how this works in a Shinners head.

            “From 1905 to 1918, that was the Bad Sinn Fein – we don’t like to talk about them.

            Then in 1918 to 1923, they became Good Sinn Fein, but some of them turned into Bad Sinn Fein. Bad Sinn Fein won that feud.
            Good Sinn Fein became anonymous.
            We don’t like to talk about Bad Sinn Fein because they killed loads of the Good Sinn Fein.

            Then in the 1960s and early 1970s, Good Sinn Fein emerged again. Then some Bad people seized control of Good Fein.
            So Good people fought the Bad people and then shot them. Good Sinn Fein was restored once more.

            Then in 1986, some Bad People were in charge of Sinn Fein, but Good people fought those bad people, and shot them.

            Since 1986 Good Sinn Fein have been led by Good people. And it’s only the Bad people who don’t love Sinn Fein”.

            And if you can absorb all that, they will make you an MLA.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 11:50 am #

            Tam RE the 1970 thing.

            I will explain it in simple terms:

            Take an apple from the table and leave it on the table at breakfast. Split the apple in 2 at lunchtime. Now would you say the left side of the apple wasn’t present at breakfast time? If you would then I guess you can say SF only appeared in 1970.

            You could also just search the Wikipedia page on Sinn Fein

            KC seems to be interested in SF as well so I have pasted the key period in SFs history below (from Wikipedia)

            Contents  [hide] 
            Early years
            1917 to 1922
            Aftermath of the Easter Rising
            1918 electoral victory
            Treaty and Civil War
            1923 to 1932
            1932 to 1946

          • Tam July 30, 2017 at 11:55 am #

            If you’re relying on Wikipedia you’ve lost the argument.

            The apple analogy doesn’t work either. Political parties aren’t apples.

            The fact is the Provos walked out of SF (thereafter called ‘official’ [the clue was in the name]) and set up a new party. New headquarters, new newspaper, new leadership.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 12:03 pm #

            Sweet Jesus, I can’t make it simpler that an apple and all she can say political parties aren’t apples. Maybe I should have used an orange in the analogy. I was almost going to try and explain the analogy but I feel I am wasting my time.

            The argument isn’t really an argument- Wikipedia is the first thing that will come up in search.

          • Tam July 30, 2017 at 12:08 pm #

            You’re avoiding the facts. The Provos walked out of SF and set up a new party in 1970.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 12:14 pm #

            No the party split- fact. Just like the apple was split… both halves existed before the split. It didn’t just appear out of nowhere. Not sure what the point is anyway, even if they did just form a completely new party, they can form it on the traditional of Protestant republicans, or socialist republicans if they wish- it doesn’t change the matter of the argument.

          • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 12:30 pm #

            @ Tam.
            You’re not quite getting it, bud.

            Continuing with the fruit analogy, Sinn Fein will cherry-pick the bits of theirs and anyone’s history that they like the sound of, and then they’ll mash it all up, and make a dogs dinner of it.

            I’ll give you a quick example.
            You might have noticed that I’ve been referring to Emmett as ‘Paddy Daly” – this is largely because Emmett refers to me as “KC” for some reason – but it’s partly to highlight the schizophrenia of Sinn Feins historical narrative.
            You see, Paddy Daly, was one of Michael Collins “Squad”, sometimes known as the “Apostles”. It was The Squad that killed the 15 British spies on Bloody Sunday.
            And so the Shinners like to give three hearty cheers for The Squad.

            But, later, Paddy Daly was the O/C of the Dublin Brigade who tied 9 anti-Treatyites to landlines in Ballyseedy and blew them to smithereens.
            Sinn Fein silence.

            They can’t explain how an Irish hero in their mould, could turn on their own people with such carnal viciousness.
            Scap is another more recent example.
            Yet more Sinn Fein silence.

            So, please Tam, don’t try to rationalise the Sinn Fein narrative, you’ll drive yourself crazy.
            Just go with the beat….,

            “I’m Slim Shady,
            The Real Slim Shady,
            All those other Slim Shadys
            Are just imitating.”

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 12:39 pm #

            KC is your initials. I will PM you on face book and let you know how I know if you wish? KC would always use @ to respond to someone. He uses the same arguments and misinformation about Daly. He repeats several phrases a lot. You are using exactly the same arguments that were destroyed last time you were on here.

            You seem to be in a slightly better place this time around. But remember to occasionally ease of on the nihilism or it will have a very back impact on your life. Try building, not just destroying.

          • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 1:02 pm #

            @ Paddy.
            Feel free to correct me on anything that I’ve got wrong about Paddy Daly – I’ll be happy to retract.

            As for the rest of your post, I haven’t the faintest clue what this KC fella done on you, but you seem to have taken it awful bad.
            Have you considered counselling?

            Ps. It’s not “nihilism” to defend historical facts.
            It’s just the right thing to do.
            You should try it.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 1:21 pm #

            Kevin, please you are fooling noone. You don’t even have the intelligence to see how obvious you are. You are like a record with the needle stuck.

            Did you take my advice last time? I hope for your sake you did, because it can be a steep spiral.

            Your nihilism must be debilitating. When you are offline I hope you have another persona- for happiness sake.

            We dealt with Squad argument last time, no point going over old ground. Although his descendants might take issue with some or your narrative- but I don’t care.

            Did you read my Connolly quote from the Harp?- must be uncomfortable reading for you. I will leave you with that. I need to finish an essay and need to stop looking for distractions.

            Look forward to your piece on Building a new Ireland/Britain.

          • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 2:24 pm #

            @ Tam
            Oh look.
            Emmet has now played his “MI5.com” card – that’s the one that trumps any cogent arguments, or people, that they don’t like.

            And in a remarkable display of cognitive dissonance, if you respond by mentioning either Scap, or Dennis Donaldson, or Agent J118, they go incredibly silent.

            It remains a fact that whilst the bodies of IRA volunteers piled up on the country roads of the border, two senior Sinn Feiners were rushing to the defence of Scappaticci.
            Step forward Gerry. Take a bow.
            Step forward Marty. Take a bow.

            Sinn Fein Silence…..

  3. Brian Patterson July 29, 2017 at 5:15 pm #

    While I sympathise with much of what HG says, especially regarding the odious Arthur Griffith, the British designation of the rebels as Sinn Féiners did not arise out of a vacuum. Many of those who took part in the Rising weŕe members of Sinn Féin. While the IRB was the main driving force behind the Rising many IRB members were also members of SF. After the Rising SF became virtualky the sole political party of any standing dedicated to acheing the Republic. Sadly the Treaty saw a slim majority abandon the Republic. But in fairness, with all its faults no other party down the years fought so consistently for Irish freedom and sacrificed so much. Though in the the last campaign they sullied their cause by many acts of inhumanity.

    • huge Celt. July 29, 2017 at 6:12 pm #

      @ Brian

      I’ve already conceded that the reasons the British Occupation referred to it as the “Sinn Fein Rebellion” are open to conjecture and debate.

      But what isn’t in doubt is that whilst individual members of Sinn Fein may have been involved in 1916, they weren’t significant either quantitatively or qualitively.
      By far, the most cohesive, the most organised, and the most militant force within the Rising were Connolly’s Irish Citizen Army, the de facto paramilitary wing of the embryonic Labour Party.
      It was Connolly that drafted 2/3rds of the Proclamation.
      It was Connolly that promised and delivered the majority of his ICA, whereas the IRB promised 20,000 weapons, 5,000 men within Dublin, and 5,000 men around the country. The IRB contingent failed miserably in honouring that promise.

      Connolly was at times a bitter enemy of Sinn Feins Arthur Griffith, especially on the issue of the anti-Jewish pogrom in Limerick, so there is no excuse such as “you can’t apply todays standards to yesterdays societies” – Connolly, and the Left knew where they stood,
      And 100 years later, their legacy is deliberately, cynically, misappropriated and expunged from history.
      It’s time to take it back.

      As for the Shinners, they weren’t even at the party.
      Yet they unashamedly claim 1916 as their legacy.
      It’s undiluted horseshit.

      Whilst brave men were giving their everything for a better Ireland for all, Arthur Griffith spent the week fretting with Eoin McNeill about their future careers! – two traitors together plotting for their counter-revolution AGAINST the Socialists and the left republicans.
      And, its not beyond imaginings, that they perhaps plotted there the viciousness they would unleash on the Rebels, far outweighing the horrors that Britain ever brought.

      10% of the delegates to the 1917 Sinn Fein Ard Fheis were priests – this was the antithesis of what Connolly died for.
      It was a majority of Sinn Fein TDs that voted for Partition.
      And this is why Ireland descended into the carnival of reaction that Connolly predicted with such clarity, came to pass – the 26 Counties slid inexorably into the darkness of a theocratic cesspit where the Catholic Church dominated every aspect of society.
      And in the 6 Counties, the Unionists unleashed their own brand of mediaeval hatred on their enforced minority.

      Because of Sinn Fein men like Griffith, and O’Higgins, and Cosgrave – men that found it perfectly comfortable in Sinn Fein, the self-seekers, the opportunists, the snakes – and , yes, before you ask, the present generation of Shinners are cut from exactly the same hue as Griffith, and his motley collection of repugnant back-stabbers.
      They still feather their nests on the bones of much braver men than them.

      $inn £ein.

      • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 2:23 am #


        Same old propaganda- the citizen army were the most militant? Bullshit the IRB were the most militant and a small number were able to coerce the others including Connolly. The IRB were a small revolutionary secret grouping, they did not have 5,000 men, they were relying on the coercion of the IVF. Again your trot propaganda is full of lies.

        The members of the rising were almost all in SF by 1918 or the IRB/IRA. As pointed out on numerous occasions modern SF evolved after 1916 (because of the Brit blaming them). They became the legitimate, open, legal opposition to the British Empire at that point and that’s when republicans jumped on board.

        I’m sure if you were alive in 1916 you would have been criticizing it on the sidelines, talking about your revolution in a smoky room, talking about the ‘perfect’ revolution yet to come.

        • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 9:10 am #

          @ Paddy Daly.

          You seem to be unaware of the fact that Connolly was planning a Rising from the outset of WW1 – it was the IRB that persuaded him to delay his rising, and join with theirs for Easter 1916.
          The bait was that they would have 20,000 additional weapons by then, and as I mentioned before, 5000 men in Dublin and 5000 round the country – none of which happened.
          James Connolly, and the ICA, moat certainly didn’t need “coercing” by the IRB.

          These are historical facts, easily researched and established. I suggest you take the time to do so.

          Ps. I suppose its “trot propaganda” that James Connollys son travelled to Revolutionary Russia in 1920 whereupon Lenin declared his father as “head and shoulders above anyone in Western Europe”.
          Ohhh, them pesky Lefties get everywhere.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 10:46 am #

            Outset of WW1 ie. 1914 (I think it was more like 1915 and he was waiting for revolution and was planning to join in?). So you think those pesky IRB lied to him- no they were relying on the IVF because they didn’t have 50,000 men. Unlike PBP Connolly knew there needed to be some sort of union between republicans of various shades- something PBP will never get their head around.

            James Connolly was kidnapped by the IRB and asked to join the rising (coercion in most people’s books). Most of the IRB were socialists as well.

            Why would Connolly’s son travelling to Russia be used as trot propaganda, you have lost me on that one.

          • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 12:05 pm #

            @ Paddy Daly.
            A few points of information there to correct you on.

            1/ I never said the IRB had 50,000 men. Their promise was for 5,000 men inside Dublin, 5,000 for outside. And of course the 20,000 guns. We all know what happened to the 20,000 guns.
            The manpower still hasn’t been traced, but I wouldn’t be too surprised if Gerry Adams claims that he was there.
            And the Shinners hail their Great Leader as a time-traveller.

            2/ Anecdotally, when the outbreak of WW1 was announced, Connolly reputedly put his heads in his hands in anguish.
            It was seemingly a long, long pause.
            He lifted his head, and declared “We must have a Rising”.
            That’s an eyewitness account – there doesn’t seem to be too much coercion involved, either by the IRB or anyone else.

            3/ which other leaders of the IRB were “Socialists”?

            4//It’s a matter of (easily googled)historical record that James Connollys son travelled to Red Russia, and was hailed by Lenin himself.
            Just because it’s an uncomfortable fact that doesn’t fit into the Sinn Fein misappropriated narrative, doesn’t make it any less of a fact.

            In the meantime, you can prattle on about us “Trots” just like the most ignorant of Fine Gaelers Blueshirts, its water off a ducks arse – but there is no disputing that the 1916 Rising, AND the Revolutionary period, (including the Limerick Soviet ((yes, that’s what it was called)), and the 200 other soviets around the country that were put down by the IRA and the Catholic Church, AND the anti-Treatyites had a Red history that the green nationalists have always tried to bury.

            “The Wind That Shakes The Barley” explores that conflict between Irish Nationalists and Socialists in more detail – did you think you were just watching an ahistorical piece of fantasy?

            Dear oh dear.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 12:07 pm #

            I won’t interrupt your conversations with Paddy Daly Kevin.

          • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 12:33 pm #

            Oh, how timely!
            I’ve just explained on a different thread why I was referring to you as “Paddy Daly”.
            I trust you’ll appreciate my point when it is made clear to you.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 12:46 pm #

            I watched Wind that Shakes the Barley and the I see the provisional IRA as the socialists that were discarded by the pro-treaty side.

            “Sinn Fein, Ourselves. I wonder how long it will be until the working class realise the full significance of that principle! How long will it be until the workers realise that the socialist movement is a movement of the working class, and how long until the socialists realise that the place of every other class in the movement is and must be a subordinate one”

            (J Connolly: The Harp; April 1908)

            “The Fenians were strongly denounced by all organs of respectable opinion in Ireland and the scare stories spread by the church in particular probably gave the IRB the name of being more radical than it actually was. The historian William Lecky referred to ‘the wild socialistic follies of Fenianism’. The main forces opposed to the Fenians were the Dublin Castle administration, the Catholic and Protestant Clergy, as well as the landlords and the middle class, who all saw the Fenians as a dangerous revolutionary force.”


            You doubt the IRBs socialism? Really?? Which history books are you reading?

          • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 1:29 pm #

            @ Paddy.
            Oh dear.
            You’re tying yourself up in knots.
            The term “Sinn Fein” predated
            Griffiths lot, and even referred to some micro-groups that used it long before it was suggested to him by a cousin of Sir Edward Carson.
            But that doesn’t stop you from ripping the words from a short essay by Janes Connolly in order to, presumably, forge some connection to him, and his ideas.

            READ what he is saying -.absorb what he actually saying – get a grownup to explain it to you, if necessary. He is saying that the working-class need their own, independent political vehicle. To stand alone, Away from all the other classes if society.
            Now, when, pray tell, have you EVER heard Gerry Adams say anything remotely like that?

            At the Sinn Fein National Convention in Belfast, Adams was flirting with Fine Gael and Fianna Fail asking them to set up a pan-nationalist front, an all-class alliance, for Irish Unity.

            Isn’t that the absolute antithrsis, the polar opposite, of what Connolly was demanding?

            Think, man, think!

  4. Tam July 29, 2017 at 6:23 pm #

    I’m not sure that a terrorist movement can ever be considered ‘progressive’.

    As for the attempt to associate ‘republicans’ with the civil rights movement, yes republicans were involved, but they were the republicans who would soon be described as ‘officials’, absolutely hated and opposed by the Provisionals who now claim the mantle of republicanism.

    • huge Celt. July 29, 2017 at 7:15 pm #

      There were a lot more Socialists and Lefties behind the Civil Rights movement, than Paisley or the Provies would ever give it credit for.
      Physical force republicans were virtually irrelevant, both in deeds and words.

      Again, in their efforts to rewrite history, Gerry Adams claims to have been a founder member of NICRA – although nobody of note remembers him at the meeting;
      the paperwork showing the 13 founding signatories don’t seem to include a Mr. G. Adams;
      and nobody seems to have mentioned to him that the NI would be an abbreviation of “Northern Ireland”, a phrase that now seems to turn to vinegar in his mouth.

      As for the NICRA demand for the same rights in Belfast as in Birmingham, well, only Gerry can tell us what a “republican” would be doing demanding that.

      As for the observation that Gerry was in fact a member of a republican splitter organisation cynically trying to undermine NICRA along sectarian lines, well, that must be a nefarious plot by those securocrat fellas trying to embarrass poor Gerry….

      Always look at the bright side of Life….

  5. Emmet July 30, 2017 at 2:39 am #

    Do you know much about the founding of the NICRA?

    • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 9:13 am #

      @ Paddy Daly.
      We’ll, I know that Gerry Adams wasn’t part of it, that’s for sure.

      • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 10:50 am #

        You know nothing then. Gerry Adams doesn’t really claim he helped found NICRA- people who have done research and written books on it claim that. If you do a little digging the truth is easy to find.

        Brit State interests want to expose Adam’s role in the founding- it is good to try and muddy the water between NICRA and the IRA as events like Bloody Sunday are more justifiable to loyal unionists. On the nationalist side parties like the SDLP and PB are now trying to rubbish any link between Adams and NICRA. And you know what, I don’t think Gerry Adams cares either way.

        Whose work are you doing?

        • Tam July 30, 2017 at 11:08 am #

          Nonsense. There are no ‘Brit state interests’ in connecting NICRA to Provisional IRA. Quite the opposite.

          The interest in making such a spurious connection belongs to SF who wish to manufacture a role for themselves in the civil rights movement as part of their sanitisation and self-justification project.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 11:22 am #

            Ok then, why are they not advertising it then? I think you’ll find their was ‘Brit state interest’ in making the connection. Look at the comments coming from Whitehall and the Unionist leadership all pointing to IRA as some sort of puppet master of NICRA.

          • Tam July 30, 2017 at 11:28 am #

            Why are who not advertising what?

            I haven’t seen any such comments coming from Whitehall.

            I’ve seen plenty of SF though trying to portray themselves in the tradition of civil rights.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 11:40 am #

            ” belongs to SF who wish to manufacture a role for themselves in the civil rights movement as part of their sanitisation and self-justification project.”

            Ok so why aren’t SF advertising their ‘manufactured role’?

            Equality, Justice, Respect- yes how dare SF use these NICRA terms.

          • Tam July 30, 2017 at 11:45 am #

            You’re not making sense. You ask why SF aren’t advertising their manufactured role, and then quote them as using ‘NICRA terms’.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 11:54 am #

            You right it makes no sense at all. if SF were trying to manufacture their role they would be advertising it, but they aren’t.

        • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 12:52 pm #

          @ Paddy.
          You’re talking in circular riddles.

          Gerry Adams goes round the World spewing this notion that he was a mere civil rights activist in the 60s and 70s -.but history records that he was no such thing.
          He was unashamedly* a member of the IRA – a group dedicated to the armed overthrow of the Orange statelet.
          His group poured scorn on the limited reforms that were being demanded by NICRA, within, and that bit is very important, WITHIN the United Kingdom.

          Now, Gerry and the Boys were so irrelevant to the whole NICRA movement that they were intent on splitting the movement on sectarian lines, to reduce it to “Civil Rights for Catholics”.

          But despite the propaganda of Gerry, and Paisley, NICRA did win universal suffrage for poor people, not just Catholics.
          (I’m fed up hearing from Shinners that Catholics didn’t have the right to vote – it’s patently nonsense).
          NICRA did win equal rights for Housing and Jobs.

          And yet, Gerry and his mates still went on a killing spree.
          Its the sane old story.
          Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein have, once again, stolen the legacy of other braver men and women than them, to paint a completely false picture to the World.
          Keep those cash tills jangling.

          * the shame came later

          • Tam July 30, 2017 at 12:58 pm #

            They need to convince themselves as much as others that their campaign of murder was about ‘civil rights’, otherwise they could not sleep at night.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 1:01 pm #

            Not quite- these thing happened as a result of direct rule, brought about by loyalist actions against Catholics and IRA violence. Ironically it was the violence that won the rights in the end.

            The real shame comes from the people who did nothing to stop the injustice and now spout their twisted version of socialism. You can hate Sinn Fein all you want- but your hatred will not drag us back to the past.

            Again your ignorance shines through- look up Gerry Mandering. I wouldn’t be surprised if you said it was named after Gerry Adams because he invented it. Also look at who could vote- tenants and look at who unionist councils weren’t giving houses to – Catholics.

            You do love to twist things.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 1:06 pm #

            Tam lots can’t sleep at night.

            The IRA campaign was not about civil rights. The right to life is not a ‘civil right’ it is a human right. The right to self-determination is a national right. Civil Rights are not worth killing or dying for. No-one should risk their life for a vote or a job.

            Be under no illusion the IRA were not fighting for Civil Rights- although off course they believed they should be granted- by an Irish government.

          • Tam July 30, 2017 at 1:27 pm #

            As huge Celt has already pointed out, most of the civil rights were won for everyone before the PIRA campaign began. And this was long before direct rule. Back to the history books for you I’m afraid.

            And ironically, Catholics were over-represented in council housing. The Caledon case was, as Austin Currie (note, not a republican), the man who led the campaign, said, exceptional: ‘if we had waited a thousand years we would not have got a better example.’

          • Tam July 30, 2017 at 1:29 pm #

            I’m glad you agree that the PIRA campaign was not about civil rights. Someone tell SF.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 1:29 pm #

            Whoosh. (please read my comment again!) 2 or 3 times if possible.

          • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 1:37 pm #

            @ Paddy.
            ” it was the violence that won the rights”.

            But let’s explore that theory…..
            In my view, the 6 Counties remains an Orange statelet.
            If you don’t agree, then that’s fine, we can discuss that.

            But for now, let’s just presume you agree…in which case, why don’t the IRA just use some more violence to win us some more rights?

  6. Emmet July 30, 2017 at 3:04 am #

    Tam, I agree with you for once – terrorist movements can not be considered progressive. Terror is usually used to prevent change- terror paralysis.

    In 1972 the Brits killed the Civil Rights movement. At this point most republicans realised that peaceful protest was just putting young nationalists’ lives at risk. The terror the Brits used on that day meant that most middle class Catholics would never take part in an ‘illegal’ protest again. Terror really does stop progress.

    Unfortunately for Ireland physical force has always been necessary to win progress- the British taught us well.

    • Tam July 30, 2017 at 8:19 am #

      Republicans were using terrorism before Bloody Sunday. And the civil rights demands had largely been met before PIRA was formed.

      And in any case Bloody Sunday didn’t justify 25 years of further bombs and murders, exilings, beatings tarring and feathering, kneecapping, robberies threats, intimidation, etc.

      • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 10:55 am #

        Do you mean the Bloody Sunday of 1921 Pam? Ireland has had hundreds of Bloody Sundays carried out by the Brits. British self interest never justified the illegal partition, murder, intimidation, beatings, imprisonment, torture of Irish nationalists.

        British terrorists have been operating in Ireland for 800 years. I wouldn’t class fighting against foreign imposed terrorism as terrorism.

        • Tam July 30, 2017 at 11:10 am #

          No. 1972: the one you referred to.

          And the Provisionals weren’t fighting against foreign-imposed terrorism. Stop trying to justify terrorism.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 11:20 am #

            Whoosh, there is that sound again Tam.

            The point I am making is that millions have died in Ireland as a result of British interference/terrorism. Republicans didn’t need Bloody Sunday to show that the Brits were cruel rulers.

            I am not trying to justify terrorism, British terrorism was utterly wrong and should never have been brought to over to Ireland.

            I don’t believe the IRA were a terrorist group in the same way I don’t view Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.

          • Tam July 30, 2017 at 11:26 am #

            Even if it were ture that ‘millions have died in Ireland as a result of British interference/terrorism’, it still doesn’t justify 27 years of PIRA murders, bombs, exilings, beatings, kangaroo courts, robberies, intimidation, etc..

            And you are trying to justify terrorism. Just because you personally ‘don’t believe the IRA were a terrorist group’ doesn’t mean they weren’t. By any definition, the PIRA was a terrorist group. You’re trying to justify PIRA crimes and using your objection to the word ‘terrorism’ a smokescreen.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 11:37 am #

            It is true and I can prove it. You don’t know your Irish history do you Tam?

            By your logic you can’t justify any war.

            Are you justifying British terrorism, just because you think it is not terrorism doesn’t mean it isn’t.

            By which definition is the IRA a terrorist group?

          • Tam July 30, 2017 at 11:42 am #

            As I said, even if it were true, it wouldn’t justify PIRA.

            I haven’t articulated any logic that would justify any war.

            I don’t justify any terrorism. It doesn’t matter what the nationality of the perpetrators is. You’re the one trying to justify terrorism, not me.

            The PIRA is a terrorist group by any definition of terrorism you care to find. There are several out there.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 11:52 am #

            Tam I know of several definitions and the IRA don’t fit any of them- which definition are you using?

            To be clear- I would never try to justify terrorism.

          • Tam July 30, 2017 at 11:58 am #

            I don’t believe you on either statement.

            You’re trying to justify PIRA crimes. Whether or not you believe them to be a terrorist group is semantics.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 12:50 pm #

            Ok let’s dispense with the semantics- what definition of terrorism are you using?

          • Tam July 30, 2017 at 12:55 pm #

            ‘Let’s dispense with the semantics’. Immediately asks a semantic question.

          • Jude Collins July 30, 2017 at 5:09 pm #

            I don’t know how to break this to you, Tam, but terrorism is a methodology, not a philosophy. Ask the UDA – they’ll tell you…

          • Tam July 30, 2017 at 5:17 pm #

            That’s right, Jude. Not sure how that’s inconsistent with anything I’ve said .

    • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 10:49 am #

      @ Paddy Daly.

      You appear to be ignoring the significance of Internment, and the resulting Ballymurphy Massacre.
      And the significant upsurge of killings by armed republican groups (10 British soldiers killed before Internment, 30 killed between Internment and Bloody Sunday).
      So the violence used on Bloody Sunday didn’t fall out of a clear blue sky, as you seem to suggest.

      Armed republican groups were in defiance of the Empire in Free Derry claiming to be “defenders of the nationalist community”, their self-proclaimed raison d’etre for generations.
      Derry was their strongest base,, easily defended with their backs to the border, only two bridges to defend, and a broadly supportive population,
      And plenty of time and space to prepare.
      “This is Free Derry”, come here at your peril.

      And indeed, the Paras were coming – with all their recent history of brutal and extreme violence.
      The Unionist politicians were calling for action, and for blood.
      And, here at last, after months of watching Belfast convulse in the flames of oppression and inter-communal strife, the Derry IRAs, of both hues, got their chance to choose the ground, the timing and the occasion.
      This was their big moment to shine.
      Derry would be a breakers yard for the Paras….

      So what happened next?

      Well, nothing that any republican groups could possibly be proud of.
      As the Saville Enquiry concluded, and as Marty was at pains to highlight, the armed republican groups offered no resistance.
      Not a bullet fired.
      There wasn’t a Plan A nevermind a Plan B to defend the Cityside from the most despised and feared regiment of the British Army.

      Instead of our brave “defenders” standing in defence of the people, they hid behind them.
      They melted away.
      And they took their guns with them.
      All of the previous posing and posturing with weapons on the barricades had been self-agrandising showmanship.

      All the previous claims to be “soldiers of the Republic”was proved to be mindless chatter.

      14 civilians would die because of the Paras that day – yet as Saville confirmed, not a single Provo or Stick lost their lives – the “defenders” didnt even have the courage to join the people in resisting the onslaught by throwing stones, or whatever else came to hand.

      The Paras could have killed 1,014 that day, and the same number the next day, and continued for a week thereafter, yet our self-proclaimed “defenders” wouldn’t have responded.

      Yes, something decisive did change that day.
      A whole society wretched at the barbarity of what the Paras had done.
      International opinion was appalled.
      And the World started to really pay attention to the horrors of the Orange statelet.

      And what did our brave “defenders” do?
      They went over to Aldershot and inflicted the same carnage on some cleaning ladies.
      God Save Ireland.

  7. Emmet July 30, 2017 at 11:15 am #

    You seem to be replying to someone who is not on this thread- would you be talking to me?
    You’re right Bloody Sunday wasn’t the only event that led to increased IRA activity- read my response to Pam. But it was a bloody good argument for many moderate nationalist to fight against the Brits.

    Free Derry certainly did not stop start at the bridges and was not so easily defended as you claim- have a look on google maps. Look at were the British Military installations were and you will see they were practically surrounded on all sides.

    Also Republicans agreed to have no guns on Bloody Sunday and they honoured their word to the organisors. The British knew this also which is why I believe they went in without fear. Thank Fuck you weren’t a military commander in the IRA, if the IRA did actually shoot paras on Bloody Sunday imagine how many more innocent civilians would have been murdered. You really don’t have a military mind so I wouldn’t try to critique the tactical side of IRA operations.

    ‘took their guns with them’ you really are showing your ignorance here, everyone knows their guns where in arms dumps and a safe houses in Creggan. You believe and propagate the loyalist lies that their were guns on the march- whose work are you doing here? Are you going to tell me next that those killed had Guns? Are you believing the murdering paras over 10,000s of people on the march.

    All ASUs reported in after the massacre and they carried out attacks later that day- but the Brits were withdrawn.

    Something you also fail to see the PIRA were the people. Look at their roll of honour and you will see many volunteers who gave everything. Look at the people who died on hungerstrike. Look at the 1000s who were imprisoned. Your claim they didn’t nothing except “inflicted the same carnage on some cleaning ladies” shows the height of your ignorance.

    • Tam July 30, 2017 at 11:22 am #

      Moderate nationalists didn’t ‘fight against the Brits’. And PIRA generally didn’t either. Most of their crimes were against Irish people.

      And PIRA weren’t the people. The people rejected and opposed them. And they murdered many more people than their own members who were killed.

      • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 11:33 am #

        Yes they did! The were no longer moderate (by definition) when they took up the gun. Do you think all provos were born as violent extremists? Look at the testimony of many moderates who joined the IRA as a direct result of Bloody Sunday.

        Look at the records PAM- there were 100s of IRA attacks every week, most did not lead to deaths. Are you classifying the UDR/RUC/UVF as Irish people, because if you aren’t your argument looks silly. Official British sources said they were a professional, well equipped, highly motivated and effective fighting force.

        PIRA were the people. The people supported them and they could not have operated without that support (read some of Frank Kitson’s work if you don’t believe me). Not everyone could join the IRA and most people didn’t want to join because it meant death or imprisonment. You had to be prepared to sacrifice your life on the day you joined up. It would not have been an attractive proposal.

        • Tam July 30, 2017 at 11:38 am #

          Then what you mean is that a small number of moderate nationalists ceased to be moderate. Most continued to be moderate, however, and remained so until the PIRA had given up.

          I never said every PIRA attack led to deaths.

          Yes of course UDR/RUC/UVF were Irish people.

          PIRA weren’t the people. The people rejected and opposed them consistently and continually.

          Stop trying to justify the horrendouse crimes of PIRA.

          • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 11:41 am #

            Are you justifying British crimes?

        • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 2:48 pm #

          @ Emmet.

          If “the people” supported PIRA, why did Sinn Fein only have 10% of the vote when they gave up “armed struggle”? – let’s leave aside the enormous voter fraud that they were committing, and accept every single vote as not only an endorsement of not only Sinn Fein, but the Provos – surely, it still means that 90% of people didn’t support either Sinn Fein, or the Provos?

          The only conclusion that can be drawn is that “The People” never supported either Sinn Fein or the Provos.
          You’re only deluding yourself.

          • Tam July 30, 2017 at 2:53 pm #

            And of course the 10% was only ‘achieved’ in NI, yet PIRA claimed to represent all the Irish people. Their support in ROI was even more miserly.

          • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 4:23 pm #

            @ Tam.
            Good point, well made..

    • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 2:07 pm #

      @ Paddy.
      You’ve got carried away with yourself there, haven’t you!
      Were the Hunger-strikers at Bloody Sunday, I hadn’t heard.
      You’re starting to fight the windmills in your own mind.

      Take a deep breath.

      And stop punching those windmills, you’ll hurt yourself.

      Right, back to what I said, as opposed to what you would like me to have said..

      I said thst Free Derry was the best ground that the IRAs could have chosen to defend. It has high vantage points, both natural and man-made.
      It had a fairly porous border to get both men and gear into – remember, an occupying army needs to be everywhere at once, whereas a guerilla force relies on it’s mobility.

      As mentioned, it was clear that the Paras were coming for trouble that day.
      They had flexed their muscles in Ballymurphy, and the Shankill, and now they were coming up that road to clear up Free Derry.
      A showdown was almost inevitable.

      What was Plan A to resist a Para incursion into Free Derry?
      Emmm, there wasn’t one.

      What was Plan B if the Paras charged into the Bogside?
      Emmm, there wasn’t one.

      What was the plan if the British Army decided to reoccupy the Bogside again, like in Operation Motorman?
      Nope. There was no plan for that either.

      How can you possibly call yourselves an “Army”?
      I’ve no idea.
      But don’t I look sexy brandishing this gun.
      Take my photo please.

      You’ll go a long way, Mr. McGuinness.

      Ps. And please don’t lecture me about defending bridges. The ICA showed how a small group of highly committed volunteers could defend a bridge 100 years ago against vastly superior numbers of British soldiers.

      Whether it was strategy, or the calibre of volunteers, but something was definitely lacking when compared to the PIRA and OIRA omni-shambles of 1972.

      • Emmet July 31, 2017 at 8:57 am #

        @ Walter
        Again, I don’t think you know your Geography of the city- the Brits had all the high vantage points. Rose Mount, Bishop Street, Piggery Ridge. Again your military knowledge is lacking. Remote areas were much easier to defend because the British could afford to pump resources in as they did in the cities.

        If you are talking about Free-derry you are even more wrong, most of it was in low ground and overlooked by the walls.

        Paras coming for trouble, so? I have already said the IRA came to an agreement to withdraw weapons for the march. That was the plan.

        Yeah, take my photo in this balaclava.

        “Ps. And please don’t lecture me about defending bridges. The ICA showed how a small group of highly committed volunteers could defend a bridge 100 years ago against vastly superior numbers of British soldiers.” Oh dear, the ICA were fighting as a unit in the IRA- many went on to fight in the Anglo-Irish war. PS. Dublin was nowhere near militarised as Derry in 1972, again your ignorance shines though. Did you plan the rising?

        You call yourself a revolutionary but have no stomach for revolution. Keep talking and your revolution will happen if you wish hard enough- just make sure you don’t criticise everyone talking part because they start it on the wrong date or don’t get approval from the chairman.

        • huge Celt. July 31, 2017 at 10:46 am #

          @ Paddy.
          So what sort of “Army”, or “defenders of the people”, agrees to unilaterally withdraw it’s weapons, as the biggest thugs since the Black and Tans are marching up the road to.exact bloody revenge?
          The Paras were bringing their weapons, and Ballymurphy and Shankill had already proven they were itching to use them.

          So yes, it was agreed there would be no weapons on the march. That’s a no-brainer.

          But what was the IRAs fall-back position, if the Paras chose to storm into the Bogside?

          And what was the plan if the Paras started killing people – let’s remember that they had killed unarmed civilians, including women, children and a priest, just a few months prior – it was clear that these boys weren’t messing about.
          What precisely was the IRAs plans to defend both the people, and the area of Free Derry should the Paras decide to unleash their rage?
          You tell me…..

          • huge Celt. July 31, 2017 at 11:10 am #

            Ps. McGuinness certainly wasn’t wearing any balaclava when he was interviewed by the BBC and introduced as an “IRA Commander”.

            Not bad for a butchers delivery boy.

  8. Tam July 30, 2017 at 11:43 am #

    Unlike you, I’m not trying to justify any crimes. I’m against crime.

    • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 11:57 am #

      So then if the Police and Army are killing my family and it isn’t a crime. But if I attend a march for equal rights and it was a crime.

      I can justify that crime all right.

      • huge Celt. July 30, 2017 at 2:10 pm #

        The Bloody Sunday march was against Internment, not for Equal Rights.

        Stop trying to apply the 21st century mantra to 20th Century history.

  9. Tam July 30, 2017 at 12:02 pm #

    Why do you think the police and army killing your family isn’t a crime, or that attending a march for equal rights is a crime?

  10. Emmet July 30, 2017 at 12:05 pm #

    Attending the Bloody Sunday March was a crime- the march was proscribed.

    The police and army have killed many with impunity- I would say many of their actions have been criminal- unfortunately this was not the view of the British.

  11. Tam July 30, 2017 at 12:13 pm #

    You didn’t specify attending a banned march.

    Obviously many actions by the police and Army have been criminal.

    None of this changes the fact that you’re trying to justify PIRA murders and other crimes.

  12. Emmet July 30, 2017 at 12:19 pm #

    I would never specify a march for equal rights was illegal- that is something the British would do. I have attended several ‘illegal’ protests in my time and would justify every single one of those little criminal acts.
    None of this changes your justification of British terrorism in Ireland. The other day you were justifying burning things as something that was cultural.

    I don’t feel the need to have to justify IRA murder or law breaking.

    • Tam July 30, 2017 at 12:22 pm #

      I don’t know what you mean by ‘specify’, but marches that are banned are by definition illegal, regardless of the purpose of the march.

      I haven’t justified terrorism by anyone, British or otherwise, in Ireland or anywhere else. Stop lying.

      And if you don’t feel the need to have to justify IRA murder or law breaking, why are you doing it?

    • Tam July 30, 2017 at 1:04 pm #

      So when you refer to my ‘justification of British terrorism in Ireland’, all you really mean is a statement I made to say that bonfires were a part of loyalist culture?

      As for where you have justified IRA murder or law breaking, perhaps I have misread your contributions and you have been condemning PIRA rather than defending them? Please do clarify and I will apologise if appropriate.

      • Emmet July 30, 2017 at 1:11 pm #

        No. British terrorism is different from bonfires. ‘all’- glad you are trying to diminish this type of terrorism- seems to me like you are justifying terrorism- so you inccorrectly said I was lying.

        Ans now for your lies:

        I have asked you for evidence- please provide some. Can you find any to back up your claim?

        • Tam July 30, 2017 at 1:32 pm #

          You were lying. You referred to ‘my’ ‘justification of British terrorism in Ireland’.

          I’ve already said I will apologise if you clarify that you are condemning PIRA crimes rather than defending them. I note you haven’t done so.

          • Emmet July 31, 2017 at 8:36 am #

            I have already said I can easily justify crime- eg. attending a march calling for equal rights.

          • Tam July 31, 2017 at 10:49 am #

            I note that you’re deliberately avoiding condemning PIRA murders and other violent crime.

  13. Emmet July 30, 2017 at 12:26 pm #

    I know Loyalist bonfires can cause terror to Catholics living nearby. You have try to justify these bonfires as cultural therefore yes you have tried to justify terrorism. My definition of terror is trying to cause terror.

    Where have I justified IRA murder or law breaking- please paste an example so I can see what you mean..

    • huge Celt. July 31, 2017 at 11:02 am #

      Bonfires are “terrorism”.???
      I think you’re over-reaching yourself there, lad.

      If you dont know what the word means – and lets be honest, it’s a word that is meaningless.- then don’t use it.

  14. Brian Patterson July 30, 2017 at 3:28 pm #

    This is a pointless exercise in na-na-na-nah arguments, devoid of mutual respect and a failure to recognise any minute merit in any part og your opponent’s porition. Sad. Would it be stereotypically racist to say that it is typically Irish?

    • Emmet July 31, 2017 at 8:42 am #

      I would say it is a racist.

      I am just reflecting Kevin Connolly’s and Tam’s trolling. They have refused to answer basic questions on their stances or offer evidence of their claims. I will never have respect for someone who can’t put forward their views but aggressively attacks the views of others.

      It is impossible to found common ground with an extreme nihilist. I did find a point I could agree with Tam on but she decided to go off on a tangent when I brought it up.

      I will continue with this approach as it will take up their time and let others get on with progressive discussion. I am thick skinned and know how to use their tactics against them.

      • huge Celt. July 31, 2017 at 10:23 am #

        @ Emmett
        Well done you.
        You’re the original chess-playing pigeon.