Easter lily

Rebelheart

I don't for a minute doubt that most of you are what would be termed 'sound on the national question' but for the love of sweet Jesus Mary and Joseph what the f*ck are you all on?

Why for the love of the aforementioned do you all feel the need to defend the men of 1916 and attempt to claim they are not linked to the lads of 81, for instance?

Fight, you f*uckers! Stop this defensive sh!t and start talking about the links between the British who claim a right to rule Ireland in 2009 and the British who burnt Irish women and children alive in the scorched earth policies of Sir Humphrey Gilbert in Munster in the 1560s as the British attempted to conquer Ireland by attacking every village community in their way and force the men into submission. And then when the men surrendered the English chopped their heads off, stuck them on poles and lined the poles for miles into the camps of the English commanders as a means to terrorise the rest of the native Irish community. Where the f*ck has perspective gone in the past 30 years? I'm only 35 but all my family were brought up with an absolutely solid grounding on what, precisely, British rule is based upon in our country. The British are not only mere traders - the most contemptible nouveau riche upstarts ('Clann Tomás Mac Lubais', mar a deireann siad in Éirinn) of the seventeenth century - but tramps, scumbags, mass murderers, and no people on the face of this planet are less in a position to lecture Irish people on "inhumanity" and "terrorism" than the British (i.e. the English and the Welsh and Scots whom they conquered).


Their entire rule in our country is based upon utter barbarism against us. To think that a single Irishman, woman or child should feel "guilted" into apologising to these cold-hearted racist bastards - people who stuck signs up saying 'No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish' when both my parents ended up in Britain in the 1960s - while their state continues to claim the inheritance of Humphrey Gilbert, Oliver Cromwell, and the Penal Laws in this country, is breathtaking. Do you see the British apologising?

And some of my compatriots are duped into spending time denying a connection between 1916 and 1981 without even thinking of the connection between the British ethnic cleansing of our people in the 16th and 17th centuries and British dominance here in 2009. Was it just love of the English third person single or their use of the dative case that got us speaking in English? Maybe it was something else...like the British having us, collectively, by the bollocks...for centuries? Get offensive, stop being pathetically defensive Paddies against the typical British xenophobic onslaught against our people.

Muscail do mhisneach, a Bhanbha.

jimmmy

Cliste wrote: »

The thread is about the Easter lily, nothing you mentioned abouve has anything to do with that

The Easter lily is , rightly or wrongly, associated in the minds of many with republican violence. Called it the "armed struggle" if you insist...whats armed struggle to one is often violence to law abiding citizens. The posts have everything to do with that.

Sand

You have acted in a very insulting manner and do less to convince people that your version is the truth, and more to drive people to the old trenches - just as they falsely coined it the Sinn Féin rising you are giving credence to the PIRA by associating them with it.

I'm not too bothered if Provos agree with me or not to be honest. If they cant see that people throwing nail bombs into resteraunts packed with families arent heros then my view is

Recheck the bolded underlined part - You talked about people I should be concerned with persuading. Not yourself. I talked about Provos and "they". Not you.

Like I said, I described my usage of the term and you identified with it. Thats your own problem.

The thread is about the Easter lily, nothing you mentioned abouve has anything to do with that

I made my points on the Easter Lily already - unfortunately when you, and others, pile in trying to query minor points and terms, its quite possible I might respond and the thread moves to deal with those minor points and terms. If you dont want that, then dont query them.

Why for the love of the aforementioned do you all feel the need to defend the men of 1916 and attempt to claim they are not linked to the lads of 81, for instance?

Right on Rebelheart, right on.

Fight, you f*uckers! Stop this defensive sh!t and start talking about the links between the British who claim a right to rule Ireland in 2009 and the British who burnt Irish women and children alive in the scorched earth policies of Sir Humphrey Gilbert in Munster in the 1560s as the British attempted to conquer Ireland by attacking every village community in their way and force the men into submission. And then when the men surrendered the English chopped their heads off, stuck them on poles and lined the poles for miles into the camps of the English commanders as a means to terrorise the rest of the native Irish community. Where the f*ck has perspective gone in the past 30 years? I'm only 35 but all my family were brought up with an absolutely solid grounding on what, precisely, British rule is based upon in our country. The British are not only mere traders - the most contemptible nouveau riche upstarts ('Clann Tomás Mac Lubais', mar a deireann siad in Éirinn) of the seventeenth century - but tramps, scumbags, mass murderers, and no people on the face of this planet are less in a position to lecture Irish people on "inhumanity" and "terrorism" than the British (i.e. the English and the Welsh and Scots whom they conquered).

Heh, they should invite you to a Holocaust conference so you can lecture them about suffering.

dlofnep

jimmmy wrote: »

The Easter lily is , rightly or wrongly, associated in the minds of many with republican violence. Called it the "armed struggle" if you insist...whats armed struggle to one is often violence to law abiding citizens. The posts have everything to do with that.

It is associated with it, "for you".. Not for me. For me, it's associated with the brave men and women who fought for Irish freedom in 1916. No more, no less.

Grudaire

jimmmy wrote: »

The Easter lily is , rightly or wrongly, associated in the minds of many with republican violence. Called it the "armed struggle" if you insist...whats armed struggle to one is often violence to law abiding citizens. The posts have everything to do with that.

Wrongly. I just hope you don't associate everything Irish with Republican violence. (Guinness, poiteen, the GAA, the Irish Language etc etc)

Sand wrote: »

Recheck the bolded underlined part - You talked about people I should be concerned with persuading. Not yourself. I talked about Provos and "they". Not you.

Like I said, I described my usage of the term and you identified with it. Thats your own problem.

Why would you answer a question with a complete nothing answer like that? I mean really:

Q - Do you like Apple pie?
A - Well the fact is that Jaffa Cakes are bad - real bad. Too much Orange in them:rolleyes:

Sand wrote: »

I made my points on the Easter Lily already - unfortunately when you, and others, pile in trying to query minor points and terms, its quite possible I might respond and the thread moves to deal with those minor points and terms. If you dont want that, then dont query them.

Minor points and terms which you introduced - you are the one alleging that the 1916 rising is the same as the Provisional movement

Sand

Why would you answer a question with a complete nothing answer like that? I mean really:

Q - Do you like Apple pie?
A - Well the fact is that Jaffa Cakes are bad - real bad. Too much Orange in them

If I was to answer this, youd probably complain it was nothing to do with 1916. Give it up.

Minor points and terms which you introduced - you are the one alleging that the 1916 rising is the same as the Provisional movement

The logic and rationale is the same. You cant disagree with the Provos and agree with the 1916 rising without some crazed double think. But actually, maybe Im wrong. Maybe there was huge differences....

Was Northern Ireland much more just and free than 1916 Dublin?

Was Northern Irelands political system and security forces much more open and responsive to nationalists than 1916 Dublin?

Were the Provos somehow not looking to win a better, more just Ireland? Were they less moral?

Were the Provos uninterested in removing the yoke of British control in Ireland, of establishing a 32 county republic?

What glaring differences between 1916 and the Provos exist on their idealogical bedrock?

Rebelheart

Sand:

Alternatively, you could just accept the Britain as you have known it is no more and within 5 years (at most) you'll be using euro, have fully adopted the metric system and be running away from your recent little Englander europhobic experiment and instead trying to prove your European credentials.

When you finally realise that, your dreams of a new "United Kingdom" covering Ireland will come to an end. Britain: a pebble in the sand, when once they ruled the whole beach.

I feel your pain.

jimmmy

Cliste wrote: »

you are the one alleging that the 1916 rising is the same as the Provisional movement

Rebelheart wrote " some of my compatriots are duped into spending time denying a connection between 1916 and 1981 "....so you cannot deny in the minds of at least some there is a link.

Sand

Sand:

Alternatively, you could just accept the Britain as you have known it is no more and within 5 years (at most) you'll be using euro, have fully adopted the metric system and be running away from your recent little Englander europhobic experiment trying to prove your European credentials.

When you finally realise that, you dreams of a new "United Kingdom" covering Ireland will come to an end. Britain: a pebble in the sand, when once they ruled the whole beach.

I feel your pain.

Oh man, oh man. This is how deep the "West Brit" psychosis goes. They literally cant conceive of someone from Ireland disagreeing with them, so anyone who does so *has* to be from outside Ireland. HAS TO BE! :rolleyes:

Rebelheart

'Oh man, oh man. This is how deep the "West Brit" psychosis goes.'

Perhaps you, or your councillor, could tell us?

'They literally cant conceive of someone disagreeing with them.'

I'm sure they can, actually, but when a heap of unadulterated slurry is being dumped in your yard in the summer you are going to resist it. Ireland's winter is over.

Rebelheart

jimmmy wrote: »

Rebelheart wrote " some of my compatriots are duped into spending time denying a connection between 1916 and 1981 "....so you cannot deny in the minds of at least some there is a link.

Yes, Einstein, and there's also a link between the English state in 1560, the British state in 1707, and the Hunger Strikes in 1981. So, I know you will be more than willing to accept your share of the blame for events in 1981.

Oh, let's see: the Irish just arose out of nowhere and terrorised the nice, lovely civilised British in 1981...just as they did in 1641...1608...1603...1601...1598...1580....


Ah the British, the eternal peacekeepers in Ireland. Back to your tabloids and Sunday Independent, old boy.

jimmmy

Rebelheart, how did your mind get to be the way it is ? Who taught you all this stuff ?

Grudaire

jimmmy wrote: »

Rebelheart wrote " some of my compatriots are duped into spending time denying a connection between 1916 and 1981 "....so you cannot deny in the minds of at least some there is a link.

He writes that on Page 9 - Don't get me wrong - I often feel like the SDLP arguing with all Unionists, and also with the extreme Republicans! S

Secondly the overall concept is the same:

-Violence a means to an end
-A free Irish republic
-An end to British rule in Ireland

However I my opinion on the differences is this:

- It is unreasonable to expect the Unionists to move (Now that they're here, and since we can't blame those born here, since they didn't do anything wrong)
- It is also unfair to disregard their needs (yes I know how bad they were to us - but we need to keep the moral upper ground - right?)
- The means which the PIRA etc went about business was far FAR too often unjustifiable (I'm sure that you can populate a list yourself)

Rebelheart

jimmmy wrote: »

Rebelheart, how did your mind get to be the way it is ? Who taught you all this stuff ?

More to the point, how did your mind get to the way it is?

I suspect very close English connections indeed.

jimmmy

Cliste wrote: »

The means which the PIRA etc went about business was far FAR too often unjustifiable

Was it ever justifiable? Why do you think so, when most Irish people - and people from around the world - would disagree with you ? What did it ever achieve except suffering ?

Rebelheart

jimmmy wrote: »

Was it ever justifiable? Why do you think so, when most Irish people - and people from around the world - would disagree with you ? What did it ever achieve except suffering ?

Whereas British rule in Ireland achieved a right little utopia indeed, not to mention democracy, Irish ownership of land, flourishing Brehon laws, Irish speakers and other such glories from the always tolerant, always paternal, and always civilised British state in Ireland. Centuries of it.

Blame the native reaction, never the colonial cause. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

jimmmy

Rebelheart, you still have not answered the question ...how did your mind get to be the way it is ? Who taught you all this stuff ?

Rebelheart

jimmmy wrote: »

Rebelheart, you still have not answered the question ...how did your mind get to be the way it is ? Who taught you all this stuff ?

Oddly enough, I'm still waiting for you to answer the same question. Your ideas are very odd indeed (to be polite about it) given your claim to be Irish.

Allah Hu Akbar

jimmmy wrote: »

Rebelheart, you still have not answered the question ...how did your mind get to be the way it is ? Who taught you all this stuff ?

School I would imagine :rolleyes:

jimmmy

Rebelheart wrote: »

Oddly enough, I'm still waiting for you to answer the same question.

I asked you first. Who taught you the hatred ?

Regarding my views, I am relatively normal I think, and more representantive than your views. I condemn both the loyalist and republican extremists, for example.

Rebelheart

jimmmy wrote: »

I asked you first. Who taught you the hatred ?

"I asked you first"... - what is this, baby infants? Who taught you that you and your sort had the right to rule over countries that do no belong to you and condemn and dehumanise the natives who resist your arrogance as "terrorists"?

It really should not be that difficult to answer, all things considered.

Rebelheart

jimmmy wrote: »

I asked you first. Who taught you the hatred ?

Regarding my views, I am relatively normal I think, and more representantive than your views. I condemn both the loyalist and republican extremists, for example.

"Relatively normal" - not even in D4, son. And I've lived there for many years. Not even in D4. Perhaps a certain wing of Fine Gael (Bruton, Hayes) or the erstwhile PDs (McDowell) or the erstwhile stickies in the Sunday Independent (Harris, Cadden, Fanning) or the Labour Party (De Rossa), but "normal" in Irish terms those views certainly are not.

Rebelheart

And 'normal' is usually a bad sign, unless you're trying to claim a specific right to 'normality' when it's an awfully, awfully bad sign of a character weakness.

jimmmy

Rebelheart wrote: »

And 'normal' is usually a bad sign,

I think you should seriously get help, auld son yourself. There is little point in anyone trying to help you but a specialist. Goodnight.

Rebelheart

jimmmy wrote: »

There is little point in anyone trying to help you but a specialist.

A good start could be a rapid improvement in your syntax.

Exile 1798

Sand, are you aware that there is actually already a thread titled "The Easter Rising and modern day terrorism"?

Why not put your thoughts there?

Sand wrote: »

The shoot to kill policy is the same: The Provos willingly seek to murder as many of their targets as they can, they are morally outraged at the concept that their targets might actually shoot back with the intention of killing them.

No.

The British Army has no right to be in Ireland. They don't have a right to take a piss in Ireland, much less to shoot people dead.

When locals kill these soldiers it is not "murder."

That's not Provo logic, that's anti-imperialism 101.

When Provos are so utterly uninterested in actual examination of their methods and logic, when they are so utterly Orwellian in their thought process, whats the point of worrying about if they agree with you or not? Provos are wrong, end of. I save myself some time and just jump to the punchline.

Unlike most people who throw the term Orwellian around, I actually know what it's meant to mean. I've also read most of Orwell's work. He was a fine writer, socialist and above all an anti-imperialist.

While it is true the spin of the Sinn Fein leadership does fit the description Orwellian, so do the lies of any poltical party or government. Ie the Ministry of War being called the Ministry of Defense.

However the logic of the IRA in it's struggle was straight forward and uncomplicated. James Connolly put it best before his illegal court marshal "The British government has no right in Ireland, never had any right in Ireland, and never can have any right in Ireland".

There's nothing Orwellian about that. If anything, the various justifications given for British rule in our country can be rightly described as Orwellian.

Exile 1798

jimmmy wrote: »

Rebelheart, you still have not answered the question ...how did your mind get to be the way it is ? Who taught you all this stuff ?

Jimmy, who taught you that Ireland was such a great place under serfdom?

Who taught you that about the great "Protestant genocide" that you think happened?

Who taught you to hate the Irish language?

Who taught you to admire the great imperialist blood bathes of the last century ("real war") and hate those of battled for National Liberation?

Who taught you that colonial nonsense about some canals in Dublin or sending a telegram to London or seeing Ireland from Scotland that you repeat over and over again like a 5 year old?

live2thewire

i got one

O'Coonassa

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Unlike most people who throw the term Orwellian around, I actually know what it's meant to mean. I've also read most of Orwell's work. He was a fine writer, socialist and above all an anti-imperialist.

"One cannot really be a Catholic and grown up."
George Orwell

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Yeah, (.....)of the day.

You're just doing this to see if you can get somebody annoyed enough to get themselves banned, I'd wager.

Jimmy wrote:

Those who are indoctrinated with an extremist nationalist mindset - those who would answer (A) to the question in the first paragraph above - should really study the whole post. .

Have you no answer to this?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59790404&postcount=106

Jimmy wrote:

Regarding my views, I am relatively normal .

The view that we were better off under British rule isn't "normal" in most of this country.....