Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fight or not?

Options
12467…12

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    its funny how there seems to be a certain myopia from republicans when talking about the run up to partition, a tendacy to forget that in ulster we had a well trained and well equipped army, and that the vast majorty of unionist had signed the covenante both men and women declearing thier intention to defeat home rule by any means nesserary. the only way to have achived your united ireland would have been to destroy the unionst community to a man


  • Options
    #93
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    You will find many a republican hater who has that type of myopia aswell, blaming all ills of history on blood drunk Irish nationalists. Yet it is an easy way out.....

    Me I'm a realist. Any future resolution to partition if there is any will have to include the unionists. Anything that happened in the past one has to view in a holistic way.

    Anyway maybe we should be discussing the rise of nationalism and the ideas of the nation state as these emerged at the same time and are just as important as the fight or not question.


  • Options
    #94
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    FTA69 wrote: »
    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.
    That's a ridiculous statement. Your use of "they" implies constancy in the British mentality over the last several hundred years, as if they were the same people. You really think that Britain would not wash their hands of Northern Ireland, given the opportunity?


  • Options
    #95
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Because I don't believe that at the time that Home Rule was proposed that the British Empire had any desire to honor it.
    Well that’s just speculation, isn’t it?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.
    Does a clear majority of the population of Scotland demand independence?

    Your argument seems to be essentially that Pearse and co. would have had to wait too long for independence, so killing for it was ok.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And you seem to ignore the British Empires desire to retain its colonies regardless of where they were.
    Remind me how many “colonies” Britain retains control of today?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Nothing you have shown suggests that the British Government was willing to allow Irish people full freedom...
    Nothing you have shown suggests that they were not.


  • Options
    #96
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    FTA69 wrote: »
    The British occupation of this country is not rooted in any semblance of "democratic right".
    The British occupation of this country is a figment if your imagination. The sooner you and others abandon this particular collective hallucination, the sooner everyone can get on with their lives and peacefully resolve their issues with each other.
    shqipshume wrote: »
    Would it have been won by everyone sitting quietly in their houses and saying nothing.
    I wouldn't describe the actions of O'Connell, Parnell and Redmond as "sitting quietly in their houses and saying nothing", would you?
    sr. kila wrote: »
    but i do think that trained soldiers in the north are a fair target.
    Thankfully, only a tiny minority share that abhorrent belief.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    The British occupation of this country is a figment if your imagination.

    If it wasn't occupation, then what was it? What was it in India?


  • Options
    #98
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    jank wrote: »
    If it wasn't occupation, then what was it? What was it in India?

    Again that myopia concerning the unionists people, you can not 'occupy' your own land


  • Options
    #99
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    jank wrote: »
    You will find many a republican hater who has that type of myopia aswell, blaming all ills of history on blood drunk Irish nationalists. Yet it is an easy way out.....

    Me I'm a realist. Any future resolution to partition if there is any will have to include the unionists. Anything that happened in the past one has to view in a holistic way.

    Anyway maybe we should be discussing the rise of nationalism and the ideas of the nation state as these emerged at the same time and are just as important as the fight or not question.

    and as well as a well trained army they had a full provisonel government waiting in the wings to take over the running of ulster should the british governmernt withdrawel, this should give a pretty good indication of the determination of the unionist people to resist home rule/independence. Parition was going to happen, either through the british government or through full scale civil war that would have brought the somme to this island


  • Options
    #100
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    junder wrote: »
    Again that myopia concerning the unionists people, you can not 'occupy' your own land

    OK we get that OK.....:D

    What about the other 26 counties?:)


  • Options
    #101
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    jank wrote: »
    OK we get that OK.....:D

    What about the other 26 counties?:)


    who knows, after all protestants used to make up 8% of the population before the creation og the free state, maybe with they would have revolted as well had the unionists in ulster revolted


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    junder wrote: »
    and as well as a well trained army they had a full provisonel government waiting in the wings to take over the running of ulster should the british governmernt withdrawel, this should give a pretty good indication of the determination of the unionist people to resist home rule/independence. Parition was going to happen, either through the british government or through full scale civil war that would have brought the somme to this island

    Same could be said about Sinn Fein and the IRA. Look im not disagreeing with you that parition was very likely of happening but it was not inveitable. History can be funny sometimes.

    The Home Rulers were dead set against it so the Ulster question was put on the back burner until after the great war. However, what the outcome of the split would have been would certainly have been different to what happened. Maybe it would have been much more bloody, as you say.

    Anyway here is a question for you. Do you see a united ireland anytime in the future under ANY curcumstances. Do you think partition has been good for northern Ireland?

    Im just curious tbh what you think.


  • Options
    #103
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    junder wrote: »
    who knows, after all protestants used to make up 8% of the population before the creation og the free state, maybe with they would have revolted as well had the unionists in ulster revolted

    8% Much too small to make a difference. If it had then why wasnt there a peep out of them for years before 1916. And if they would have revolted why didnt they after 1916, 1918 or 1921? They were irrelivant to this part of the story, but very much part of the land question and the social aspects of life in Ireland.

    But you agree then that it was for use of a better word an "occupation" by the British (26 counties;)).


  • Options
    #104
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    jank wrote: »
    Same could be said about Sinn Fein and the IRA. Look im not disagreeing with you that parition was very likely of happening but it was not inveitable. History can be funny sometimes.

    The Home Rulers were dead set against it so the Ulster question was put on the back burner until after the great war. However, what the outcome of the split would have been would certainly have been different to what happened. Maybe it would have been much more bloody, as you say.

    Anyway here is a question for you. Do you see a united ireland anytime in the future under ANY curcumstances. Do you think partition has been good for northern Ireland?

    Im just curious tbh what you think.

    No i don't see a united ireland in my life time, i see the RoI as a forgein country, i do not hate the RoI or have any perticuler problem with the RoI but it is at the end of the day a forgein country in mine and most unionists eyes, you might as well ask as to unite with france. The only way partition will end is throughy demographics which is a slow process and not about to change any time soon, this 50%+1 idea is a non starter the british and irish governments both know this as this will still leave a very sizeable group of pissed of unionists, as i have mentioned before in order for partition to end peacefully ot atleast in a more manageable way there will need to be a 70%+ vote in favour of it


  • Options
    #105
    FTA69
    Registered Users Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Junder,
    a tendacy to forget that in ulster we had a well trained and well equipped army, and that the vast majorty of unionist had signed the covenante both men and women declearing thier intention to defeat home rule by any means nesserary.

    In other words Unionists were yet again giving the two fingers to the Irish nation and arming themselves so they could maintain their position of privilege in this country. Of course half of the eejits you're alluding to went on to be killed in the Somme in a war between Empires over trade routes.

    djpbarry,
    That's a ridiculous statement. Your use of "they" implies constancy in the British mentality over the last several hundred years, as if they were the same people. You really think that Britain would not wash their hands of Northern Ireland, given the opportunity

    The Brits have had a consistant imperialist mentality over the past several hundred years. The only thing ridiculous is your assertion that the Brits are dying to leave this country. If they were so mad to leave they would have simply left, the same way they did in Cyprus and Aden. Do you really think that they fought a 25 year war here, armed death squads, practiced torture, practiced espionage north and south, and pumped countless of billion of pounds into a place that they're dying to leave?

    That's a much more ridiculous position than mine to be honest.


  • Options
    #106
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    jank wrote: »
    8% Much too small to make a difference. If it had then why wasnt there a peep out of them for years before 1916. And if they would have revolted why didnt they after 1916, 1918 or 1921? They were irrelivant to this part of the story, but very much part of the land question and the social aspects of life in Ireland.

    But you agree then that it was for use of a better word an "occupation" by the British (26 counties;)).

    could be something to do with the fact that they dropped form 8% to 2% of the population in the years immedality after partition, but lets not forget carson was a irish unionist from dublin, however what i said was if the unionists in ulster revolted then it would have quite possiable for the unionists of the south to join in the revolt. FYI no i do not agree with the term occupation


  • Options
    #107
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Fair enough. But you didnt answer my question do you think its a good thing and why? Also do you see england or scotland as a foregin country. Would you call yourself Irish?

    In the GFA there is terms for a vote on a united ireland to become a reality. Of course you need a mandate to govern this to the full.


  • Options
    #108
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    FYI no i do not agree with the term occupation

    What would you call it then?


  • Options
    #109
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    jank wrote: »
    Fair enough. But you didnt answer my question do you think its a good thing and why? Also do you see england or scotland as a foregin country. Would you call yourself Irish?

    In the GFA there is terms for a vote on a united ireland to become a reality. Of course you need a mandate to govern this to the full.

    Of course i think it was a good thing after all it ment we were not forced into a country that made 6% of its population disappear ;)


  • Options
    #110
    Ironbars
    Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭Ironbars


    Apologising for the murder of these men using nationalistic rhetoric and brainless ideology is for cowards.

    This is what most civilized people think.........

    If you believe in your heart that the Murder of those 3 men in the past week was nesessary then you are a sick and worthless human and have no place in our society.


  • Options
    #111
    FTA69
    Registered Users Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    but lets not forget carson was a irish unionist from dublin

    Indeed. Which is why the notion of Unionists in the north being some sort of national entity entitled to determine the political destiny of this country is completely flawed. The idea that Unionists aren't Irish is fallacious considering they had no bother referring to themselves as such for centuries and were actually led by a Dubliner who played hurling.
    Of course i think it was a good thing after all it ment we were not forced into a country that made 6% of its population disappear

    They're still under the floorboards. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    junder wrote: »
    Of course i think it was a good thing after all it ment we were not forced into a country that made 6% of its population disappear ;)

    See its talk like that is the reason why NI is the @rsehole of western europe.

    Disappear you say? Must tell the UN so they can look for mass graves down in the south. :rolleyes:

    I wonder how many catholics "disappeared" from Ulster when partition came to be.;)

    Maybe they moved because they didnt want to live in a state where they are the minority, it happens. Check out a the history of India after they got freedom. You heard of Pakistan right.
    Or closer to home, eastern and central europe after the break up of the Austrian and Russian empires. Check out the Balkans. Now compare what happened there over the course of the last 100 years to what happened in Ireland and you tell me which country came out the better.

    Your figures are wrong by the way, as in the 2006 census about 4.5% of the population in Ireland were of a protestant denomination of some sort.

    And if you cant suggest anything else other then religous freedom being a good thing for partition then no wonder the UK or Ireland dont want NI anymore. Check out the latest polls on the matter. Most people dont give a ****, especially in the UK.


  • Options
    #113
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Well that’s just speculation, isn’t it?

    All of this is speculation. Your opinion is speculation. :rolleyes:
    Does a clear majority of the population of Scotland demand independence?

    Dunno.
    Your argument seems to be essentially that Pearse and co. would have had to wait too long for independence, so killing for it was ok.

    Nope, my argument being that the British Empire had shown very little desire to let any of its colonies go, especially ireland which was of such strategic interest to them. Especially prior to WW1, when Home Rule was on the books.

    You continue to look back on history, without considering the image of the British Empire at the beginning of the 20th century. They were still the greatest Empire in the world, with power reaching across the world. Nothing suggested that the Empire was likely to lose any power or influence in the decades to come. So why would the British give freedom to a people when there was nothing in it for them?
    Remind me how many “colonies” Britain retains control of today?

    You missed my point completely. I'd suggest you reread what I said.
    Nothing you have shown suggests that they were not.

    I thought I wouldn't need to considering the history of British colonialism. All I need to do is look at history and the reasons why Britain let loose its colonies following WW2. And also consider that it took two world wars, which effectively crippled their economy to force them to such a state of allowing the remaining colonies the freedom of choice.


  • Options
    #114
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    touched a nerve there did'nt i. As it happens i was just making a wee joke about the 6% of the population but i see it dislodged the venner of civility:P


  • Options
    #115
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    FTA69 wrote: »
    Indeed. Which is why the notion of Unionists in the north being some sort of national entity entitled to determine the political destiny of this country is completely flawed. The idea that Unionists aren't Irish is fallacious considering they had no bother referring to themselves as such for centuries and were actually led by a Dubliner who played hurling.



    They're still under the floorboards. :rolleyes:
    In 1921 the state of Northern Ireland was created, Northern Ireland is the only reality i have ever known, i was not alive pre-partition so as far as i am concerned the northern irish are a national entity. As for how we unionist define ourselves well thats up to us unionist now is'nt it


  • Options
    #116
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    FTA69 wrote: »
    The Brits have had a consistant imperialist mentality over the past several hundred years.
    Can I just clarify; you’re saying that Britain has the same attitude toward Ireland now as it had 300 years ago?
    FTA69 wrote: »
    The only thing ridiculous is your assertion that the Brits are dying to leave this country. If they were so mad to leave they would have simply left, the same way they did in Cyprus and Aden.
    Did the majority of the populations in Cyprus and Aden wish to remain under British rule?
    FTA69 wrote: »
    Do you really think that they fought a 25 year war here, armed death squads, practiced torture, practiced espionage north and south, and pumped countless of billion of pounds into a place that they're dying to leave?
    Let me ask the same question in a different way; do you think that the British government is prepared to continue to pump billions of pounds into Northern Ireland?


  • Options
    #117
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Deleted User wrote: »
    All of this is speculation. Your opinion is speculation.
    But the difference is you are using speculation as justification for bloodshed.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Dunno.
    So your statement about Scottish “freedom” is pretty meaningless, isn’t it?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Nope, my argument being that the British Empire had shown very little desire to let any of its colonies go, especially ireland which was of such strategic interest to them.
    This fact was clearly illustrated by the House of Commons’ passing of the Third Home Rule bill three times. Oh, wait now…
    Deleted User wrote: »
    You continue to look back on history, without considering the image of the British Empire at the beginning of the 20th century.
    No, I continue to look back at this particular period in history and wonder why, when progress was being made (albeit slow progress) in attaining Home Rule, Pearse et al. felt it necessary to shed blood.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I thought I wouldn't need to considering the history of British colonialism. All I need to do is look at history and the reasons why Britain let loose its colonies following WW2. And also consider that it took two world wars, which effectively crippled their economy to force them to such a state of allowing the remaining colonies the freedom of choice.
    Britain began to “let loose” it’s colonies long before the outbreak of WWI. Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa were all granted self-governance of sorts before 1914.


  • Options
    #118
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    jank wrote: »
    If it wasn't occupation, then what was it?
    Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom.
    What was it in India?
    India was never part of the United Kingdom.

    It's interesting that you should bring India into it. How many people were killed on Ghandi's orders?


  • Options
    #119
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's interesting that you should bring India into it. How many people were killed on Ghandi's orders?
    Ah, but India was far, far away. Apparently, the influence of the (supposedly) all-powerful British Empire was inversely proportional to one's distance from Britain.


  • Options
    #120
    Erin Go Brath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,708 ✭✭✭Erin Go Brath


    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.

    I'm afraid thats just revisionism of the highest order! Any freedoms we have won from British rule have been won through armed rising against them. The 1916 rising and subsequent execution of our leaders acted as a catalyst for the war of independence. The IRAs relative successes in the War of Independence, in particular the ambush at Kilmichael where an entire squadron of crown forces were wiped out is why the Brits called a truce and why we got the free state. Ireland in other words was far too troublesome and unwieldy for Britain to control any more. They had to offer us at least partial freedoms or else many more of Britains finest would be strewn around the mountains of Tipperary and West Cork. They would not have granted us independence of their own volition of that there is no doubt!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Erin Go Brath wrote: »
    Any freedoms we have won from British rule have been won through armed rising against them.
    So O'Connell, Parnell, Davitt, Redmond and so on were just pissing into the wind, yes?
    They would not have granted us independence of their own volition of that there is no doubt!
    Of course there's a doubt. If there was no doubt, we wouldn't be having a discussion.


Advertisement