Fight or not?

shqipshume

Ok because of the posts i have seen trying to spit on Irish rebels who fought for Ireland freedom and died.And yes killed in process of retrieving that freedom.Because they wouldn't back down and fought with every breath in their bodies,May they rest in peace

i wanted to know what those people and everyone else would do if it happened again?

i wanted to do a poll on it but there is none.


So come on ,all you against the fighting and killing in our war against British to expel them.
What would have been your approach or would you have stayed like that, and never had any freedom and been slaves rest of your lives?

Fight or no fight?

mike65

Are you expecting it to happen again?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Very little is ever achieved through violence. It's claimed that the 1916 rebellion led to the Free State, but Home Rule was on the cards anyway, so there's no reason exactly the same settlement couldn't have been arrived at through peaceful negotiation as was achieved after years of slaughter.

So, no: as long as there's any possibility of achieving my aims through negotiation, I won't fight. I can't think of a political ideal that's worth killing another human being for.

diverdriver

It's as oscarbravo says. There never was a need to fight. We had independence in the bag without fighting. Home Rule was due, that inevitably would have led to independence. None of the fighting was neccessary. All those people died for nothing.

It's the same in the North now, or was. 30 years of killing did nothing except cause bitterness. The peace process will eventually bring a United Ireland.

Why do you want to continue fighting the Brits?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ticktactoe

diverdriver wrote: »

It's the same in the North now, or was. 30 years of killing did nothing except cause bitterness. The peace process will eventually bring a United Ireland.

Why do you want to continue fighting the Brits?

Is that what the Brits think too would you say?

Pandcoa

oscarBravo wrote: »

Very little is ever achieved through violence

I think thats a very idealised and narrow view. While you mightn't agree with the use of violence you cannot deny that it is one the oldest tools in mankind of achieving and maintaining power. As Mao Tse Tung said "Power comes from the barrel of a gun", not a very nice thing to hear but his country and other totalitarian regimes are proof of it. There is debate on how legitimite this authority can be and if it can ever be maintained through violence, but none the less Empires around the world have ruled for centuries and changed the culture and people dramatically of many countries through their main use of an Iron fist

nuttz

oscarBravo wrote: »

Very little is ever achieved through violence. It's claimed that the 1916 rebellion led to the Free State, but Home Rule was on the cards anyway, so there's no reason exactly the same settlement couldn't have been arrived at through peaceful negotiation as was achieved after years of slaughter.

So, no: as long as there's any possibility of achieving my aims through negotiation, I won't fight. I can't think of a political ideal that's worth killing another human being for.

Home rule may have been on the cards, but by no means did that mean that Home rule was going to happen. From my understanding looking at that time and the British history it's hard to see that Home rule could have happened.

oscarBravo

Pandcoa wrote: »

I think thats a very idealised and narrow view. While you mightn't agree with the use of violence you cannot deny that it is one the oldest tools in mankind of achieving and maintaining power. As Mao Tse Tung said "Power comes from the barrel of a gun", not a very nice thing to hear but his country and other totalitarian regimes are proof of it. There is debate on how legitimite this authority can be and if it can ever be maintained through violence, but none the less Empires around the world have ruled for centuries and changed the culture and people dramatically of many countries through their main use of an Iron fist

Fair enough. I'll rephrase: very little that's worth being proud of is achieved through violence, and of that which is, the bulk of it could probably have been achieved through non-violent means with a better outcome for everyone concerned.

oscarBravo

nuttz wrote: »

Home rule may have been on the cards, but by no means did that mean that Home rule was going to happen. From my understanding looking at that time and the British history it's hard to see that Home rule could have happened.

No-one can ever say what would have happened, but there was a steady momentum towards Home Rule. Once the political impetus towards something becomes irresistible, it's pretty much going to happen.

nuttz

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think you'l find, if you read about the era that it was more than some nationalists. To call the people who fought at that time "obsessed with a cult of blood sacrifice" is disrespectful. They fought for their lives, have you heard of the Black and Tans or are you just referring to the civil war?

ionix5891

this guy here managed to get the British out without resorting to violence (killing civilians, police officers and/or army)


i am not sure what you are trying to achieve with this thread, but the recent killings and now this thread are making me very suspisous of certain elements trying to stir up **** and in the process "spit on Irish rebels who fought for Ireland freedom and died."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nuttz

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about the rest of my post, have you heard of the black and tans?

Don't bother answering, I'm bored of this.
If I was in the same situation as my grand father and his brother was when he was tied to gate to be shot, yes I think I would want to fight.

jank

but Home Rule was on the cards anyway, so there's no reason exactly the same settlement couldn't have been arrived at through peaceful negotiation as was achieved after years of slaughter.

True in some ways. The unionists in the north were dead set against Home Rule where a civil war was very much on the cards and some agrue that the war of independance was the lesser of 2 evils in that regard. But who knows.
Saying that full independance was around the corner is a bit short sighted IMO.

Anyway fighting now is useless in todays climate.

If you want to study this topic then you have to look back to the Act of union of 1800 (or further back) and how the british saw the Irish back then as a inferior race.

Sure Austraila, Canada and other "colonies" (dont forget that we were viewed as a colony of sorts to the british) had more voting rights then Ireland up until 1921. So in part if they listened to us then alot of this mess might never have happened.

It was a bit of a sham. They didnt want to give us our own parliament because it would proceed to destroy the empire but by denying a country that right it hardened opinion and made us a model where others followed (India etc), thus destroying the empire.

Full independance from the british was anything but on the cards until 1921.

segaBOY

shqipshume wrote: »

Ok because of the posts i have seen trying to spit on Irish rebels who fought for Ireland freedom and died.And yes killed in process of retrieving that freedom.Because they wouldn't back down and fought with every breath in their bodies,May they rest in peace

i wanted to know what those people and everyone else would do if it happened again?

i wanted to do a poll on it but there is none.


So come on ,all you against the fighting and killing in our war against British to expel them.
What would have been your approach or would you have stayed like that, and never had any freedom and been slaves rest of your lives?

Fight or no fight?

I'll answer the question,

Fight.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Home Rule had already been achieved without bloodshed. British rule around the era wasnt overly oppressive - the various Irish militant groups drilling around the country and making blood curdling pronouncements werent exactly a major secret but prior to the 1916 rising the British operated fairly hands off policy with regard to them, hoping to avoid any escalation.

The Irish Free State that was settled for after years of needless violence, blood and embitterment [ look at Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, even to this day] wasnt significantly much of an upgrade over the Home Rule that was already on the table. And like the Irish Free State was gradually built into the Irish Republic we currently have [ without anyone being killed] Irish home rule could and would have developed too.

But violence was probably inevitable - Irish republicanism has always been on a mission from God. What Irish people think is irrelevant. What Irish people suffer is irrelevant. Certain secret societies appoint themselves enjoy murder and killing and the sense of empowerment it gives them. Its very hard to stop them when they want to murder people for some cause or other.

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

If you want to study this topic then you have to look back to the Act of union of 1800 (or further back) and how the british saw the Irish back then as a inferior race.

I've studied this topic all the way back to the Normans and beyond. If you're going to talk about the British attitude to the Irish, you have to compare their attitude in 1800 to their attitude in 1916. If you accept that it had changed (and it had, and the pace of that change was accelerating), then you can only conclude that Home Rule was all but inevitable. Once Home Rule was in place, there was no major impediment to independence. Partition was always going to happen, and those who thought it could be avoided were delusional.

turgon

shqipshume wrote: »

Fight or no fight?

The usual attitude of Irish nationalists: your either with us or against us. Its ridiculous borderline sad.

The other posters said it all: Home rule was undoubtedly going to be introduced, in fact if I remember it kind of was in 1920 in the North? As in the act to partition Ireland has provisions for self-governance?

EDIT: I think Im right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1920

jank wrote: »

So in part if they listened to us then alot of this mess might never have happened.

If they listened to us there would have been no Famine and no war, if we were treated as equals theres a high probability we would see ourselves now as half British half Irish, instead of trying to position ourselves as something distinctly different to our neighbors.

And we never got "full independence" until 1949, I dont see how that has anything to do with 1921. The Republic of Ireland act of that year (came into force then, even though passed in 1948) repealed the external relations act of 1936 which was passed two days after the new constitution to and placed Ireland within the commonwealth, ie: under the king

junder

segaBOY wrote: »

I'll answer the question,

Fight.

Big words, easy said, in the cause of fighting your are going to have to kill people, so lets personlise this, i am a Brit, would you be prepared to kill me. Its easy to use words like fight when your enemy is a namelss faceless person you can, alot harder when you have to face up to them being a living breathing person

P. Breathnach

There seems to be an assumption, held by many in this and similar discussions in this forum, that a united Ireland is a good thing. But let us remember that there are almost a million people in Northern Ireland who are identified with a different point of view.

So long as they don't want to be part of a united Ireland, I don't want it forced on them. Not only is it a form of oppression, it is also very dangerous.

Liam Byrne

Bigger question - fight dirty or fight clean ?

Fighting people that are physically attacking you : fight.

Shooting people collecting a pizza, or in the back of the head, or blowing up people doing their shopping : that's not even "fighting"; it's picking on a soft target because you don't have the courage to fight.

It also, of course, depends on what you're fighting "for"; shooting a Garda while robbing people's money = "fighting" for cash that you're not entitled to = thug/common criminal.

So, OP, similar to the post above re "faceless, nameless people" and generalising, give us examples of actual individuals and I'd reckon that you'd get a huge variety of answers; noble people who fought when threatened would probably get at least some thumbs-up (even if people didn't quite agree with their tactics or decisions) whereas anyone involved in crime, unwanted violence, racism, sectarianism or intimidation would get a thumbs-down.

turgon

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So long as they don't want to be part of a united Ireland, I don't want it forced on them. Not only is it a form of oppression, it is also very dangerous.

But apparently oppression is only bad when the Brits are doing it to us.

Nodin

shqipshume wrote: »

Fight or no fight?

Fight, if nessecary.

wes

I would only ever fight in self defense. Otherwise the peaceful option is more desirable.

shqipshume

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Bigger question - fight dirty or fight clean ?

Fighting people that are physically attacking you : fight.

Shooting people collecting a pizza, or in the back of the head, or blowing up people doing their shopping : that's not even "fighting"; it's picking on a soft target because you don't have the courage to fight.

It also, of course, depends on what you're fighting "for"; shooting a Garda while robbing people's money = "fighting" for cash that you're not entitled to = thug/common criminal.

So, OP, similar to the post above re "faceless, nameless people" and generalising, give us examples of actual individuals and I'd reckon that you'd get a huge variety of answers; noble people who fought when threatened would probably get at least some thumbs-up (even if people didn't quite agree with their tactics or decisions) whereas anyone involved in crime, unwanted violence, racism, sectarianism or intimidation would get a thumbs-down.

Yeah that's what i mean,people just jump in and assume i am trying to say bomb people like omagh,i am against that.I meant like fighting for your country against any invasion from another force or having to fight them to get them out.
War is war tho and if you have to fight would you fight or would you hide and wait then call the people like who did fight before the 1916 rising terrorists and murderers,
I think i heard a saying once (with their pitch forks and shovels nothing more they fought them to regain their land and dignity)
Then we go to the logic so were the British soldiers and those so called innocent black and tans :rolleyes: who only collected the ten shillings that's all nothing more they did.:D

mike65

junder wrote: »

Big words, easy said, in the cause of fighting your are going to have to kill people, so lets personlise this, i am a Brit, would you be prepared to kill me. Its easy to use words like fight when your enemy is a namelss faceless person you can, alot harder when you have to face up to them being a living breathing person

Indeed will he shoot me as well?

shqipshume

mike65 wrote: »

Are you expecting it to happen again?

I am just asking a question,I hope not!

shqipshume

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Here you go quote
If a police barracks is burned or if the barracks already occupied is not suitable, then the best house in the locality is to be commandeered, the occupants thrown into the gutter. Let them die there – the more the merrier.

Should the order ("Hands Up") not be immediately obeyed, shoot and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching (a patrol) carry their hands in their pockets, or are in any way suspicious-looking, shoot them down. You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man." Lt. Col. Smyth, June 1920
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/black_and_tans.htm