Some people on here make me want to vomit out of my eyes.

Red Hand

csk wrote:

*sigh* I knew some one would bite and prove my point.

Jeremiah 16:1, Please read what I wrote. Please read what I wrote carefully. Here it is reprinted for your convienence.



Do you see the difference between the country described as the Republic of Ireland winning its Independence in 1922 and the country described as the Republic of Ireland becoming a republic in 1922 ?

Sorry that's a silly question of course you don't.:rolleyes:

No where in the above did I say Ireland became a republic in 1922 merely that the state known as the Republic of Ireland won it's Independence in 1922.

Of course, me knowing something about this subject called history would tell you that the country known as the Republic of Ireland formally became a republic in 1949 not 1922.;)

Sorry, my mistake.

You are saying that Ireland was known to some as a Republic from 1916 onwards, won it's independence to be still known to some as a Republic in 1922 and formally became a Republic in 1949?

Thanks for providing the bait from which I mistakenly took a "bite".

nesf

dSTAR wrote:

Yaaaawn this line of questioning is getting a little bit old.

nesf I will make an allowance for you because you got here late but if you cannot keep up with the thread or cannot understand analogies there is not much more I can say to you.

Again, what's your point? Your posts have been straying closer and closer to the "I'm not racist but.." style of posting that you see in immigration threads in that you seem to be quite happy to disagree with this viewpoint or that viewpoint but equally you are being evasive and only providing nebulous points of reference to your own position on this like "actively promoting our Celtic heritage" and such.

Dempsey

dlofnep wrote:

Theres a collection of people on here. They have no principals and only live for today. Anything that has happened in the past, stays in the past - despite of the outcome. What I'm referring to is the North.

I'll spare you the for Y amount of years X happened to us, but at one point there were thousands of young and old ready to give up everything they had to rid the ruthless imperialism of Britain from their country.

Nowadays, it's a bunch of yabs who couldn't care less about anyone or anything but themselves. They turn a blind eye at our friends up North who are and have been constantly oppressed by bigot politicians like Ian Paisley who is known for his criticisms of catholics and biased police forces up North.

These are the same people who sing, march and keep our history and culture vibrant through their unmatched passion for their country. The long for a day for Unity in what should never have been divided in the first place. They are second class citizens and have been for a long time in their own native land. And what do we do about it? Some of us actively do our part on elections or through marches, or through debate. The others? Too busy, Eastenders in on the box - No time for those what-ya-macall-its up North.

This is a just cause, our history, doing something right and yet many pass up the chance to help out for their own selfish reasons. They would rather see our culture and history fade away. Our very own language to be scratched off.. and for what? Because a stand needs to be made for simple changes to happen in order for us to revive?

Face the facts. Our country was ripped in half right in front of our eyes, our very own countryment and women brutalised, murdered, raped, mistreated, had their rights and voting ability removed for time. We were colonised by a brutal and vicious sect who are known the world over for mistreatment of the native people. it is our downright duty to maintain our history. We are Irish, not British. I think it's time some of us acted like it.

For those who shed a tear everytime they read our history and feel like they can not do enough, I salute you. For the others, other than tax - you've nothing to offer this country.

Well said

Diogenes

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Sorry, my mistake.

You are saying that Ireland was known to some as a Republic from 1916 onwards, won it's independence to be still known to some as a Republic in 1922 and formally became a Republic in 1949?

Thanks for providing the bait from which I mistakenly took a "bite".

Head in hands speaking quietly.

In 1922, the country know as the Irish Free State was formed. It was called this, and not the republic of Ireland. It could not be a republic because it formaly recognised the British Monarch as it's head of state. It remained the Irish Free State until a new constitution was drawn up, and the Republic of Ireland Act was enacted. The new state was unambiguously described as a republic. This occured on the 1st of April 1949.

Thus explaining why we have so making fecking jokes elected as politicans.

Kinetic^

Snorefest 2007!!!! :rolleyes:

AnonoBoy

humanji wrote:

My cats breath smells like cat food.

Touche.

brianthebard

dlofnep wrote:

This is a just cause, our history, doing something right and yet many pass up the chance to help out for their own selfish reasons. They would rather see our culture and history fade away. Our very own language to be scratched off.. and for what? Because a stand needs to be made for simple changes to happen in order for us to revive?

I just HAD to go back and reply to this-such drivel. Our culture and history are in safe hands, far away from you. There's a trad festival in Temple bar this month ffs! Do you think that the north is holding the last bastions of Irishness or something? The only one's who care about being Irish, cause they can't be in the Republic? grow up. I'm Irish, I'm happy to be so. I'm just not a frigging nationalist.

For those who shed a tear everytime they read our history and feel like they can not do enough, I salute you. For the others, other than tax - you've nothing to offer this country.

See, I study history. I love history. I'm doing two modules on Modern Ireland this semester actually. And I love my countries history. But I don't shed a tear. I learn. I comprehend what happened, but more importantly why. I learn all this without having to feel hatred for another country. And more importantly, I don't mind if people chose to "forget" their countries history-so long as they don't butcher it the way you do.

Sleepy

biko wrote:

It's funny how when you (I) talk about this in a pub most people start giving out about SFIRAterroristbastards etc. Then when you tell then why the modern IRA was "formed" in '69 and what they were up against and get down to a good discussion people go "aye, it's a mess for sure. Anyway, will you get this round"?

I'm guessing you're being told to get the round in cos you're boring the bejaysus out of them with rhetoric tbh :P

If you look back in the thread, I pointed out in one of my first posts that I can identify with original defenderist origins of the provos. If I'd been in their position, I probably would have taken up arms to defend myself and my family as well. That does not, however, mean I believe that Northern Ireland should unite with the Republic because twentysomething percent of their people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_Ireland_Poll.png) want that. Nor does it mean that I think the Republic is under any duty to accept a unity which any first year economics student could tell you would severely damage, if not cripple, our economy even if 100% of the Northern population wanted to accede to the Republic.

None of this however, has anything to do with dlofnep's original post where he outline his scorn for other people's right to hold opinions when they don't agree with his own (however logical or sensible they are - see his response to poor diogenes who's trying to talk him through simple logic in a manner reminiscent of a school teacher about to burst into tears through the sheer frustration of dealing with the foundation level maths class.

Hell, we hit Godwin's law on this thread 4/5 pages ago and people are just practicing their political soapboxing by trying to dodge around any straight forward question levelled at them instead of answering them or engaging someone on the issues at hand.

Close the thread mods. This is absolute tripe at this stage.

Steyr

Kenny 5 wrote:

Snorefest 2007!!!! :rolleyes:

Well said, i have relations up in NI and quite frankly thats as far as my Interest goes with NI.

brianthebard

Sleepy wrote:

Hell, we hit Godwin's law on this thread 4/5 pages ago and people are just practicing their political soapboxing by trying to dodge around any straight forward question levelled at them instead of answering them or engaging someone on the issues at hand.

Someone called someone a nazi?? NO WHEY!!

Diogenes

brianthebard wrote:

I just HAD to go back and reply to this-such drivel. Our culture and history are in safe hands, far away from you. There's a trad festival in Temple bar this month ffs! Do you think that the north is holding the last bastions of Irishness or something? The only one's who care about being Irish, cause they can't be in the Republic? grow up. I'm Irish, I'm happy to be so. I'm just not a frigging nationalist.

I agree we're meandering close to that US disturbed level of nationalism. I'm sorry just because some communties in NI paint their curbs in the tricolour, doesnt make them keepers of Irish culture.

See, I study history. I love history. I'm doing two modules on Modern Ireland this semester actually. And I love my countries history. But I don't shed a tear. I learn. I comprehend what happened, but more importantly why. I learn all this without having to feel hatred for another country. And more importantly, I don't mind if people chose to "forget" their countries history-so long as they don't butcher it the way you do.

Or butcher people in the name of said history. I agree.

Sarky

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Oh, I'm still waiting to get revenge on the Vikings by the way.

Those hairy bastards. How DARE they bring advanced shipbuilding techniques to the rest of Europe! Still, they DID repeatedly bitchslap the French...

MooseJam

Sleepy wrote:

Nor does it mean that I think the Republic is under any duty to accept a unity which any first year economics student could tell you would severely damage, if not cripple, our economy even if 100% of the Northern population wanted to accede to the Republic.

That old chestnut, the six counties are doing quite well you know, if 100% wanted to accede to the republic our economy wouldn't be crippled in any way

InFront

MooseJam wrote:

That old chestnut, the six counties are doing quite well you know, if 100% wanted to accede to the republic our economy wouldn't be crippled in any way

No it is not. 30% corporation tax, only one PLC in the entire province (UTV) and an artificially high public sector. Gordon Brown has already said that the six billion subvention it's getting from London is going to have to come down. Don't you think the economy is in pretty bad shape? I would have thought it was widely acknowledged.

MooseJam

InFront wrote:

No it is not. 30% corporation tax, only one PLC in the entire province (UTV) and an artificially high public sector. Gordon Brown has already said that the six billion subvention it's getting from London is going to have to come down. Don't you think the economy is in pretty bad shape? I would have thought it was widely acknowledged.

well after unification 30% corporation tax would be 12.5 or whatever it is here so thats hardly an issue, and if they have an artificially high public sector we can flog everything off. They have a reasonable gdp and unemployment is fairly low. It wouldn't be crippling, might have to put taxes up by one or two cent for a couple of years but that would be it.

Diogenes

MooseJam wrote:

well after unification 30% corporation tax would be 12.5 or whatever it is here so thats hardly an issue, and if they have an artificially high public sector we can flog everything off. They have a reasonable gdp and unemployment is fairly low. It wouldn't be crippling, might have to put taxes up by one or two cent for a couple of years but that would be it.

The UK sink 6 billion quid, nearly 10 billion euro, a year just to sustain NI. Thats not just a security budget. they have serious unemployment and a terrible gdp. Absorbing NI would be as crippling financially to us as it was for west germany 15 years ago, and they are still recovering, and its not like some parts of east germany would engage in firebomb retalation.

Terry

Saruman wrote:

Thanks Brian
I wonder can peoples perception of history be influenced by their History teacher?
I was taught the facts and it was left up to me to read into it what i may. Most of those facts are long forgotten of course For instance before we got to the British rule part of our history, i saw nothing in our history that led me to believe there was a nation of any kind before the British came.

If a history teacher had a slight nationalist streak then the students might pick up on it.
Maybe John O'B's teacher was like that. Im just curious as to how someone gets these ideas.
Im a pretty logical person. After reading history books in school etc i formed the opinion i tried to get across (probably not very well ). Obviosly somehow John formed a very different opinion so im wondering was that his own doing or did someone help him reach his opinion?

John O'B is that short for O'Brian.... making you a descendant of Brian Boru himself?
Thats funny.. im married to an O' Brian.

Anyway... while some English mistreated the Irish, not all did. Many settled here and started families. Those families are still here. Possibly John your own family. I believe the saying goes that they became more Irish than the Irish themselves.

Oh and the English i do not believe had a choice! They pretty much had to invade us. Had they not then someone else would have and that would have been dangerous for them. There was a Power struggle all over Europe for those 800 years. Chances are, the french would have invaded us and i have heard that they were even more ruthless than the English!
Sure our food might be a little better had it been them but still. Our attention would be against the French invaders and we probably would have welcomed help from the English.
Who knows what could have happened. We know what did happen and it was a long time ago. I just do not see what the point is in holding on to it.

My 5th/6th class teacher was a complete and utter nationalist. He actually had most of us hating the brits. He really demonised them.
Until a few years ago I was still following his teachings. Then I grew up.
In regards to other invaders, I think the Spanish were more of a threat than the French. They made numerous attempts to invade britain by using Ireland as a launch point. They just kept getting screwed by the weather.

In all fairness dlofnep, all of what you're saying (in my books) is insignificant to me. 1 in 3 ppl die of cancer, thats roughly 2 billion ppl alive on planet earth at the moment, why dont you rally for a cancer support group fundraiser or something.. instead of being concerned about a few thousand or whatever irish ppl killed by "DE BRITISHH". Cancer has already and will continue to kill more Irish people than "DE BRITISHH" ever will. so why dont you go marching against things that cause cancer, dangerous food additives, genetically modified agents, mobile phone masts, CFC products that burn the ozone layer and expose us more to THE SUN, etc. You could actually (maybe only very slightly, but significantly all the same) work to saving present/future Irish peoples lives this way. The british are no threat to us at the moment or visible future.

or is it just easier for u to sit behind your computer all day ranting about something "DE BRITISHH" did a few hundred years ago?

The british were responsible for the death of 1 million Irish people between 1840 and 1850.
Enter the 'well that was in the past' crowd.
It still happened. Our ancestors were subjected to immense cruelty and that should never be forgotten. However, dwelling on it and holing the current british administration and people is fairly pointless. They didn't actually have anything to do with what happened back then. Still shouldn't be forgotten though.

Kenny5 wrote:

Snorefest 2007!!!! :rolleyes:

Don't post in this thread again unless you have something useful to say.
If it bores you, then don't read it.

penfold, plenty of people do care about this country. There are quite a lot of people who use this forum and are self loathing Irish. You will meet them everywhere you go. Just get over it. Not everyone is going to agree with your opinion. If they did, then life would be a lot less interesting.

As for the united Ireland, we did have 5 provinces. Perhaps over time we would have had a single country, perhaps not.
At the end of the day, (as someone pointed out earlier) we don't have time machines and cannot go back and change what happened.
I actually believe we turned out to be a much better race of people because of the hardships endured by our ancestors. Had we not been invaded by the brits, we will never know how this country would have evolved. We could all spend the rest of our lives speculating on what would have happened, but I think we would be better off making ourselves better people and leaving the past where it is, but still holding a place in our hearts for our ancestors without holding a grudge against the brits.

Regarding the cultural differences, I had an English lodger once. He told me that when he went back to London for a holiday, he said hello to a few random people on the street and the looked at him as if he had two heads. He then realised that this was a unique Irish trait. He also wondered why Irish people congregated in the kitchen as opposed to the living room.
Those are just two of many Irish traits that seperate us from our neighbours.

St Bill

OP, we are all different and have different points of view. Just because I and/or others may not share your passion for our past, it doesn't mean we are wrong or hung-up on the wrong things. I mean, you might be making someone else vomit out of their eyes because you don't share their passion for anti-smoking campaigns, or Eastenders

dlofnep wrote:

Apart from voting? I take an active interest in my country, it's history and it's culture and share those views where needed. Isn't ranting is what forums are for? Besides polling about what your favourite colour is of course.

I take an active interest in my surroundings, and the people I see every day. My neighbours, friends, work colleagues, etc. Of course I am selfish in that I don't take a huge interest in the North at this time, but I have never been directly affected by anything that happened in the North so I can't possibly understand what they have been through, and therefore I can't speak for them.
I also have never been directly affected by the British (eg they didn't force ME to speak English, my parents taught me to speak English). I learnt about Irish history in national and secondary school. Very one-sided teaching as the Brits were always the baddies, and also we learnt nothing of their history

MooseJam

Diogenes wrote:

The UK sink 6 billion quid, nearly 10 billion euro, a year just to sustain NI. Thats not just a security budget. they have serious unemployment and a terrible gdp. Absorbing NI would be as crippling financially to us as it was for west germany 15 years ago, and they are still recovering, and its not like some parts of east germany would engage in firebomb retalation.

there isn't serious unemployment it's about 5%, their gdp is ok, it's better than walses !. as for the 6 billion well we would just have to see what was necessary and what wasn't, most of it I'm sure isn't. The north is in a lot better state than east germany, thats a bad comparison

InFront

Originally posted by MooseJam
there isn't serious unemployment it's about 5%, their gdp is ok, it's better than walses !. as for the 6 billion well we would just have to see what was necessary and what wasn't, most of it I'm sure isn't. The north is in a lot better state than east germany, thats a bad comparison

The problem with the NI economy is that on the face of it, it looks OK. But what you see if you try to examine it is serious structural weaknesses, there is a desperately bad entrepreneurial culture, it is a completely public sector charade.
A united economy would leave them vulnerable to tightening of public expenditure which would inevitably come from a no-nonsense Dublin government.

Imagine the PDs having a say in NI!!:eek:

Kinetic^

julep wrote:

Don't post in this thread again unless you have something useful to say.
If it bores you, then don't read it.

Snore!!! :rolleyes:

Rb

dlofnep wrote:

<snip>

Its in the past.

Couldn't personally give two f*cks about the North. Cut it off and float it out to sea for all I care.

csk

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Sorry, my mistake.

You are saying that Ireland was known to some as a Republic from 1916 onwards, won it's independence to be still known to some as a Republic in 1922 and formally became a Republic in 1949?

Thanks for providing the bait from which I mistakenly took a "bite".

*Bangs Head off Wall repeatedly*

Nope thats not what I said at all.

Macker

About time this thread went to the thunderdome

DeVore

csk

Diogenes wrote:

Okay Csk please explain what you meant by this

I think this says that you think violence was necessary to achieve independence. Now you can try and wriggle out of this, but to me, and to I suspect the majority of people reading that sentence, is that you felt violence was necessary. It's all there in black and blue.

Well since I was the one who wrote it I would think I am the one most in position to know what I meant ! I don't think violence was neccessary only that it happened. Now if I was to read into your own position I would guess you are one of those people who like to use alternative and fictitious courses of history to justify your own worldview. Am I correct ?

Really please give examples from modern 21st century history. Don't mention the act of union because thats several centuries ago.

Okay first I don’t know what you mean by not mentioning the Act of Union, it only happened two hundred years ago and is in fact still in effect. Secondly I presume you mean 20th century history (21st Century is a Freudian-esque slip surely?) and you mean after what year exactly ? You haven’t specified which exact Home Rule Bill I am to go on but any way I’ll take the original 1912 one.

So after the war and 1916 Rising instead of the subsequent victory of Sinn Fein and the setting up of Dáil Éireann we accepted Home Rule. Due to the peaceful outcome of negotiations between Unionists and Nationalists partition was in place along the lines of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act. The Volunteers allowed to stay as a sort of paramilitary Old Boys club in gratitude for their services in WWI are quickly infiltrated by the newly regrouped IRB. Men such as Michael Collins Thomas Ashe Cathal Brugha still want a republic as was proclaimed in 1916. They decide on a new strategy to use the elections for the Home Rule parliament to gain an electoral mandate for a Republic. They set up the Republican Party to combat the newly formed Irish National Party that John Redmond heads as prime minister.

The first elections are hotly contested but the INP beats out opposition on the euphoria of having gained the parlainment however things quickly go sour. The vicious pograms in the north by unionists and the poor economic state of Ireland in the 1920’s means confidence in the Governement wanes. The Republican Party with Eamonn De Valera as leader denounces the British Government and Unionist Government for not protecting Nationalists and wins huge plaudits among the general public.

Michael Collins now second in command of the IRB and influential member of the Republican Party is outraged by the pograms and secretly sets about setting up an army to protect the nationalists in the north. Frank Aiken becomes the first chief of staff of the Nationalist Volunteer Defense Organisation. The Irish Volunteers are also whipped up into a frenzy by the IRB infiltrators. Their motto becomes “our comrades did not die for this” and are increasingly more militant. However they are kept out of any involvement protecting the Nationalists in the north.

The British Government’s response to the NVDO defending Nationalist areas is to send in the army. A short lived battle ensues and the remnants of the NDVO is chased into southern Ireland were they are rounded up and jailed. The republican party uses this to show how we are not safe in the current climate, that as long as the British Army are here and we cannot protect our own people we are not free. The Republican Party is now more resolved than ever to achieve a 32 county Republic as the only way to protect the Irish people. This gets huge backing from the people.

The British Government s alarmed by these developments but John Dillon convinces them he has everything in hand. Meanwhile in the run up to the third elction after fifteen years of the same government, the Republican Party uses the poor economic state and the memory of the pograms and British Army’s response to say they will bring in peacefully a republic.
They win a landslide victory and despite concerns of the British and Unionist Government enter government. All attempts to move Irelands constitutional status towards a republic are defeated by the British and the more militant members of De Valera’s cabinet become frustrated and impatient. IRB begin to prepare for war.

“Gallant Allies in Europe” are sought and found in Nazi Germany. A shipment of Arms is landed successfully. The Volunteers under the command of Thomas Ashe are now fully Armed De Valera reproclaims the Republic of 1916 in the parliament and immediately moves to nominate himself President. The British Government finally realise their problem and move to subvert what they call an illegal assembly. War becomes a reality, Collins having learned the lessons of 1916 makes sure the fight is on Irish terms, flying columns are set up and guerrilla warfare becomes the order of the day. The war of the Republic drags on for a number of years without any movement. Events in Europe begin to overtake the war in Ireland and the British Government wary of Having to fight on two fronts move to end the war quickly. A huge offensive begins that destroys the army of the Irish Republic. The underground Government is caught near Aughrim and two members Collins and Brugha die in a shootout. De Valera is jailed and the Irish parliament shut down.

With one eye on the Nazi threat the British Government forces through legislation that sees Ireland once more forced into a direct Union with Britain. Winston Churchill is one of the more vociferous suppoters of this legislation because of the threat an independent Ireland poses to Britain’s securtity. By the time 1949 comes around Ireland is fully embedded in the Union again and it’s people tired of war both the war of the Republic and WWII and are resigned to their fate as Nation subjugated to the British Government.

Now that is a narrative based on an alternate course of history where I took certain historical precedents and made the rest of the stuff up. I will not attept to defend this in any way, it is purely counter factual bullsh!t. You will no doubt scoff at the gaping holes and the leaps of fate I took, however before you do I would ask you to put down exactly how Ireland would have achieved a full republic without using violence from start to finish in a similar marrative, referring to events and people that would have taken part and we will see if it is possible to do so without gaping holes and leaps of fate.

Did you strain anything when you were coming up with that torturous piece of double think?

See there's two theoritical arguments.

1. We could have achieved independence via Home Rule, and later a republic.

2. And this is what your argument implies, we would never have achieved independence without violence.

Both are theoritical positions. To claim one of these is "counter factual bull****, when they both are theoritical arguments, is utter bullsh*t.

The fact remains, I cannot know for sure Ireland would not have become a republic through peaceful means anymore than you cannot not know for sure Ireland would never have achieved independence without violence.

You see here is our problem. I never claimed my position runs contrary to the facts like you do. I merely acknowledge it happpened. On the other hand I believe you want to be able to use counter factual evidence to say we should not have used violence to gain independence. I don't agree with this.

The fact remains I do not have to know for sure that Ireland would never have achieved independence without violence because the bottom line is we did. If my argument implies we needed violence then it is because the facts imply such.

As I said my problem “is not with arguing potential "what ifs" but when those "what ifs" are presented as fact, that they would have undoubtedly happened. My problem is that some people like to present these "theoretical arguments" as surrogate narratives for the actual Historical narrative.”

One is not more factual than the other.

No they are not. But my position is not making a value judgement. I don’t wish to change the past to suit my own worldview like you seemingly.

Yes the fact is we did use violence and eventually ended up with a republic but by the same measure you cannot invent a term "counter factual bullsh*t" to dismiss discussion on whether violence was the only path to our independence.

I didn’t invent the term merely added the word bullsh!t. Why? Because some people tend to get upset when I tell them their use of fictional history to justify their worldview is wrong so I like to rub it in a bit. You Diogenes seem to have a very similar position to the Provisional IRA who also seeks to use fictional history to justify their worldview.

Buh? Which is why it's perfectly valid to watch how the British peacefully let go it's empire, over the course of the 21st century, and to speculate, based on that, Ireland could have achieved Independence peacefully.

Yes speculation is fine. It’s when said speculation is used to usurp the actual Historical narrative that I have a problem. But what events do you think may have influenced the British to give up their Empire peacefully?

So thats utterly incorrect of you.

Eh, no its not. The only difference is that you added the actual date and ignore the impact Unionist opposition had. The Buckingham Conference held specifically to try and reconcile the two sides ended in deadlock by the time this happened as you say WWI had overtaken events in Ireland and Home Rule was shelved. But ask yourself this, what difference would Home Rule made to Britain’s war effort ? All things being equal none, in fact it would have enhanced the war effort. However because Unionist opposition meant a threat of war in Ireland and this would have been disastrous for the war effort Home Rule had to be shelved.

Actually much of history is arguing the signifigance of key events, and speculating on the alternatives. In the eyes on many Ireland won it's independence in needless bloodshed.

That’s quite wrong actually. Much of History is arguing why events were key and significant, establishing what factors made them key and significant, establishing the causes and effects, examining what made people act the way they did and what impact the event had on future events. History is concerned with facts and trying to construct a narrative around those facts. It is not concerned in any meaningful way with ifs, buts or maybes.

Speculative "what ifs" are but a minor and trivial part of history, the main domain of spoofers and spin doctors and historical novelists. Ask yourself this, how many history books are entitled What if Hitler didn’t invade Russia ? I’m sure there is probably one or two but most history books will be titled things like The Second World War: a complete history, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Why the Allies Won etc. where the “what if” of Hitler not invading Russia would be relegated to a minor chapter or a paragraph in a chapter or a line on a page but not the main argument.

May I suggest your “theoretical argument” would be better placed in the domain of Historical novels, the title could be The Way Ireland Could Have Gained Independence, Had Patrick Pearse been Psychic and John Redmond the Use of Jedi Mind Tricks…

In the eyes on many Ireland won it's independence in needless bloodshed.

You see this is my problem. You would like me to argue why violence was used and why violence was right in the context it happened. I can’t do that if you are going to claim that “ theoretical arguments” have just as much if not more validity as the facts. This is why what you say is counter factual Bullsh!t. It may have a very thin basis in reality and but essentially its just a whole load of made up stuff.

Was for example, violence in WWII necessary? I would say no violence is actually necessary, whether violence is necessary depends on a whole range of mitigating factors that can only be appreciated in the context they happened.

By your logic the answer would be a resounding no, Britain should have avoided war at all cost just like they did in the historical precedent of the Cold War.

Terry

Kenny 5 wrote:

Snore!!! :rolleyes:

well, you won't be posting in this thread again.

shamblertine

dlofnep wrote:

Theres a collection of people on here. They have no principals and only live for today. Anything that has happened in the past, stays in the past - despite of the outcome. What I'm referring to is the North.

I'll spare you the for Y amount of years X happened to us, but at one point there were thousands of young and old ready to give up everything they had to rid the ruthless imperialism of Britain from their country.

Nowadays, it's a bunch of yabs who couldn't care less about anyone or anything but themselves. They turn a blind eye at our friends up North who are and have been constantly oppressed by bigot politicians like Ian Paisley who is known for his criticisms of catholics and biased police forces up North.

These are the same people who sing, march and keep our history and culture vibrant through their unmatched passion for their country. The long for a day for Unity in what should never have been divided in the first place. They are second class citizens and have been for a long time in their own native land. And what do we do about it? Some of us actively do our part on elections or through marches, or through debate. The others? Too busy, Eastenders in on the box - No time for those what-ya-macall-its up North.

This is a just cause, our history, doing something right and yet many pass up the chance to help out for their own selfish reasons. They would rather see our culture and history fade away. Our very own language to be scratched off.. and for what? Because a stand needs to be made for simple changes to happen in order for us to revive?

Face the facts. Our country was ripped in half right in front of our eyes, our very own countryment and women brutalised, murdered, raped, mistreated, had their rights and voting ability removed for time. We were colonised by a brutal and vicious sect who are known the world over for mistreatment of the native people. it is our downright duty to maintain our history. We are Irish, not British. I think it's time some of us acted like it.

For those who shed a tear everytime they read our history and feel like they can not do enough, I salute you. For the others, other than tax - you've nothing to offer this country.

I agree, modern Ireland is ****. Irish people don't believe in God, they prefer the DUP over Sinn Fein, they worship the likes of David Beckham and Johnny Wilkinson. Catholics in NI are a lot more "Irish" than any southerners. Southerners are more like Brits these days. And while I wouldn't go as far as to say they make me want to vomit out of my eyes, they do make me feel like I could set a new distance record for projectile vomiting.

brianthebard

Are you one of those northerners? the type who believes their "brothers" in the south "abandoned" them? Cause I don't have any brothers.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

shamblertine wrote:

I agree, modern Ireland is ****. Irish people don't believe in God, they prefer the DUP over Sinn Fein, they worship the likes of David Beckham and Johnny Wilkinson. Catholics in NI are a lot more "Irish" than any southerners. Southerners are more like Brits these days. And while I wouldn't go as far as to say they make me want to vomit out of my eyes, they do make me feel like I could set a new distance record for projectile vomiting.

Belief in God is optional. This is a free country. Aparently a few people died 90 years ago so we sould have this belief.

Worshipping David Becking is done be skangers irrespective of country - they live in Britain, Ireland, aparently Japan and loads of other places. Aparently, though, a few people died 90 years ago so that they sould have this belief.

Catholics in NI have every right to be catholic. Is there some reason why southeners should out-catholic them?

If you want to be sick, I'll gladly hold the hair out of your eyes, but remember: people died so that we could have this freedom and express it as we see fit. If you wish to vomit, do so, but do not vomit on the achievements of those who died for what they believed in.