Fight or not?

segaBOY

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Most of them were NCOs

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

segaBOY

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

Well my great grandfather fought and as far as I know blood was shed at the hands of my relatives who also fought in the Cork brigades, if you were a "Brit" in the circumstances of the War of Independence I'm sure I would have killed you or you would have killed me if the situation arose.

Having said that I don't have a problem with British people and am planning to work in the UK soon, and furthermore I don't have a problem with you being a brit either!!!

shqipshume

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh yeah so what,:rolleyes:
i have nothing further to say to you!

shqipshume

segaBOY wrote: »

Well my great grandfather fought and as far as I know blood was shed at the hands of my relatives who also fought in the Cork brigades, if you were a "Brit" in the circumstances of the War of Independence I'm sure I would have killed you or you would have killed me if the situation arose.

Having said that I don't have a problem with British people and am planning to work in the UK soon, and furthermore I don't have a problem with you being a brit either!!!

Thanks at least i have two who know what i mean

segaBOY

shqipshume wrote: »

Thanks at least i have two who know what i mean

No problem

To all the rest:

It's very easy to sit at your computer and condemn violent methods etc. but peaceful methods don't always work. Home rule was supposed to be granted but was withdrawn due to WWI and the only alternative was to fight. We basically had no real representation bar a few seats in West Minister and local councils. People wanted Home Rule, the Brits weren't prepared to grant it.

I admire all those who fought for our freedom (whatever form that may be). After all many men put their lives on the line and endured torture, putting their family at risk and severe economic hardship for the cause.

As I say it is very easy to sit at your computer and disagree with violence etc etc but without such a resistance by the Volunteers we'd arguebly be on boards.co.uk now.

gurramok

mike65 wrote: »

Indeed will he shoot me as well?

Scenario of you been in the British army in Ireland in 1916 or in the War of Independence - yes.
That's not personal, it's a part of an insurrection for my nations fight for freedom. My grandfather did partake and I would of too if i was around back then. It would be an act against an occupiers army which had been oppressing my nation for centuries.

oscarBravo wrote:

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.

Home Rule was not definite on the cards. It was taking already 45 years of first asking and then one asks why should the Irish people wait another 45 years for a parliament of their own?

Offy

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?

Firstly, I hate violence.
Secondly I condemn all military personnel and the army that their a part of that target civilians.
Thirdly I have lived in England and made some good friends there, I work with English people here in Ireland and I think they are no different to us.
Fourthly if it happened again as it did donkeys years ago (not bloody likely IMO) I would kill.
Finally OP the British people were never the problem, they were cannon fodder too. 2% of the British own 98% of the wealth. The 2% never fight. Thats why the IRA targeted Canary wharf and the Arndale, the cost of rebuilding them was colossal and who owns them? The 2% not the average Brit.

segaBOY

Offy wrote: »

Firstly, I hate violence.
Secondly I condemn all military personnel and the army that their a part of that target civilians.
Thirdly I have lived in England and made some good friends there, I work with English people here in Ireland and I think they are no different to us.
Fourthly if it happened again as it did donkeys years ago (not bloody likely IMO) I would kill.
Finally OP the British people were never the problem, they were cannon fodder too. 2% of the British own 98% of the wealth. The 2% never fight. Thats why the IRA targeted Canary wharf and the Arndale, the cost of rebuilding them was colossal and who owns them? The 2% not the average Brit.

Exactly, I am the same. I don't dislike British people or blame them for the problem it was British policy in Ireland and lack of liberties for Irish people. The war of independence was the only way to win relative freedom imo.

Offy

segaBOY wrote: »

Exactly, I am the same. I don't dislike British people or blame them for the problem it was British policy in Ireland and lack of liberties for Irish people. The war of independence was the only way to win relative freedom imo.

Heres my thoughts on that.

Why wasnt DeVelera killed by the British in 1916? What passport did he have? Who killed Collins? Were we ever free?

mike65

segaBOY wrote: »

we'd arguebly be on boards.co.uk now.

Close but no cigar www.boards.org.uk

Tableman

It is by no means certain that Home Rule would have been introduced after World War 1.

I would fight if the circumstances were like those in 1916 or 1919-1921 but they are not.

oscarBravo

segaBOY wrote: »

...peaceful methods don't always work. Home rule was supposed to be granted but was withdrawn due to WWI and the only alternative was to fight.

Nope. Another alternative was to continue to use diplomatic and political means.

People wanted Home Rule, the Brits weren't prepared to grant it.

And yet, the Home Rule bill had been passed. How do you interpret that as meaning that the Brits were not prepared to grant Home Rule?

gurramok wrote: »

Home Rule was not definite on the cards. It was taking already 45 years of first asking and then one asks why should the Irish people wait another 45 years for a parliament of their own?

Because it would have involved fewer people dying. Waiting a few years for a parliament of your own is, in my opinion, a small price to pay for not killing thousands of people.

Are you seriously saying the war of independence was a small price to pay for bringing forward the birth of the free state by a few years? Does anyone seriously believe that?

Stephen!

The majority of Irish people did not care about the ideals of the I.R.B. The rising was a complete and utter flop. Had the British not came down so ruthlessly on the rebels, people wouldn't have cared so much either. People blamed the I.R.B for destroying their city and disrupting their lives, but that opinion changed when the British started the executions. If the British had not of executed so many, the IRB could have really damaged any chance of Irish independance through peaceful means. Also, Pearse was an absolute two-faced dickhead, willing to promote bloodshed and sacrifice untill it's his wife in the cross-hairs.

It's amazing how many people these days say how their grandads fought tooth and nail with the British in the War of Independance, but never EVER mention which side they fought on in the Civil War, when they fought tooth and nail with their own people.

Also I sincerely doubt that Catholics in the North would be too quick to leave the union when they have such a good welfare system, and joining a united Ireland would CRUSH our economy... even more!

Since we got independance, all we've got was a bunch of money hungry, greedy politicians looking to help out their rich developer, land owner friends...

shqipshume

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. Another alternative was to continue to use diplomatic and political means. And yet, the Home Rule bill had been passed. How do you interpret that as meaning that the Brits were not prepared to grant Home Rule?

Because it would have involved fewer people dying. Waiting a few years for a parliament of your own is, in my opinion, a small price to pay for not killing thousands of people.

Are you seriously saying the war of independence was a small price to pay for bringing forward the birth of the free state by a few years? Does anyone seriously believe that?

How many thousands died under the British regime?
Give me a break.
God i am all for it under the bridge with English today.
But for the majority of you and your thoughts completly shock me.
I always found this interesting

The Assassins
[SIZE=+1]The fifteen men accused of shooting Collins
[/SIZE]

Despite 25 books, half a dozen TV documentaries or dramas, and over 200 newspaper articles on the subject, there is great confusion over the events of August 22, 1922, the course of the battle at Bealnablath and the identity of who killed Collins. Eoghan Corry lists some of the most famous of the dozens of suspects:

EMMET DALTON
A colleague of Collins wrongly accused of shooting Collins through drink, incompetence, or because he was a British agent, in fact during the ambush he left his Webley .45 revolver on a fence where it was retrieved the following day with all six chambers unfired.
ROBERT ''BOBS'' DOHERTY
Claimed to have been the man who shot Collins when he arrived in the USA in 1925, but in 1987 claimed just to have heard a gun go off and have seen Collins fall.
MIKE DONOGHUE
A Glenflesk man who joined the action as he was returning home from Cork, he claimed in 1985 he had not shot Collins but he had seen the man who did. According to research in Patrick J Twohig's book, ''The Dark Secret of Bealnablath,'' his colleagues might have included James Healy, Mick Murphy, John McGillycuddy, Con Quill, Mick Lynch, or Stephen McGrath, among others.
SEAN GALVIN
He had been patrolling the hill on horseback and galloped in to the action when the shooting started. He brought the word to the anti-Free State meeting in a nearby house that Collins had been shot, and later claimed to have shot Collins himself.
TOM HALES
Leader of the ambush party and brother of the Free State commander accompanying Collins, he appears to have been making his escape when Collins was shot.
JIM HURLEY
Fired a Mauser at the car in which Collins was travelling, shattering the windscreen and stopping the clock, and giving Emmet Dalton the impression they were under machine gun fire. Some maintain Collins was killed by a Mauser bullet, but Hurley is said to have left the ambush by the time Collins was hit.
PETE KEARNEY
With six colleagues he chanced on the action on his way back to Newcestown. He told a priest before he died that he thought he had shot Collins, and recalled firing a single shot at a man on the road during the ambush. He was positioned elsewhere by other witnesses, also firing the fatal shot. After the war he went to America and returned to business in Dublin where he died.
TOM KELLEHER
The man blamed by Garda Sergeant John Hickey in his official enquiry for the killing of Collins, he fired the warning shot when Collins' convoy approached and inadvertently started the battle before the road-block had been reached. He claimed he did not shoot at, only towards the enemy on the day, and instead blamed British agents for shooting Collins.
JOHN McPEAK
The machine gunner on the Slievenamon fought on Collins' side during the ambush, but became the object of suspicion when he later defected to the Republicans. After a short period his machine gun no longer worked and he had to fire off single shots like a rifle. He was arrested and spent six months in prison for the theft of the Slievenamon but was an unlikely assassin.
JOE MURPHY
A Lissarda man from another brigade was firing slantwise from a position at the next bend when Collins was killed. He brought the news of the killing to a local house, and said on the evening of the ambush that he thought he might have shot Collins.
DAN O'CONNOR
Limerick-man Maurice MacNamara recalled how, as an anti-treaty IRA arbitration court judge, he had presided over the court martial of a a man accused of shooting Michael Collins. Dan O'Connor from Glenflesk was dismissed from the anti-treaty forces, went to the USA in 1925, and returned two years later to live in Rathmore.
DENIS ''SONNY'' O'NEILL
The current favourite suspect in a 1988 television documentary and two of the last three books on Collins. An ex British army marksman, He told Jim Kearney the morning after the ambush that it was he had shot Collins, and ten years later told a female friend, Kitty Teehan, that he had shot Collins. The testimony was delivered to revolutionary and Irish Press journalist Maire Comerford, and featured in Colm Connolly's television documentary, although others claimed that he was not engaged at the time Collins was shot. He died in 1950.
JIMMY ORMOND
A Lismore man, he came in from the south-west with a Waterford group when he heard the firing ''in the hope of capturing a truck.'' He claimed in New York in 1926 that he fired directly at Collins with a Lee Enfield and saw him fall.
JAMES SHEEHAN
A clerical student who was with Bobs Doherty when Doherty heard the fatal shot, he disappeared after Bealnablath and went to live in the USA before returning to Knockatagil, Kilcummin, Kerry, where he died in 1985. MR X, BRITISH AGENT
Reinforcing a theory that first emerged within days of the shooting, evidence that British agents had killed Collins which will become available when an unnamed source has passed them on is mentioned in Tim Pat Coogan's 1990 biography of Collins. The results of the official investigation into the shooting were destroyed by the outgoing Free State government in 1932

http://www.iol.ie/~obrienc/assassins.htm

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

diverdriver

You know it's obvious that many of the posters here including the OP don't even know the history of their own country. I suspect a lot of them are simply regurgitating stuff they were told third hand by relatives with a bit of half remembered school history thrown in to be inflamed by stuff they read on the net.

I would suggest that shqipshume and others go and buy or borrow (or steal) a couple of books dealing with the era around 1916. There are plenty. It won't do you any harm to read about the reality of the situation around that time. You would do well to read any Irish history book. If you have any kind of open mind, you'll find that not everything is as black and white as you think. Maybe you won't be quite so shocked at people having opinions different to your own.

It won't make you love the British either but at least it might actually stop people being so bitter about something that happened centuries ago and actually has no impact on their lives today.

shqipshume

Thanks but i know all my history thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because it would have involved fewer people dying. Waiting a few years for a parliament of your own is, in my opinion, a small price to pay for not killing thousands of people.

Are you seriously saying the war of independence was a small price to pay for bringing forward the birth of the free state by a few years? Does anyone seriously believe that?

Why would there be trust after so many years? It took maybe best of a couple of centuries for the majority of the population to have the right to vote(blocked because of religion) until 1829 and then from about 1870 to 1912 to get home rule despite the overwhelming majority of the population wanting it.

Home rule was not guaranteed. Unionists who are British allies opposed it on militancy grounds so many did feel that the WW1 was a con to enlist Irishmen to die for Home Rule.

Picture the scene. Why was Home Rule not granted just before the 1918 election? The British could have softened any independence demands by doing so?
Thats one to think about!

shqipshume

diverdriver wrote: »

You know it's obvious that many of the posters here including the OP don't even know the history of their own country. I suspect a lot of them are simply regurgitating stuff they were told third hand by relatives with a bit of half remembered school history thrown in to be inflamed by stuff they read on the net.

I would suggest that shqipshume and others go and buy or borrow (or steal) a couple of books dealing with the era around 1916. There are plenty. It won't do you any harm to read about the reality of the situation around that time. You would do well to read any Irish history book. If you have any kind of open mind, you'll find that not everything is as black and white as you think. Maybe you won't be quite so shocked at people having opinions different to your own.

It won't make you love the British either but at least it might actually stop people being so bitter about something that happened centuries ago and actually has no impact on their lives today.

I have no problem with british people,i get on with any i know,again it is not about that either.
It was simple question getting answers and reading them and people having a talk about it.

This is not about 1916 it is about all of Ireland what the people would have done back then or if it happened again, no one is attacking them for giving their ideas or comments.

segaBOY

mike65 wrote: »

Close but no cigar www.boards.org.uk

Lol my bad.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. Another alternative was to continue to use diplomatic and political means. And yet, the Home Rule bill had been passed. How do you interpret that as meaning that the Brits were not prepared to grant Home Rule?

The home rule bill was passed but defeated in the House of Lords twice, a rule meant that every two years you could put it to them again (could be wrong on the exact procedure) and the third time it was put to them they were compelled to pass it. So, when the third time came along the British gov used WWI as an excuse not to grant it. As a result I feel that all diplomatic and political means were exhausted and armed struggle was necessary.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because it would have involved fewer people dying. Waiting a few years for a parliament of your own is, in my opinion, a small price to pay for not killing thousands of people.

Are you seriously saying the war of independence was a small price to pay for bringing forward the birth of the free state by a few years? Does anyone seriously believe that?

How are you so sure that it would have been granted? There is no guarantee of that, further more it is very plausable thousands more of Irishmen would have died in WWII if we were still part of the empire due to continuing to do things by diplomatic means and stalling independence.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

junder

gurramok wrote: »

Scenario of you been in the British army in Ireland in 1916 or in the War of Independence - yes.
That's not personal, it's a part of an insurrection for my nations fight for freedom. My grandfather did partake and I would of too if i was around back then. It would be an act against an occupiers army which had been oppressing my nation for centuries.



Home Rule was not definite on the cards. It was taking already 45 years of first asking and then one asks why should the Irish people wait another 45 years for a parliament of their own?

As it happens my great grandfather was in the 1912 UVF but thats niether here nor there, i see alot of arm chairs warriors here who for the most part have no experince of real conflict and the violence attached to it is nothing but an abstract idea, which in turn makes it easy to make claims of being prepared to 'fight', however until you have a gun in your hand which is pointed at another human being and the concept of violence is no longer abstract would you be prepared to kill for your Ireland

diverdriver

shqipshume wrote: »

Thanks but i know all my history thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798

LOL, That explains it all. You get 'all' your history from wikipedia. You do know I can go in there and alter that to say that the aliens joined in on the government side. You cannot trust wikipedia.

Get yourself a decent book on 1798. Educate yourself man.

shqipshume

diverdriver wrote: »

LOL, That explains it all. You get 'all' your history from wikipedia. You do know I can go in there and alter that to say that the aliens joined in on the government side. You cannot trust wikipedia.

Get yourself a decent book on 1798. Educate yourself man.

No its not i am just showing you examples cant very well give you my books can i now
I love that when people cant say anything they say oh yeah its wikipedia lol

woman thanks

here so all British who ever shot or maimed or killed in any other country in the world which lets face it is alot lol
They are all hero's because they were killing to take over.But Irish people were criminals and terrorists because they killed for their rights and to get rid of the British off our land? hm
yeah i see it all.
I now know why i am emigrating lol

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JonathanAnon

Look,

The British are ultimately responsible for the mess in Northern Ireland. They occupied Ireland, against the wishes of the native population (similar to the Germans in Europe during WWII, and Russians post WWII).

The British media seem to portray the Northern "issue" as being something created by the Nationalist community, whereas in reality, the "issue" (violence) was created by inequality since the partition.

The analogy above with India is not comparable, as India is thousands of miles away from Britain with a MUCH larger population, and after the war (having mobilised their colonies armies to fight the japanese) the British realised they were lucky to get out of the war without being occupied themselves. They knew when to cut their losses, giving the India her independence ONLY because Mountbatten knew that they could not possibly hold her.

gurramok

junder wrote: »

As it happens my great grandfather was in the 1912 UVF but thats niether here nor there, i see alot of arm chairs warriors here who for the most part have no experince of real conflict and the violence attached to it is nothing but an abstract idea, which in turn makes it easy to make claims of being prepared to 'fight', however until you have a gun in your hand which is pointed at another human being and the concept of violence is no longer abstract would you be prepared to kill for your Ireland

Good point on the human element. Of course many on both sides would be scared of the consequences as war is not pretty.

Would you of been prepared to kill to defend 'Ulster' in a pre 1920 scenario(Home Rule proposed and UVF set up to oppose it with civil war pending) just like Carson envisaged?

Liam Byrne

shqipshume wrote: »

here so all British who ever shot or maimed or killed in any other country in the world which lets face it is alot lol
They are all hero's because they were killing to take over.

Who the hell is saying they were heroes ? Why do you (and others) seem to get the idea that there's just two "sides" - "terrorists = heroes" OR "British = heroes" ? What about "dirty history on both sides but get over it; we can't bring back the dead so let's simply make sure that no-one else dies" ?

shqipshume wrote: »

But Irish people were criminals and terrorists because they killed for their rights and to get rid of the British off our land?

Absolutely. Killing to get rid of people is wrong; the Nazis tried that with the Jews. You seemed to agree with my post earlier that killing someone who is an immediate threat to your life or loved ones is - sometimes - OK, but killing anyone else, in any other scenario, is wrong......now you seem to have changed your stance.

shqipshume wrote: »

yeah i see it all.

Unfortunately, as proven above, you don't; you only seem to see one side of what is essentially a VERY complex scenario.

Supporting justice and politics and rejecting violence is not a case of taking sides; it's a case of wanting to see things done, and done right.

gurramok

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Absolutely. Killing to get rid of people is wrong; the Nazis tried that with the Jews. You seemed to agree with my post earlier that killing someone who is an immediate threat to your life or loved ones is - sometimes - OK, but killing anyone else, in any other scenario, is wrong......now you seem to have changed your stance.

So it was wrong for the Allies\French Resistance\'You name it resistance' to kill Germans to free occupied countries and the Jews?
I've never heard so much defence on the wrongs of killing when it makes a right to free people from oppression.