Easter Rising vs modern day terrorism

jank

junder wrote: »

think you will find its the majorty of the 800,000 or so unionists that will be disgruntled and while the british army would not be invloved you are forgetting that quite a few of us are serving or ex service men in the British army and with combat experince, you won't find us the push over that you would like.

Are you saying that if a majority of N.I voted to be part of a Untied Ireland, then you and others would fight to remain in the UK?

Allah Hu Akbar

Nodin wrote: »

With every nut hopping out the woodwork...it'd be worse than a yearly abortion referendum for jaysus sake...

But sure why not? I honestly think it would be a good way to sort out the trouble. It's been 13 years of the GFA but yet still no vote? It's a strange one. You can say all you want that unionists may get more votes but then again a lot of people don't vote at all where they might / might not vote for a united Ireland.

Are you saying that if a mojority of N.I voted to be part of a United Kingdom, then you and others would fight to remain in the UK?

Think you meant voted for a united Ireland? Of course they would fight sure the DUP even said if 95% of people wanted a united Ireland they would fight against it, like junder said they have plenty of experience just look at them



And you dare to call me a terrorist
while you look down your gun.

junder

jank wrote: »

Are you saying that if a mojority of N.I voted to be part of a United Kingdom, then you and others would fight to remain in the UK?

I am saying that if we are forced into a country in which we feel our rights will not be respected or that our culture will not be respected and that we will be treated as 2nd class citzens then yes we resist, you are the ones that want a united ireland not us, so its up to you to sell it.

sceptre

Erin Go Brath and junder, next time you have one of those "we'll fight and we'll be right" conversations, have it on your own time in your own forum away from here. If you insist on having it here I'll happily put you outside the forum and lock the door.

Allah Hu Akbar

junder wrote: »

I am saying that if we are forced into a country in which we feel our rights will not be respected or that our culture will not be respected and that we will be treated as 2nd class citzens then yes we resist, you are the ones that want a united ireland not us, so its up to you to sell it.

So in other words if ye were treated like catholics were (2nd class citizens) ye would fight.

Just because the British state treated Irish doesn't mean that would happen to ye.

brianthebard

To try and get things back on topic; viewed in retrospect of Wilson's 14 point plan, does the Rising and subsequent War of Independence have any greater legitimacy?

O'Coonassa

junder wrote: »

I am saying that if we are forced into a country in which we feel our rights will not be respected or that our culture will not be respected and that we will be treated as 2nd class citzens then yes we resist, you are the ones that want a united ireland not us, so its up to you to sell it.

Save a few old songs with different words to the same tune I don't see how your culture could possibly be any different to mine or anybody elses here. You're imagining that I think.

Scofflaw

Just a friendly reminder - don't let the thread descend into "my dad could whip your dad".

moderately,
Scofflaw

K-9

Allah Hu Akbar wrote: »

So in other words if ye were treated like catholics were (2nd class citizens) ye would fight.

Just because the British state treated Irish doesn't mean that would happen to ye.

Well comments from "Republicans" like, "if you don't like an United Ireland, leave" aren't a great way of convincing him otherwise!

jank

junder wrote: »

I am saying that if we are forced into a country in which we feel our rights will not be respected or that our culture will not be respected and that we will be treated as 2nd class citzens then yes we resist, you are the ones that want a united ireland not us, so its up to you to sell it.

And you find no irony in your post given the history of N.I....jeeez.:eek: You are not exactly covering yourself in glory here Junder!

junder

jank wrote: »

And you find no irony in your post given the history of N.I....jeeez.:eek: You are not exactly covering yourself in glory here Junder!

I suppose i could lie to you if you wanted, if it would make you feel better. As i said you are the ones that want a united ireland so its you to you to sell it, sell it well enough and it won't be a problem.

Exile 1798

Getting back to the topic at hand, I would ask the nominal Nationalists who’ve posted their criticisms of the Easter Rising leaders if they have ever wondered why it is that there are so many people like them who pick apart and criticize the actions taken by previous generations? I mean why is it that Ireland produces people such as Ruth Dudley Edwards and Conor Cruise O’Brien? I'd say we are more introspective and considered about the questions of history then we are given credit for, and in a way you guys are proof of that.

By comparison, can any one of you off the top of your head name one prominent Unionist who has questioned Carson? Or has pondered the subject of whether it was right to force partition against the will of the majority? Or with hindsight has recognized that when after 400 years they couldn’t even secure a single Irish Province for themselves that then might have been the time to come to terms with Irish nationhood? I can't think of any.

Don't you think that says something about Nationalism and Unionism in Ireland?

Can'tseeme

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Getting back to the topic at hand, I would ask the nominal Nationalists who’ve posted their criticisms of the Easter Rising leaders if they have ever wondered why it is that there are so many people like them who pick apart and criticize the actions taken by previous generations? I mean why is it that Ireland produces people such as Ruth Dudley Edwards and Conor Cruise O’Brien? I'd say we are more introspective and considered about the questions of history then we are given credit for, and in a way you guys are proof of that.

By comparison, can any one of you off the top of your head name one prominent Unionist who has questioned Carson? Or has pondered the subject of whether it was right to force partition against the will of the majority? Or with hindsight has recognized that when after 400 years they couldn’t even secure a single Irish Province for themselves that then might have been the time to come to terms with Irish nationhood? I can't think of any.

Don't you think that says something about Nationalism and Unionism in Ireland?

That's an excellent point exile. Or even questioned how unionists handled the six counties since partition.

LordSutch

No doubt the rebuff to the Post by Exile 1798 will be posted very shortly !!! Why?

Because there are at least two tribes on this island, one Irish Nationalist & one British Unionist + people in the middle like me

There is no feeling Irish Nationhood, or feeling of Irish Nationalism in large swathes of this island, never has been, never will be > and likewise, there will always be a very strong sence of 'Irish Nationhood' & 'Irish Nationalism' by many many people on this island, always has been, always will be > problems only arise when said Nationalism wishes to impose its vision & its culture over those who inhabit & embrace Irishness, but not with such a 'Green & Nationalist' perspective.

Exile 1798

With respect Camelot that’s not a response to my post or my question. Which is off course fine, but just don't present it as such.

Can'tseeme, indeed. Thought I thought it better to restrict the question to the original sin of Northern Ireland.

Erin Go Brath

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Getting back to the topic at hand, I would ask the nominal Nationalists who’ve posted their criticisms of the Easter Rising leaders if they have ever wondered why it is that there are so many people like them who pick apart and criticize the actions taken by previous generations? I mean why is it that Ireland produces people such as Ruth Dudley Edwards and Conor Cruise O’Brien? I'd say we are more introspective and considered about the questions of history then we are given credit for, and in a way you guys are proof of that.

By comparison, can any one of you off the top of your head name one prominent Unionist who has questioned Carson? Or has pondered the subject of whether it was right to force partition against the will of the majority? Or with hindsight has recognized that when after 400 years they couldn’t even secure a single Irish Province for themselves that then might have been the time to come to terms with Irish nationhood? I can't think of any.

Don't you think that says something about Nationalism and Unionism in Ireland?

Many nationalists have an inferiority complex, call it post/present colonial complex, while unionists feel superior. The craven way in which the republican movement has accepted the emasculation of articles of 2 and 3 of the constituiton which gives up Irelands claim to the 6 counties is proof positive of this. The unionists will (in fairness to them) fight tooth and nail to hold on their statelet for as long as they can.

I do think nationalists are more introspective and its Sinn Féin who have gone to great lengths to make peace with the Unionists, while the DUP/UUP etc have not and would not go as far to extend a cross community hand of friendship. Unionism is very much a supremacist ideology, while nationalism is all about equality and fair play.

jimmmy

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Many nationalists have an inferiority complex .

And many do not. Many have a track record which is very much not "all about equality and fair play". If some nationalists bomb, shoot, terrorise, burn out and deny basic human rights then what sort of a complex have they ? Those who enforced Irish language and culture....Irish is still compulsory and drilled in at school every day....even though virtually nobody speaks it, nobody reads Irish language newspapers etc. It is not that long since you could not get a job in the public service or get in to Universities without it. What complex had those who would insist on enforcing the ne temere decree ? And you claim its others who have " very much a supremacist ideology" ? What irony. And the boycott at Fethard on sea ? An inferiority complex ? lol Pull another one.

Erin Go Brath

jimmmy wrote: »

And many do not. Many have a track record which is very much not "all about equality and fair play". If some nationalists bomb, shoot, terrorise, burn out and deny basic human rights then what sort of a complex have they ? Those who enforced Irish language and culture....Irish is still compulsory and drilled in at school every day....even though virtually nobody speaks it, nobody reads Irish language newspapers etc. It is not that long since you could not get a job in the public service or get in to Universities without it. What complex have those who would insist on enforcing the ne temere decree. Or the boycott at Fethard on sea ? An inferiority complex ? lol Pull another one.

You see thats exactly my point. The IRA were the worst in the world for their attacks. However Nelson Mandela and his ANC who found themselves in a much similar position are well respected heroes for doing much the same. I blame the very pro-british media in this country. Many people read the sindo, see cruises, harris, edwards articles etc which are mostly hugely critical of the irish independence movement past and present, and fully supportive of British rule.

I don't see of what relevance the ne temere decree is? The Catholic church is the catholic church, nothing to do with the republican movement there.

I firmly believe many Irish have a post colonial inferiority complex. See the below disscussion on the topic and make up your own mind.
http://www.politics.ie/culture-community/55008-do-we-still-have-post-colonial-inferiority-complex.html

futurehope

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Save a few old songs with different words to the same tune I don't see how your culture could possibly be any different to mine or anybody elses here. You're imagining that I think.

Well you could turn that round of course (and I will!). Ulster Protestants and Ulster Catholics have a great deal in common (how could they otherwise, living on top of each other?). In fact you could say they have more in common with each other than with either The Irish, or The English.

futurehope

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Getting back to the topic at hand, I would ask the nominal Nationalists who’ve posted their criticisms of the Easter Rising leaders if they have ever wondered why it is that there are so many people like them who pick apart and criticize the actions taken by previous generations? I mean why is it that Ireland produces people such as Ruth Dudley Edwards and Conor Cruise O’Brien? I'd say we are more introspective and considered about the questions of history then we are given credit for, and in a way you guys are proof of that.

By comparison, can any one of you off the top of your head name one prominent Unionist who has questioned Carson? Or has pondered the subject of whether it was right to force partition against the will of the majority? Or with hindsight has recognized that when after 400 years they couldn’t even secure a single Irish Province for themselves that then might have been the time to come to terms with Irish nationhood? I can't think of any.

Don't you think that says something about Nationalism and Unionism in Ireland?

Your comparison is bogus. Once Irish independence was secured and the 11% Protestant population gradually whittled down to 2%, The Republic was under no real threat. Unfortunately, this did not happen in Northern Ireland, where The Catholic population started at a much higher percentage and continued to grow. This meant that said Catholic population remained a threat to the very existence of Northern Ireland and still does to a degree. Introspection and historical revisionism is a luxury only a secure state or people can afford. You'll find plenty of both in England, as well The Republic.

QED

Exile 1798

futurehope wrote: »

Well you could turn that round of course (and I will!). Ulster Protestants and Ulster Catholics have a great deal in common (how could they otherwise, living on top of each other?). In fact you could say they have more in common with each other than with either The Irish, or The English.

They are Irish, as you well know.

And off course people in Tyrone have more in common with each other then they do with someone from Kerry or Sussex.

Thanks for that brilliant bit of insight.:rolleyes:

futurehope

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

You see thats exactly my point. The IRA were the worst in the world for their attacks. However Nelson Mandela and his ANC who found themselves in a much similar position are well respected heroes for doing much the same.

I don't see of what relevance the ne temere decree is? The Catholic church is the catholic church, nothing to do with the republican movement there.

In what way were The ANC in a similar position to The IRA? I know you can't be comparing the conditions of blacks in Apartheid South Africa with that of Catholics in Northern Ireland (or else the entire forum would fall apart with laughter).

As for The Catholic Church's actions in the Republic, they may or may not have had anything to do with what you term 'the republican movement', but they had everything to do with cultural and ethnic Irish Nationalism.

Grudaire

jimmmy wrote: »

And many do not. Many have a track record which is very much not "all about equality and fair play". If some nationalists bomb, shoot, terrorise, burn out and deny basic human rights then what sort of a complex have they ? Those who enforced Irish language and culture....Irish is still compulsory and drilled in at school every day....even though virtually nobody speaks it, nobody reads Irish language newspapers etc. It is not that long since you could not get a job in the public service or get in to Universities without it. What complex had those who would insist on enforcing the ne temere decree ? And you claim its others who have " very much a supremacist ideology" ? What irony. And the boycott at Fethard on sea ? An inferiority complex ? lol Pull another one.

How dare you equate the Irish Language with the Republican movement. That is a complete insult to me, and shows that you are completely ignorant of the facts. It's <insert insult> like you that cause sympathy to causes - sympathy that leads to terrorism.

I am fully willing to discuss this - in a separate thread. Or I invite you to say that outside :mad:

partyguinness

Exile 1798 wrote: »

With respect Camelot that’s not a response to by post or my question. Which is off course fine, but just don't present it as such.

Can'tseeme, indeed. Thought I thought it better to restrict the question to the original sin of Northern Ireland.

Thats no surprise...camelot often tries to twist original questions around and to turn them into debates about the so called "Great War". Its all very predictable.

We think he is Kevin Myers in disguise;)

Exile 1798

futurehope wrote: »

Your comparison is bogus. Once Irish independence was secured and the 11% Protestant population gradually whittled down to 2%, The Republic was under no real threat. Unfortunately, this did not happen in Northern Ireland, where The Catholic population started at a much higher percentage and continued to grow. This meant that said Catholic population remained a threat to the very existence of Northern Ireland and still does to a degree. Introspection and historical revisionism is a luxury only a secure state or people can afford. You'll find plenty of both in England, as well The Republic.

QED

It's not a bogus comparison, but a direct one.

And you're right, Unionist's can't afford to question their historical actions because to do so would destroy the ground under their feet.

Partition was forced onto Ireland by threat of force, blackmail of the worst kind. NI is an anti-democratic state. This is a fact that is so troubling that even a majority of Nationalists feel the need to ignore it.

partyguinness

futurehope wrote: »

Your comparison is bogus. Once Irish independence was secured and the 11% Protestant population gradually whittled down to 2%, The Republic was under no real threat. Unfortunately, this did not happen in Northern Ireland, where The Catholic population started at a much higher percentage and continued to grow. This meant that said Catholic population remained a threat to the very existence of Northern Ireland and still does to a degree. Introspection and historical revisionism is a luxury only a secure state or people can afford. You'll find plenty of both in England, as well The Republic.

QED

I am not disagreeing with you but it is stranage how an entire Catholic population be a threat to Northern Ireland? Why is that? Because they might effect change? Is that democracy...

The concerns the Unionists had was that they are afraid that in a catholic majority that the Catholics would embark on a campaign of revenge against the Unionists..bascially they would do to them what the Unionists did for generations..

futurehope

Exile 1798 wrote: »

It's not a bogus comparison, but a direct one.

And you're right, Unionist's can't afford to question their historical actions because to do so would destroy the ground under their feet.

Partition was forced onto Ireland by threat of force, blackmail of the worst kind. NI is an anti-democratic state. This is a fact that is so troubling that even a majority of Nationalists feel the need to ignore it.

Partition was put in place so that both Irish Catholics and Ulster Protestants could exercise self determination. The majority in 26 counties wanted independence and got it. The majority in 6 counties wanted to stay part of The UK and also got it. There were disappointed minorities on both sides of the border - such is life. The Protestants on the southern side of the border generally tried to fit in, but were gradually whittled down from 11% of the population to 2%. The Catholics on The Northern side of the border thought that Ulster was a 'house of cards' and did not try and make it work. They were to be badly disappointed. Interestingly far from declining as a minority in such a 'terrible' state, they actually grew as a group.

futurehope

partyguinness wrote: »

I am disagreeing with you but it is stranage how an entire Catholic population be a threat to Northern Ireland? Why is that? Because they might effect change? Is that democracy...

The concerns the Unionists had was that they are afraid that in a catholic majority that the Catholics would embark on a campaign of revenge against the Unionists..bascially they would do to them what the Unionists did for generations..

The Catholic population was seen as a fifth column that would undermine the new state if they could. The behaviour of a proportion of Catholics down the years has confirmed these suspicions.

It's important to release that Unionists are not just against a United Ireland, but are actively pro-UK. Two different things, that Nationalists have consistently failed to recognise. Otherwise Ulster would have become independent in 1922, not stayed part of The Union. You see, Nationalists might aspire to assure Unionists of their place in a United Ireland, but they can't replace Unionist's desire to be British living on British soil.

O'Coonassa

futurehope wrote: »

Well you could turn that round of course (and I will!). Ulster Protestants and Ulster Catholics have a great deal in common (how could they otherwise, living on top of each other?). In fact you could say they have more in common with each other than with either The Irish, or The English.

IMO everybody who's reared in Ireland is Irish and just 200 years ago everybody said they were, but I'll grant you that a Leinsterman is a fairly different fish to an Ulsterman and ever was it so

The people on these islands came here at the end of the last ice age, whatever divisions they've put up and imagined between themselves in the meantime don't alter the fact that it's really just one culture in the four nations.

partyguinness

futurehope wrote: »

The Catholic population was seen as a fifth column that would undermine the new state if they could. The behaviour of a proportion of Catholics down the years has confirmed these suspicions.

It's important to release that Unionists are not just against a United Ireland, but are actively pro-UK. Two different things, that Nationalists have consistently failed to recognise. Otherwise Ulster would have become independent in 1922, not stayed part of The Union. You see, Nationalists might aspire to assure Unionists of their place in a United Ireland, but they can't replace Unionist's desire to be British living on British soil.

I meant to write "I am not disagreeing with you..."

To be fair I dont think Nationalists have failed to recognise it as such, its is more that their respective positions are incompatible hence a middle ground had to be sought.