Fight or not?

shqipshume

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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" ?



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.



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.

I didn't change my stance i pointed out the truth.Irish condemn their own people,i am not talking about Ira bombings and random murders i am talking about the Irish men and women who fought against the British and died for their rights and yours and mine,without that beginning we would not be where we are today,

Where did i say i was not over it?
I simply dont agree with the term terrorist for the people who died because of what they were forced to do and the question was.
Fight or dont fight if it happened again or what you would have done then if you were in that time?

BlitzKrieg

To keep things civil, I would say overall I supported the irish movement for national freedom, but I would consider some events on the road to independence *unwise*.

But saying that does not mean I disagree wholely with the series of events.

Just because I easily disagree with 1916 doesnt mean I disagree with the war of independence (after 1916 I would say the war of independence might have been the only choice.)

I really disagree with the civil war because civil wars as a whole are something I despise, but I am very fond of some elements of Valera's period in power.


On the issue of Home Rule, yes we were practically tasting it at 1914, the only thing holding it back was there was a verry real, written down, signed with blood and delivered directly to the british parliment threat that if Home Rule was passed the unionists will fight britain to stay part of the Union (yes it is something I wonder to this day what it would have looked like, Unionists fighting the british army to remain part of britain, obviously though they would have been fighting irish soldiers with british backing which would have been just as weird)

THe day World War 1 broke out, the british parliment were discussing this very issue, and as someone already said that civil war could have been worse then the war of independence.

It could also be argued that it was that very threat and the initial gun runnings by the unionist that buried Home Rule and that nothing except all out war of independence could have brought it back.

But the fact that by 1920 the North happily accepted it was own form of Home Rule puts water on that fire and that maybe without the war of independence the same treaty would have come around anyway.


But its all ifs and maybes. You need to accept history, just not praise it blindly.


And all of the above is useless waffle anyway.

What I wanted to get to, and its my favourite part is 1931

Ok, war of independence etc, in the end all we had was Home Rule by a different name, still had British rule. Here is what I love.

The Statute of Westminster


eh eh?

An act with no irish involvement in its process, no party pushing for it nor great war to achieve.

Something the British government itself popped up to better rule itself and its dominions combined with a British royalty abdicating and *Boom* we were a republic in all forms except title.

I find it amazing how something can come out of nowhere on the international politics and suddenly we had everything we needed. All it took was someone who knew how he wanted to use it.

Which is where we come back to the events we are argueing over it.

Would someone like Redmond or Griffith had used the Statute of Westminster like de Valera did? Or did it need someone with that extra bit of ambition the desire for full independence no matter what? You could argue that they would have as it was the opposition that would declare full independence over ten years later You could argue they wouldnt because it was clear in 1914 that Redmond was very much an old fashioned politicion who lacked edge of 20th century politicions that came about after the first world war one and that by his actions during the war and after it he would have been someone who would have never considered using the statute of westminster like that.


But all these ifs ifs ifs ifs its a bit nutty.

All that stands is atfer all the fighting and all the political canvasing, the most crucial element had nothing to do with irish politics at all.

that just makes me smile at how awesome history is

Liam Byrne

shqipshume wrote: »

Irish condemn their own people

Irish condemn people who claim to act on their behalf.

shqipshume wrote: »

i am not talking about Ira bombings and random murders i am talking about the Irish men and women who fought against the British and died for their rights and yours and mine, without that beginning we would not be where we are today

Bad timing for that comment, considering the mess FF have left us in......we'd definitely be better off if someone else was running the country at the mo.

But that's being glib......there is a factor that my mum used always say, and that is that "the old IRA would never have done that". If that is indeed true, then the scenario is different.

But you have to accept that starting this thread in light of recent events is a bad idea; whatever about fighting in the past, or fighting immediately after an invasion, things have moved on and are different now.

shqipshume wrote: »

I simply dont agree with the term terrorist for the people who died because of what they were forced to do.

Again, crap timing for that angle; some people would view consideration of past scenarios as justification for recent atrocities.....for example, it would NOT be acceptable for a Jew to walk up to a German nowadays and kill them, based on something done 50 years ago.

I view the term terrorist as just that - someone who creates terror.......if there is widespread public support from a downtrodden people then - while I mightn't agree with the methods - there is a case for it; but if there are a minority working on their own agenda against the will of the people, and creating "terror" not only for the "opposition", but also as a way of controlling "their own side" that don't agree with them, then it's completely wrong....

shqipshume wrote: »

Fight or dont fight if it happened again or what you would have done then if you were in that time?

I wasn't in that time, so that's a completely hypothetical question; I also wasn't in the time when cavemen clobbered women over the head in order to have sex with them, or when women didn't have a vote.

Karlusss

Blitzkrieg, I think with your reference to the Statute of Westminster you're failing to take into account how much of a precedent the British concessions to Ireland were for other colonised nations. There was an independence movement in India in which the leader literally read Dan Breen's book as inspiration - I can't remember the name off the top of my head, but it's in Hobsbawm's book.

The fact is that by actually forcing some degree of independence, we sped up the process of decolonisation everywhere. Also remember that the Statute was for the dominions - the six major settler colonies. If Ireland hadn't split from the union strongly and on something approaching its own terms, there's no way of knowing that it would have constitutionally been capable of taking part in that conference. Something less than a "free state" might have been the result, in which we took responsibility for minor stuff but didn't have legislative independence, a la 1171-1800.

oscarBravo

segaBOY wrote: »

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.

And you couldn't be more wrong. It's ridiculously easy to say "all diplomatic and political means are exhausted" when you're spoiling for a fight - I'm sure Hans Blix would be only too happy to back me up on that. The diplomatic and political means were still in full swing when Pearse et al decided to throw a spanner in the works.

How are you so sure that it would have been granted? There is no guarantee of that...

Nope, and there was no guarantee that it wouldn't have been granted either. One thing that I can say with reasonable confidence is that Dublin wouldn't have been shelled from the Liffey if Pearse & co hadn't taken up arms in a futile gesture. It's also entirely likely that, in the absence of the 1916 rising, there would have been no war of independence.

...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.

I doubt WWII was foremost in Pearse's mind when weighing up the pros and cons of an armed rebellion.

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

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.

Basically, you're saying that war is an acceptable way of gaining a political objective when political means won't achieve it fast enough for you? It's OK to kill people if it means not having to wait a few years for a change in your political status?

Home rule was not guaranteed.

Again, this makes it OK to kill people? What guarantee did Pearse have that his rising would deliver an all-island republic?

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.

Unionists were always going to oppose any change whatsoever to the status quo. Yes, they probably would have fought tooth and nail against Home Rule.

Are you arguing that because someone else may engage in violence as a result of your politically-negotiated settlement, that engaging in pre-emptive violence is better than political negotiation?

I really struggle to understand that perspective.

Picture the scene. Why was Home Rule not granted just before the 1918 election?

Home Rule had already been granted, just not implemented yet. The reason it was never implemented was the 1916 rising. There's one to think about!

junder

gurramok wrote: »

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?

As it happens the question is more relevent for me today as in 2010 i will be deployed to afghanistan, whats more i (if i pass my commissoning course) i will might be going as a officer and a platoon commander so in fact i will have to order men to kill, Its something i do not take lightly, i am not a gung ho person, i believe in honour, justice and mercy but at the end of the day i am a soldier.

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

Basically, you're saying that war is an acceptable way of gaining a political objective when political means won't achieve it fast enough for you? It's OK to kill people if it means not having to wait a few years for a change in your political status? Again, this makes it OK to kill people? What guarantee did Pearse have that his rising would deliver an all-island republic? Unionists were always going to oppose any change whatsoever to the status quo. Yes, they probably would have fought tooth and nail against Home Rule.

Are you arguing that because someone else may engage in violence as a result of your politically-negotiated settlement, that engaging in pre-emptive violence is better than political negotiation?

I really struggle to understand that perspective. Home Rule had already been granted, just not implemented yet. The reason it was never implemented was the 1916 rising. There's one to think about!

You are clutching at straws here. When you say ' kill people', thats security forces who have killed many and destroyed people through terror with no justice to follow up. I did not say to kill any 'people' who disagree with a fight for freedom and are unarmed.
Big difference between armed security forces and unarmed civilians. It was justified to react against a violent security forces who are not accepted by the vast majority(moderate and extreme alike).

Those 'few years' were about 45years of asking. It was finally blocked by Unionism who promised war in the face of the democratic wishes of overwhelming of the people at the time and the British succumbed to this threat hence democracy failed.
The overwhelming majority wanted their own Irish parliament in whatever form and Britain denied that for 45years of asking at Westminister and waiting another 45 years was not on the cards hence 1916 occurred.

oscarBravo

gurramok wrote: »

You are clutching at straws here. When you say ' kill people', thats security forces who have killed many and destroyed people through terror with no justice to follow up. I did not say to kill any 'people' who disagree with a fight for freedom and are unarmed.

When I say "kill people" I means starting an armed rebellion which prompts a counter-insurgency, and ultimately leads to a bloody war of independence. When you consciously choose to start a shooting war, you are responsible for every single death that ensues as a result.

Those 'few years' were about 45years of asking. It was finally blocked by Unionism who promised war in the face of the democratic wishes of overwhelming of the people at the time and the British succumbed to this threat hence democracy failed.

Unionists may have promised war, but Pearse delivered. He didn't start an war because Home Rule hadn't been implemented, he started a war to prevent it.

shqipshume

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?

Its very easy to look back on history and say in hindsight as to what should have been done. The simple fact is that during these times the British Empire looked as strong as ever (being the most powerful empire in the world) and seemed as intent as ever to retain control over Ireland. While Home Rule was on the books, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on, except for a step towards independence. The British would always be able to prevent any ruling that they felt was against their interests. And while Home Rule would have been a step, it would have been a step towards something far in the future.

Nobody at the time leading up to the war of independence would have known about the decline of the British Empire. So its reasonable that people would have seen Britain retain control over Ireland for the next hundred years. To people who wished to see Ireland's freedom in their own lifetime, that would have been enough encouragement to fight.

Lastly, its worth reminding people that times have changed. We all live in a country at peace since the end of the civil war. For most people, Northern Ireland is another country, and nothing to do with us directly. At the time of the rebellion, the famine and other "incidents" were within living memory. The scars were very real to the people of these times, whereas we can look back and judge from a very comfortable position.

Would I have fought? At 1916, definitely not. Later, when the main rebellion occurred, quite probably. And it wouldn't be anything to do with hating the British.. From memoirs that I've read from soldiers, most wouldn't have thought long about killing, before they actually killed anyone. That came afterwards. It would simply be down to a desire for an Irish free state, which Britain prevented.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

While Home Rule was on the books, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on...

Why? Given the continual progress towards the goal of Home Rule over a period of decades, what makes you decide in hindsight that the process had gone as far as it could have gone in the absence of bloodshed?

Neither you nor I can say what would have happened had the political process been allowed to run its course, but at least I'm extrapolating the progress that had been made up to that point. You and others seem content to blithely state that there's no way the process could possibly have progressed any further. I've never seen a valid explanation for this position, except as a retrospective justification for the rising.

...except for a step towards independence.

What was the Free State, but a step towards independence? After all, the Treaty offered not a lot more than was on offer in the Home Rule bill in the first place; hence the civil war.

And while Home Rule would have been a step, it would have been a step towards something far in the future.

Again, how do you know this? And again, what was the Free State but a step towards a republic that didn't materialise until some 27 years later?

...a desire for an Irish free state, which Britain prevented.

Arguably, it was Pearse's rebellion that prevented - or at least postponed - it. He didn't want Home Rule, or a Free State - he wanted a republic, and bloodshed was an acceptable price to pay for it.

FTA69

To return to the original question,

As James Connolly said: "we believe in constitutional action in constitutional times, and revolutionary action in abnormal times."

Like it or not, today we live in constitutional times. Irish unity will not come about through the armed campaign that is currently being prosecuted by some groups today.

The British occupation of this country is not rooted in any semblance of "democratic right". The British did not arm death squads in this country and facilitate the murder of their own citizens out of an altruistic respect for Unionists' "democratic right". They didn't torture people and throw men out of helicopters in the name of protecting democracy. They no more care about Unionists or any Irish person for that matter than they do for the civilians of Afghanistan or Iraq. They colonised this country through force of arms, and if needs be they will meet any threat to their presence here through force of arms. The British presence here is wrong.

Which raises the question of how to address this? Political change can only come about with the support of the bulk of working people. Small isolated actions may be the catalyst for the masses coming on board e.g. 1916 Rising, Fidel's guerillas etc; but these initiatives will never succeed on their own steam alone. The current actions we saw last week are not going to succeed in mobilising anyone toward the Republican ideal, as to be honest the vast, vast majority of Irish people can relate to them, or see their significance or relevance.

Irish Republicanism can only succeed through becoming relevant to the lives of ordinary working people, and offering them a feasable alternative to the competition-driven, cannibalistic soicety which we have. That can only be done through community graft, involvement in organised labour etc. Bascially all of the things that James Connolly became involved in during his time here. Put simply, emerging out of the shadows every few months to whack some youngfella from Wood Green or wherever isn't going to forward this agenda.

sr. kila

fight of course....

anything for the cause...

we'll have a FULL ireland soon

Liam Byrne

sr. kila wrote: »

fight of course....

anything for the cause...

we'll have a FULL ireland soon

:mad: Very mature and considerate posting there!!! :rolleyes:

Whatever about the possibility of it arriving at some stage, it's probably been put off for another 10 or 20 years after this week's events......

sr. kila

Liam Byrne wrote: »

:mad: Very mature and considerate posting there!!! :rolleyes:

Whatever about the possibility of it arriving at some stage, it's probably been put off for another 10 or 20 years after this week's events......

then what is this thread about..

Can'tseeme

It's funny because it a similar arguement that we have up north with nationalists and republicans. Could we have got equality and civil rights through the civil rights movement, etc. Or was the only way to take the fight to the British government?

You have to think of the time and circumstance of the era. The fear and uncertainty that was breeding. People being just completely fed up being treated like sh1t. It's too easy to sit back now in hindsight saying, I think we'll it would have been better if we'd done this or that.

Wacker

shqipshume wrote: »

I didn't change my stance i pointed out the truth.Irish condemn their own people,i am not talking about Ira bombings and random murders i am talking about the Irish men and women who fought against the British and died for their rights and yours and mine,without that beginning we would not be where we are today,

Where did i say i was not over it?
I simply dont agree with the term terrorist for the people who died because of what they were forced to do and the question was.
Fight or dont fight if it happened again or what you would have done then if you were in that time?

Shqipshume, I would really like you to answer this question: specifically what are you talking about? You keep mentioning 'that time' - what time? What period are you talking about here? 1798? 1916? 1919? Afterwards? They're not all the same!
1916 is the one that has come up the most, but every time someone mentions 1916, you either post about the Black and Tans, which came afterwards, or you mention 1798, which was way beforehand. You have not given any specific arguments about 1916. Would you please do so, because it will make for a much better discussion. Stop being so vague!

jank

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. It’s very hard to stop them when they want to murder people for some cause or other

I agree violence was probably inevitable had home rule been granted or not granted (You seem to ignore what the hell the unionists were doing with arming themselves with thousands of rifles from Germany, maybe the tooth fairy told them to do it or maybe it was god too!;)). But the rest of what you are saying is rubbish. There may have been some leaders like pearse who thought that they were on a mission from "god" for the good of the Irish people, but the vast majority of fought on all sides did so because of their view on what they wanted Ireland to become. A free independent country, or from a unionist point of view they remain within the Union with Britain.

Painting the IRA or Sinn Fein of the early 20th century as some jihadist like movement is absurd.

This talk about Home Rule being around the corner is a red herring. The British always promised big but never delivered. We will never know now what would have happened if WW1 didn’t break out. But even with Home Rule (and again allot of people are ignoring the unionists in the north when they make this argument, especially if partition was on the cards something the home rulers would not have accepted so we go back to step one unless of course there is some sort of war in the north.), Ireland would have had less rights then many other colonies that the British controlled.

The British imagined some sort of grand federal like system a greater Britain where the large colonies would have some sort of independence or devolution while London would exert some control over some matters like foreign affairs and war, etc. Of course the rulers in these colonies would be the "white" educated folk in the case of India for example.
However, Ireland had been trying to get some of say in its own affairs since the 1800 act of union and the British would not listen, much like in 1770's when the colonies of North America were drumming up their own demands for a say in running things. They should have learned from that and yes violence achieved this too....
So what hope of there was a greater Britain when the first and oldest British colony could not be trusted with its own parliament?
What did Gladstone say? “The Canadians were not nice and friendly so they got Home Rule; they are nice and friendly because of Home Rule"

The Irish majority were alienated for decades, in fact they pushed more than the Irish pulled.

That lays the crux. Nothing comes from a vacuum. Anybody who has read one history book will know that. Movements do not appear over night. Seeds are sown and over many years sometimes generation’s movements shape the course of history.

Regarding violence not achieving anything well Ill use one example. The Boer war. Now the Boers lost the war but they negotiated a treaty whereby the future of South Africa was decided. With that treaty the seeds of racism and apartheid were set not to be broken until the 1990's. The leader of the Boer Army became the First South African president to boot.

Ill finish with a quote from Churchill himself regarding the whole fight or not debate. I wouldn’t call it racist but it certainly sums up the attitude the British had on the Irish question.

"We have always found the Irish a bit odd. They refuse to be English."
- Winston Churchill

{It’s good to have a discussion about this that’s fair-minded as these types of talks always revert to the same ol endless, pointless arguments. May it continue}

shqipshume

Wacker wrote: »

Shqipshume, I would really like you to answer this question: specifically what are you talking about? You keep mentioning 'that time' - what time? What period are you talking about here? 1798? 1916? 1919? Afterwards? They're not all the same!
1916 is the one that has come up the most, but every time someone mentions 1916, you either post about the Black and Tans, which came afterwards, or you mention 1798, which was way beforehand. You have not given any specific arguments about 1916. Would you please do so, because it will make for a much better discussion. Stop being so vague!

Ok it would be fair sorry.
Break it down to the 18th century first and then to 1916 rising.Would you have accepted the terms or fought.
Carrying over to why the civil war and how could that have been avoided to.
Sorry i am on very long scedule right now and i am exhausted.
The Black and tans i brought forward because even tho they came after Irish were still been terrorised.
Thanks i like the way you brought yourself forward

shqipshume

Lets get this straight right now guys,I have not hated on anyone's opinions,everyone is entitled to believe what they want to.And without the force i wonder now who would be voting in the north and stopped the violence.Would it have been won by everyone sitting quietly in their houses and saying nothing.I have no idea.
I do not support random murders of people and children.
I do however support a united Ireland if ever possible which i highly doubt.
I have my own things to deal with right now and its been real interesting comments some made without throwing smart comments and trying to insult my intelligence.
I still will not call anyone terrorists from before 1916 rising nor will i call the ones who came in the early stages after as they were fighting for what they believed in how ever much you disagree with them.

see yous later

p.s i gave you something to get your teeth into didnt i.

shqipshume

sr. kila wrote: »

fight of course....

anything for the cause...

we'll have a FULL ireland soon

I highly doubt that with way things are going just turning people more and more against anyone who raises a fight to have northern Ireland back again.
If it can be done then done in a way no one dies.

It is meant for past and if it was to happen again a war not random bombings or shootings.
That's what question was about purely hypothetical
but thanks for your reply and don't worry about any insults people throw at you.You are entitled to have your hopes for that if indeed not in the way of killings if not in self defence.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why? Given the continual progress towards the goal of Home Rule over a period of decades, what makes you decide in hindsight that the process had gone as far as it could have gone in the absence of bloodshed?

Because I don't believe that at the time that Home Rule was proposed that the British Empire had any desire to honor it. It would have been a gesture, without any true power. And while it would have been a basis for future negotiations they would have taken decades to come to any significant fruit, if at all... Its only in the last ten years or so, that Scotland has been given a measure of freedom.

Neither you nor I can say what would have happened had the political process been allowed to run its course, but at least I'm extrapolating the progress that had been made up to that point. You and others seem content to blithely state that there's no way the process could possibly have progressed any further.

And you seem to ignore the British Empires desire to retain its colonies regardless of where they were. How many rebellions across the globe did they put down? Most British colonies gained their freedom only because of the influence of the US following the second world war, and the British inability to cope with the stresses of having such a far flung empire.

I've never seen a valid explanation for this position, except as a retrospective justification for the rising. What was the Free State, but a step towards independence? After all, the Treaty offered not a lot more than was on offer in the Home Rule bill in the first place; hence the civil war. Again, how do you know this? And again, what was the Free State but a step towards a republic that didn't materialise until some 27 years later? Arguably, it was Pearse's rebellion that prevented - or at least postponed - it. He didn't want Home Rule, or a Free State - he wanted a republic, and bloodshed was an acceptable price to pay for it.

You seem to believe that only a piece of paper was needed. The war of Independence gave a pressure to the British Government to make more allowances in the creation of the Free State, than Home Rule would have given. The realisation that Britain had faced a rebellion in a country directly beside itself, and failed to contain it, guaranteed that the Irish could negotiate something more powerful and binding. Especially with the British reeling from the losses endured during WW1.

Home Rule prior to the war didn't have any backing beyond the words of the negotiators, and nothing to push the British Government into committing itself. Nothing you have shown suggests that the British Government was willing to allow Irish people full freedom...

Wacker

shqipshume wrote: »

Ok it would be fair sorry. Break it down to the 18th century first and then to 1916 rising.Would you have accepted the terms or fought.

I can only make a very vague guess about what I'd have done in 1798, as I'm not sufficiently familiar with the history. Yet I'd be willing to bet the farm on my not taking up arms. I believe that nationalism is a dangerous ethos; very little good comes from it, and it is usually more trouble than it is worth. As for 1916, I don't doubt for a second that I'd have cursed Pearse, Plunkett and the rest for what they did. Home Rule was on the way; there was no need for all the bloodshed. However, I would have supported the IRA in the War of Independence. I don't believe that this is contradictory; the Irish people clearly voted for independence in 1918 and if this vote isn't respected, then armed struggle is justified. I would not have taken up arms myself, as I'm not much of a believer in violence and I never get worked up about anything enough to die/kill for it.

Carrying over to why the civil war and how could that have been avoided to.

Well maybe De Velera and the lads could have accepted the will of the people? It's hardly surprising that it happened though; a culture of violence had come in to Irish politics by then.

Thanks i like the way you brought yourself forward

You're very welcome. But just so you know, you didn't really address what I said. Rather than give your own point of view of 1916 etc. you just asked me for mine...

sr. kila

i see what you mean. but im misunderstood. i dont agree with the killing of innocent people. but i do think that trained soldiers in the north are a fair target. i say this with honesty as my friend is in the british army. i would like to see the north returned by some sort of economical means..

Oh, I would add that I think there is a VAST difference between what in Ireland in the 20's and what has happened in the North. Circumstances are far different, and I fully condemn the actions of these still active paramilitary groups. Simply put, I don't believe they can achieve anything worthwhile.

shqipshume

Wacker wrote: »

I can only make a very vague guess about what I'd have done in 1798, as I'm not sufficiently familiar with the history. Yet I'd be willing to bet the farm on my not taking up arms. I believe that nationalism is a dangerous ethos; very little good comes from it, and it is usually more trouble than it is worth. As for 1916, I don't doubt for a second that I'd have cursed Pearse, Plunkett and the rest for what they did. Home Rule was on the way; there was no need for all the bloodshed. However, I would have supported the IRA in the War of Independence. I don't believe that this is contradictory; the Irish people clearly voted for independence in 1918 and if this vote isn't respected, then armed struggle is justified. I would not have taken up arms myself, as I'm not much of a believer in violence and I never get worked up about anything enough to die/kill for it. Well maybe De Velera and the lads could have accepted the will of the people? It's hardly surprising that it happened though; a culture of violence had come in to Irish politics by then. You're very welcome. But just so you know, you didn't really address what I said. Rather than give your own point of view of 1916 etc. you just asked me for mine...

Thanks very open and honest reply.
See i don't believe it was on the way,and then i would believe that they thought it was just another set back and many more years of half freedom.
But again as i said people can not really make that assumption about how they would have reacted back then as they did not live the lives lived nor felt what they felt.
Answer to question would not have been happy with loss of north and it should have been all Ireland united.IMO thats just how i feel about it.

Wacker

shqipshume wrote: »

Thanks very open and honest reply.

You're welcome, again!

See i don't believe it was on the way,and then i would believe that they thought it was just another set back and many more years of half freedom.

Well if it came to pass that the British didn't grant Home Rule with the end of the Great War, then there would have been legitimate grounds for an uprising, in my view. Pearse and the boys jumped the gun though, and that was disgraceful. I do not believe they should be revered as heroes for this reason, and I do not partake in it myself.

Answer to question would not have been happy with loss of north and it should have been all Ireland united.IMO thats just how i feel about it.

Well I think you might as well recognize that in 1914, partition was inevitable. Fighting (by which one really means dying and killing; people get a night in the cells for 'fighting') would noty change that and only results in death and misery.

guinnessdrinker

The question, to fight or not to fight is probably near impossible for any of us to answer while sitting behind a computer screen.

People choose to fight or not for so many different reasons. A couple of examples of people wanting to fight is after witnessing or being linked in some way to an extremely emotionally charged event or series of events.

Two examples that spring to mind are the surge in people joining the IRA after Bloody Sunday, I think Ivan Cooper said something along the lines of the British Army acting as a recruitng agent for the IRA after it's actions that day. The other more recent example is of the recruitment surge into the US military after the 9/11 attacks. People were outraged and wanted to repay those that had caused their country misery.

It's all good and well any of us categorically stating whether we would fight or not on an internet forum but until we have witnessed something that has truely affected us how can we really answer honestly because how can we know for sure?

Liam Byrne

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

The other more recent example is of the recruitment surge into the US military after the 9/11 attacks. People were outraged and wanted to repay those that had caused their country misery.

Understandable, but look where that got them - implicated in committing bigger atrocities and war crimes and killing more people than were killed on 9/11.....

shqipshume

Wacker wrote: »

You're welcome, again!



Well if it came to pass that the British didn't grant Home Rule with the end of the Great War, then there would have been legitimate grounds for an uprising, in my view. Pearse and the boys jumped the gun though, and that was disgraceful. I do not believe they should be revered as heroes for this reason, and I do not partake in it myself.





Well I think you might as well recognize that in 1914, partition was inevitable. Fighting (by which one really means dying and killing; people get a night in the cells for 'fighting') would noty change that and only results in death and misery.

And they are only human with a lot of anger and resentment and great distrust(which was justified) I will not condemn them as terrorists for their actions,I didn't say heroes either.Just human.
Unfortunately that's how it works.
Thanks again nice to hear from someone who can have the conversation logically with me without throwing accusations at me for asking simple questions.