To all the Anti-Nationalists here....

Rebelheart

MysticalRain wrote: »

Wow. I've never seen a thread on boards.ie before where so many people here condoned terrorism.

There was that British poppy thread, if you recall, where all and sundry spoke up in defence of the British terrorists responsible for the terror in World War One.

MysticalRain

Rebelheart wrote: »

There was that British poppy thread, if you recall, where all and sundry spoke up in defence of the British terrorists responsible for the terror in World War One.

I think you're confusing run-of-the-mill European imperialism with "terrorism".

T runner

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You post that load of rubbish and then wonder why people laugh at nationalists.

Do people laugh at nationalists? I find the recurrent condescention and antagonism the most unpleasant part of Unionist rhetoric.

I have to admit it, the Republican movement in this country is a superb example of spin.

The ROI is actually a republic. Or do you mean all Ireland? What do you mean?

Big Mouth

KeithAFC wrote: »

If it was a real war, you would of lost. RAF in the skies and good night.

Are you proud as a Unionist of the treatment of Catholic people in Northern Ireland in the past?

Big Mouth

Denerick wrote: »

This is one of the most tired lines in NI politics. The majority of people in Northern Ireland did not support, or engage with terrorist organisations. You cannot rewrite history I'm afraid.

Rewrite history? Most people in Ireland did support the Republican struggle in the 70's and 80's. Like I said in a previous post practically the whole nation supported the Hunger Strikers and the hundreds of thousands of people who attended their funerals and protested at the English Embassy would strengthen this theory (Ever played yellow reg when you were yoiunger? Wonder where the idea came from).

BBC John Simpson wrote in his autobigraphy that a mass support emerged in Dublin for the Republican cause at this time. On a side note he also said the IRA leaders were not inheritenly violent men and were intelligent politicians who were in an impossible position

Can you understand that people support a cause not violence?
I'm sure none of us here like to watch the news and hear of British soldiers 19 and 20 years of age been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan every day but does Oscar Bravo and Denerick et al condemn them for all the women and children that are killed in those ugly wars?

Fratton Fred

T runner wrote: »

Do people laugh at nationalists?

yes, yes they do.

Rebelheart is doing a very good job of demonstrating why.

T runner wrote: »

I find the recurrent condescention and antagonism the most unpleasant part of Unionist rhetoric.

really? and you are telling me this why exactly?

T runner wrote: »

The ROI is actually a republic. Or do you mean all Ireland? What do you mean?

I mean the Republicans who come out with the same old tired anti everything British rhetoric. The ones that describe Warrenpoint as a brilliant military operation, yet condemn loughall as murder.

The ones that are quite happy to make excuses for killings by the republican paramilitary, but any killing by loyalists or the British army are cold blooded murder.

the ones that consider a nation remembering its war dead as triumphalism, yet consider their own cold blooded killers to be heroes.

that's the Irish republicans I and a lot of other people laugh at.

T runner

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Does that make Ireland unique? Probably not. This kind of oppression is widespread in the annals of the world's history, particularly in places like Africa. That doesn't mean such oppression is justified, of course; it clearly isn't.

Yes, the fact taht opression exists throughout the world does not actually condone individual acts of oppression.

But I don't see why people are so keen to paint Ireland as some kind of unique sob-story, its people battling against an oppression seen nowhere else; the small child alone being bullied by all the rest.

They dont. Although other opressed nations existed, they were not in a position to aid ireland against our particular bully and so for all intents and purposes, we were alone.

The analogy is only false if you've a black and white view of world, in which a person can only be either in support of the 1916 Risers and against the incumbent British administration, or in support of the British and against the Rising. In reality ones opinion of the War and/or the British is not a function of ones opinion of the Rising; hence, ones opinion of the War is irrelevant in a discussion of the merits, or otherwise, the Easter Rising.

They are actually connected by a dislike of British Imperialism enforced on Ireland.

I think you have little credibility in talking about context when you have blatantly ignored the path of peaceful and constitutional change that was available to Irish nationalists at the time of the Rising; a path that was already being traversed, to some success, by others.

The Conservative leader Bonar law had proclaimed that he would suppoprt Ulster in any actions she deemed necessary to stop (a very, a very limited form of Home Rule). The Curragh mutiny proved that even the British Government could not and would not control the British army in Irish affairs and that the British Army would side with the Unionists and not the British government in the event of Home Rule. That was the path of your "peaceful" constitutional change. Civil War with the British Army backing the Unionists against legitimate British legislation.

With the result of the 1918 giving Sinn Fein 73 seats out of 105 there was a clear mandate for Independence. Yet the British would not budge. Only military action would budge them. This has been proven time and time again in British occupied countries. Their occupation is enforced by the British army. The threat of violence is held over the people by the army, constantly there. Occupying a country by force and then accusing people who resist of being violent is extremely hypocritical.

The unionist threat did exist, but was dealt with by partitioning the country, thus implementing a solution that would in some way reconcile the wishes of the opposing factions of the island.

The Unionist threat was amplified by the blind eye shown by British forces to the landing of arms in Larne and the support they got in their (civil) war preparations from same. The Unionist threat was also incresed when it was revealed that the army would not enforce the Home Rule Bill on Ulster. (Many ex-service men in UVF).

Seperating Ireland along sectarian lines has of course been a disaster for Northern Ireland. The Protestant did not have large enough majority in Ulster to warrant partition, indeed it had only a majority in 4 of these counties.

Ofcourse business was decided in favour of these Ulster "old boys" and a de facto aparheid state swiftly inflicted maximum misery on the long suffereing Catholic population there.

They were noble Irish men at heart, and they have been ignored and abandoned by the independent Ireland in lieu of some unrepresentative men who blew up Dublin City Centre.

Sinn Fein won 73 seats out of 105 seats in 1918. They were a seperatist by force if necessary party. That was two years after a rebellion to achieve seperation by force. That is proof taht their actions had the suppport of the irish people only 2 years later. Please substantiate any revisionist comment you make.

Big Mouth

Don't worry yourself FrattonFred the Brits were and always will be the bigger laughing stock

T runner

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes, yes they do.

Who does exactly~? Do you think Irish nationalism is a laughable cause?

really? and you are telling me this why exactly?

Come on you can work it out.

I mean the Republicans who come out with the same old tired anti everything British rhetoric. The ones that describe Warrenpoint as a brilliant military operation, yet condemn loughall as murder.

You said "Republicans in this country". I am a republican. I think Ireland should be a republic (it is). Do you have a problem with that?

The ones that are quite happy to make excuses for killings by the republican paramilitary, but any killing by loyalists or the British army are cold blooded murder.

And "republicans in this country" accurately describes these people does it?

the ones that consider a nation remembering its war dead as triumphalism, yet consider their own cold blooded killers to be heroes.

Are you saying that people who died fighting for British freedom are war heroes but people who died for Irish freedom are cold blooded killers? A tad insulting isnt it?

that's the Irish republicans I and a lot of other people laugh at

Im confused now. You said you laughed at Irish nationalists initially. Then you tried to paint a nice cherry picked picture of IRA supporters (you understand what "republicans" mean dont you?) being hyocritical. Next you said they were the "republicans"???? you laughed at.

PLease clarify.

Denerick

T runner wrote: »

Yes, the fact taht opression exists throughout the world does not actually condone individual acts of oppression.

The point was made by Eliot that Irish exceptionalism (A belief that the Irish situation affords some special or individual injustice unlike any other afforded to any other race of people in the world) is a particularly pernicious beast, used to justify violence of the most unconscionable sort, in the belief that Ireland is somehow 'unique' and solely deserving and thus excused by such actions.

The Conservative leader Bonar law had proclaimed that he would suppoprt Ulster in any actions she deemed necessary to stop (a very, a very limited form of Home Rule). The Curragh mutiny proved that even the British Government could not and would not control the British army in Irish affairs and that the British Army would side with the Unionists and not the British government in the event of Home Rule. That was the path of your "peaceful" constitutional change. Civil War with the British Army backing the Unionists against legitimate British legislation.

And yet Home Rule was still on the books... With war it was shelved temporarily. Granted it only applied to the 26, but given that we have 26 counties now it wasn't such a bad deal.

Your analysis of Tory/Unionist resistance to an act of parliament is undoubtedly correct and flawless, nobody doubts that the Curragh mutiny was essentially contempt of the rule of law and the legislature.

With the result of the 1918 giving Sinn Fein 73 seats out of 105 there was a clear mandate for Independence. Yet the British would not budge. Only military action would budge them. This has been proven time and time again in British occupied countries. Their occupation is enforced by the British army. The threat of violence is held over the people by the army, constantly there. Occupying a country by force and then accusing people who resist of being violent is extremely hypocritical.

Your 'mandate for independence' would only make sense if the people of Ireland actually voted in 1918 in favour of seceding. And if Sinn Féin actually won the popular vote on this island. There is great ambiguity about whether the people in 1918 were actually voting for secession, or out of contempt for the IPP, who were now seen as weak, elitist and ineffectual. Other issues such as conscription played a massive role also. 1918 is not so cut and dry. Many in the first Free State government, O'Higgins and Blythe among them, admitted that 1918 was not a vote in favour of seccession.

There was always a tension from the very beginning between the political and military wings in the Republican movement, neither of which had a clear mandate within the party. The debates over whether the IRA should swear an oath of allegiance to the Dáil were indicative of this. The Dáil only took responsibility for actions conducted by the IRA well near the end of the war.

Considering the Irish people had little idea that the IRA were plotting a military campaign in 1918, its disingenous to suggest they voted in favour of violent secession in that year.

Revisionism indeed.

Fratton Fred

Big Mouth wrote: »

Don't worry yourself FrattonFred the Brits were and always will be the bigger laughing stock

I'm glad we amuse you.

One minute we are a big bad imperial power, the next we are a laughing stock. Please make up your mind.

T runner wrote: »

Who does exactly~? Do you think Irish nationalism is a laughable cause?

no I don't, that is not what i said.

T runner wrote: »

Come on you can work it out.

aahh, i see, because i laugh at some of the rhetoric on here, I am a unionist.

T runner wrote: »

You said "Republicans in this country". I am a republican. I think Ireland should be a republic (it is). Do you have a problem with that?

that's nice for you.

you know exactly what i mean when i refer to the "Republican movement" (which is actually what I did say)

T runner wrote: »

Are you saying that people who died fighting for British freedom are war heroes but people who died for Irish freedom are cold blooded killers? A tad insulting isnt it?

No, now you are resorting back to the spin I referred to earlier.

T runner wrote: »

Im confused now. You said you laughed at Irish nationalists initially. Then you tried to paint a nice cherry picked picture of IRA supporters (you understand what "republicans" mean dont you?) being hyocritical. Next you said they were the "republicans"???? you laughed at.

PLease clarify.

more spin. again, you know exactly what i mean when i refer to Republicans.

Eliot Rosewater

I wrote a very long reply, but I've cut most of it out for the sake of other readers of this thread. The first post here is to do with Rebelheart's misrepresentation of what I said regarding violence; the second is to do with flaws in Irish Republicanism of the type Rebelheart is promoting. Other Irish Republicans and Nationalists should be reassured than I am not judging the movement as a whole on the basis of what Rebelheart is saying. *sigh of relief from RaN forum*

Rebelheart wrote: »

How do you manage to implicitly support the right of the British state to assert their rule here through violence but deny the right of the Irish people to assert their independence via the same tactic?

I never said that I support the British use of violence to maintain their presence here; I said that this use of violence is present in every single functioning government under the sun, including present day Ireland. Thus, the fact that Britain did use violence is completely irrelevant. If you say Britain should not have used violence then, to be coherent, you would have to apply that sentiment to modern day Ireland, and suggest that the Gardaí should stop forcing people into courts and prisons.

The question should not focus on the means (coercion/violence) but rather the end (Britain presence in Ireland).

Rebelheart wrote: »

As you said yourself: those who used violence to advance British imperialism = good; those who used violence to achieve Irish freedom from British imperialism = bad. Extraordinarily hypocritical stuff.

Stop deliberately misinterpreting my position to further your political narrative. I said that the incumbent authority using coercion was not in and of itself a wrong thing. As before (maybe if I repeat it a few times you might actually take it in) every country in this world uses violence to enforce the law.

Now, you still haven't provided me with reasons as to why the War is important to this discussion. What you think some posters are saying on Boards.ie in 2010 does not, I'm afraid, count.

Eliot Rosewater

Rebelheart wrote: »

Like so many of the poppy brigade you are willing to honour British nationalist heroes and deride Irish nationalist heroes. Why?

The "poppy brigade"? You know, it's not even necessary for me to post here for your position to be totally undermined. I've expressed a disagreement with the Risers and, on that basis alone, you have branded me a member of the "poppy brigade", a "West Brit" and, in general, a neo-Unionist British imperialist. Keep going; you're probably doing more for my side of the debate than I am.

Rebelheart wrote: »

At any rate, why should people who fought for the British Empire, and its racist, sectarian and anti-democratic credentials, be honoured by Irish people who don't support British imperialism?

There you go again with your black and white world-view whereby someone is either (and there's no in between) an Irish Republican or a "poppy brigade" "West Brit" warmongering imperialist. The point is that those Irish people who went to Europe to fight should be honoured because they believed they were fighting for Ireland.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Those who fought with the British Empire in WWI backed the wrong horse.

Even though I'm generally a non-emotional person, I find that statement and the sentiment behind it to be genuinely upsetting. I think the way Ireland has treated it combatants in World War One is nothing short of a national embarrassment.

danbohan

T runner wrote: »

Who does exactly~? Do you think Irish nationalism is a laughable cause?




Come on you can work it out.





You said "Republicans in this country". I am a republican. I think Ireland should be a republic (it is). Do you have a problem with that?



And "republicans in this country" accurately describes these people does it?



Are you saying that people who died fighting for British freedom are war heroes but people who died for Irish freedom are cold blooded killers? A tad insulting isnt it?



Im confused now. You said you laughed at Irish nationalists initially. Then you tried to paint a nice cherry picked picture of IRA supporters (you understand what "republicans" mean dont you?) being hyocritical. Next you said they were the "republicans"???? you laughed at.

PLease clarify.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes, yes they do.

Rebelheart is doing a very good job of demonstrating why.

really? and you are telling me this why exactly?



I mean the Republicans who come out with the same old tired anti everything British rhetoric. The ones that describe Warrenpoint as a brilliant military operation, yet condemn loughall as murder.

The ones that are quite happy to make excuses for killings by the republican paramilitary, but any killing by loyalists or the British army are cold blooded murder.

the ones that consider a nation remembering its war dead as triumphalism, yet consider their own cold blooded killers to be heroes.

that's the Irish republicans I and a lot of other people laugh at.

i dont think many people in ireland would laugh with you fred ,at you maybe, now down in the legion maybe that would be different .
problem you have is that you are unable to see things from an irish perspective or to understand irish history . certainly republicans indulge in anti british rheteroic same as you indulge in anti irish rhetoric .

loughgall was a very sucuessfull operartion if your prepared to accept that your army behaves in exactly same way as a terroist army and does not play by geneva convention or rules of war . perhaps you are happy to accept that many decent british people would not

Fratton Fred

danbohan wrote: »

i dont think many people in ireland would laugh with you fred ,at you maybe, now down in the legion maybe that would be different .

really? you should read these boards more often.

danbohan wrote: »

problem you have is that you are unable to see things from an irish perspective or to understand irish history . certainly republicans indulge in anti british rheteroic same as you indulge in anti irish rhetoric .

that is the third time in recent weeks you have accused me of engaging in anti Irish rhetoric. kindly show me where i have done this or, with respect, stfu.

danbohan wrote: »

loughgall was a very sucuessfull operartion if your prepared to accept that your army behaves in exactly same way as a terroist army and does not play by geneva convention or rules of war . perhaps you are happy to accept that many decent british people would not

I don't see your point. the Geneva convention had nothing to do with Loughall. a group of armed men attacked a Police Station, armed with a bomb as well as automatic weapons. they were caught in an ambush and killed.

where exactly is the problem there?

Het-Field

Rebelheart wrote: »

Actually, I've never wondered why people laugh at nationalists: with your emotionally-retarded poppy campaigns, glorification of "our boys", tabloids of the "Gotcha!" variety and incessant support for wars beyond Britain, there's no wonder about why people laugh at you all.

What a stupid statement to make. I think you have just lost your mandate to debate on this issue. You are just another Brit-Basher, who cannot properly debate this subject on the grounds of you obvious bias, and blind hatred for those who you would tar as West-Brit or whatever.

Rebelheart

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The "poppy brigade"? You know, it's not even necessary for me to post here for your position to be totally undermined. I've expressed a disagreement with the Risers and, on that basis alone, you have branded me a member of the "poppy brigade", a "West Brit" and, in general, a neo-Unionist British imperialist.

No, on the basis of this:

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well, I believe he [David Norris] holds the 1916 risers to be terrorists. Another reason to vote for him!

and this:

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

What matters is that they did believe they were fighting for Ireland. They were noble Irish men at heart, and they have been ignored and abandoned by the independent Ireland in lieu of some unrepresentative men who blew up Dublin City Centre

That's pretty conclusive evidence of your politics there.

Oh, and I never called you a "West Brit". Try and stick with the facts rather than engage in more of your strawman arguments against anybody who doesn't share your support for British imperial troops in WWI or your patent dislike (to be kind) of Irish freedom fighters in Easter 1916.

Rebelheart

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

There you go again with your black and white world-view whereby someone is either (and there's no in between) an Irish Republican or a "poppy brigade" "West Brit" warmongering imperialist. The point is that those Irish people who went to Europe to fight should be honoured because they believed they were fighting for Ireland.

Why am I not surprised that the same person who believes the leaders of the Easter Rising were "terrorists" - that's you, by the way - is keen to honour people who fought for the British Empire in WW I. You seem to have a very black and white worldview without my help.

"They" - you've still not supported your neat romantic view of people who fought for the British in WW I as doing it for patriotic reasons. You've totally ignored all those people who signed up for financial reasons, adventure and self-interest. Not to mention those who deserted and were executed by the British for it. Why are you trying to romanticise them all as noble Francis Ledwidge types?

Rebelheart

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

There you go again with your black and white world-view whereby someone is either (and there's no in between) an Irish Republican or a "poppy brigade" "West Brit" warmongering imperialist. The point is that those Irish people who went to Europe to fight should be honoured because they believed they were fighting for Ireland.

Why am I not surprised that the same person who believes the leaders of the Easter Rising were "terrorists" - that's you, by the way - is keen to honour people who fought for the British Empire in WW I. You seem to have a very black and white world without my help.

"They" - you've still not supported your neat romantic view of people who fought for the British in WW I as doing it for Irish patriotic reasons. You've totally ignored all those people who signed up for financial reasons, adventure and self-interest. Not to mention those who deserted and were executed by the British for it. Why are you trying to romanticise them all as noble Francis Ledwidge types?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Even though I'm generally a non-emotional person, I find that statement and the sentiment behind it to be genuinely upsetting. I think the way Ireland has treated it combatants in World War One is nothing short of a national embarrassment.

Why? Try and stay focused. They fought and died for the British Empire, for an imperial aim. Why should anybody who appreciates the freedom of Ireland and supports the underdog in this world commemorate people who "fought" for the largest and most powerful state in the world?

Eliot Rosewater

Rebelheart wrote: »

No, on the basis of this: and this:

Cheers for that, because now you've conclusively proven my point. You claimed that I'm a member of the "poppy brigade" on the basis that

1. I disagree with the 1916 Rising.
2. I believe that the Irishmen who fought in WWI were being noble in their motivation.

In neither point have I supported the War (supporting the Irish troops fighting in it is a totally different matter) or the British administration of Ireland. But, as per the black and white grouping of people into either Irish Republicans or British Imperialists (remember, there's no middle-ground here at all) I'm a British Imperialist.

Rebelheart wrote: »

Oh, and I never called you a "West Brit".

I apologise; I must have confused you with someone else.

Rebelheart

Het-Field wrote: »

What a stupid statement to make. I think you have just lost your mandate to debate on this issue. You are just another Brit-Basher, who cannot properly debate this subject on the grounds of you obvious bias, and blind hatred for those who you would tar as West-Brit or whatever.

Can you at least try and attack the argument? It's clearly quite challenging for you, but give it a go. Oh, and I note you didn't have any trouble when your colleague was criticising Irish nationalism; you only got offended when I turned his attack on "nationalists" on to his own British nationalist community.

How very, well, bigoted of you.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

Can you at least try and attack the argument? It's clearly quite challenging for you, but give it a go. Oh, and I note you didn't have any trouble when your colleague was criticising Irish nationalism; you only got offended when I turned his attack on "nationalists" on to his own British nationalist community.

How very, well, bigoted of you.

actually I was attacking (a very specific type of) Irish Nationalists, not nationalism itself.

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

actually I was attacking (a very specific type of) Irish Nationalists, not nationalism itself.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You post that load of rubbish and then wonder why people laugh at nationalists.

Seems quite clear to me what precisely you said. You just didn't take too kindly to my pointing out that your own British nationalism, with its incessant glorification of British violence with its poppy campaigns and "our boys" tabloid campaigns, is at least as putrid and tribal as any nationalism on earth.

And why are you capitalising 'nationalist' and 'republican'? It shouldn't have to take an Irishman to point out the difference between a proper noun and a common noun.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

Seems quite clear to me what precisely you said. You just didn't take too kindly to my pointing out that your own British nationalism, with its incessant glorification of British violence with its poppy campaigns and "our boys" tabloid campaigns, is at least as putrid and tribal as any nationalism on earth.

And why are you capitalising 'nationalist' and 'republican'? It shouldn't have to take an Irishman to point out the difference between a proper noun and a common noun.

I never took you for a grammar nazi.

Don't forget, Britain had conscription in both world wars. a huge number of those killed had no choice, they were forced to fight. it is them who are remembered, not the politicians or generals who sent them to their death.

Rebelheart

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Cheers for that, because now you've conclusively proven my point. You claimed that I'm a member of the "poppy brigade" on the basis that

1. I disagree with the 1916 Rising.

I believe that the Irishmen who fought in WWI were being noble in their motivation.

In fact, you're of the belief that the insurgents in Easter Week were "terrorists" - that's quite a different matter, particularly when you describe as "noble" those Irish people who, instead of staying in Ireland, fought for the British Empire. One choice, for you, was clearly "noble" and the other was "terrorism". These choices were, respectively, fighting for the British Empire and fighting for an Irish republic in Easter Week. That seems pretty clear.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In neither point have I supported the War (supporting the Irish troops fighting in it is a totally different matter) or the British administration of Ireland.

Is this some form of cognitive dissonance? à la "I support those "noble" men who fought for the Third Reich because they did so for reasons which they believed were right, but I don't support the Third Reich"?

lugha

Rebelheart wrote: »

These choices were, respectively, fighting for the British Empire and fighting for an Irish republic in Easter Week. That seems pretty clear.

Did the men who chose to fight for Britain claim "the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman" in their endeavors?

Big Mouth

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think both of them did things for which they should be castigated. I think both of them chose the wrong path as young men, which one of them managed to live to regret.QUOTE]

I see RTE will be running a program about Ireland's greatest heroes and will feature Michael Collins, alot of people on here won't be happy about that.

Are you Irish by the way Oscar Bravo? The cheek of you to say an Irish Patriot "chose" the wrong path if you are. I suppose he should have obeyed the English masters while they treated Irish people like dogs.

Also its easy to pick out the thuggish element of the PIRA and tar every Republican as same

Het-Field

Rebelheart wrote: »

Can you at least try and attack the argument? It's clearly quite challenging for you, but give it a go. Oh, and I note you didn't have any trouble when your colleague was criticising Irish nationalism; you only got offended when I turned his attack on "nationalists" on to his own British nationalist community.

How very, well, bigoted of you.

I realise literacy may be beyond you, but for your benefit I will direct you to previous pages on this thread, where I have robustly argued your point. I simply turned on you as you exposed yourself as somebody who is heavily biased, and who's attitudes are drenched with anti British sentiment, which deprives you of the ability to see both sides of the argument.

My ability to see both sides of the argument allowed me to view your above statements as indicitive of an anti-British penchant, which gives rise to you implying that Denerick, Fratton Fred, Myself, and others are West-Brits. As far as im concerned, I am not offended. I am just pointing out the paupacy of your argument, as it stems from hateful and biggoted grounds.

Eliot Rosewater

Rebelheart wrote: »

Is this some form of cognitive dissonance?

No. I merely feel that those Irishmen who joined the war because they thought it would forward Ireland's interest should be honoured. But this just makes me a British imperialist, right?

Rebelheart

Het-Field wrote: »

I simply turned on you as you exposed yourself as somebody who is heavily biased, and who's attitudes are drenched with anti British sentiment, which deprives you of the ability to see both sides of the argument. My ability to see both sides of the argument allowed me to view your above statements as indicitive of an anti-British penchant, which gives rise to you implying that Denerick, Fratton Fred, Myself, and others are West-Brits. As far as im concerned, I am not offended. I am just pointing out the paupacy of your argument, as it stems from hateful and biggoted grounds.

Of course you've no evidence for this rant. You plainly didn't like it when, in response to one of your colleague's rants against "nationalists", I pointed out the nationalism in the country he is from, a country which he tends to defend here on a quotidian basis. You don't seem to like when the so-called "anti-nationalists" are exposed as among the most nationalist posters, albeit of the British nationalist variety rather than of the Irish nationalist variety, here.

For this I become "anti-British" as if Britishness and xenophobic poppy-wearing Britannia rules the waves thinking are synonymous - despite the protestations of open-minded British people like Jon Snow. This was a rather nationalistic equation on your part. Yet another irony.

Rebelheart

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

No. I merely feel that those Irishmen who joined the war because they thought it would forward Ireland's interest should be honoured. But this just makes me a British imperialist, right?

Be honest: that's not all you believe, is it? You also believe that those Irishmen of the "We serve neither king nor kaiser but Ireland" variety who refused to join Britain's imperial war and opted instead to fight for the freedom of this small nation in Easter 1916 were "terrorists".

With your own words you've clearly and unequivocally nailed your politics to the mast.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Pat D. Almighty

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We'd have a better health system at least

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KeithAFC

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No surprise.

Rebelheart

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you seriously contending that the people concerned fought for the US Army? or the Russian Army in WW I? Really? They fought for the British Empire's forces. It really isn't complicated, unless you're trying to deny something.

Rebelheart

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

KeithAFC wrote: »

No surprise.

Well done, Donegalfella; so you've got Seán Russell. Does the list ever exceed that one person - except when you all embarrass yourselves by including Frank Ryan as a "fascist"? The number of British people who collaborated with the Nazis far exceeded the number of Irish people who did so. But let's overlook things like the British Free Corps, a fact which, when pointed out, really annoys the hell out of British nationalists who are feeling smug about Seán Russell. Ooops, I must now be "anti-British" for pointing this collaboration out in response to a condemnation of a single Irish person who "collaborated" with the Third Reich.

And I'd swear I read something about the British state collaborating with Adolf Hitler for some years in the late 1930s in a policy which became known as "appeasement". But shhhh - we must all sign up to the great revisionism of post-War Britain where apparently the entire war was fought in order to save the Jews. Ahem!

gurramok

Denerick wrote: »

Thats a strange way of looking at it. If the 'free hats' party is running on a mandate to distribute free hats to everyone in 'wantsfreehatsland' and they only get 46% of the vote, does this mean that the 'free hats party' won?

So, you change the subject from the mandate to free hats. Nice debating.

Het-Field wrote: »

You know well why Dublin City Centre was laid waste to. Causation is key.

Ah yes, lets blast them out of the GPO as we can't win by either talking or shooting. Disgusting attitude.

Het-Field wrote: »

2.Michael Stone wished to take out Adams and McGuinness as a member of a violent and murderous Unionist gang of thugs. There were civilian casualties in the cemetary that day. By the logic of some posters this was going to happen as he was fighting a political cause by violent means. Stone was not, by the logic of other posters, a murderer. He was fighting for a cause. The reason you dont want to validate that is because he wasnt fighting YOUR cause. If he is an intentional killer, then so are those at Warrenpoint.

Tim McVeigh didnt intend to take out civilians. However, he openly admitted that it was likely to happen, and it was "collateral damage". McVeigh was crazy individualist patriot, who took the libertarian political cause WAY too far.

Mad Dog Adair. I though all and sundry would know what he was. He was the Loyalist equivalent of some of Republicanism's more hardcore elements. Attempts to distinguish him from extremist Republicans on grounds other then religion and sectarianism are stupid in the expreme.

Just to clarify, Rubin was an extreme orthodox Jew, who headed the Terrorist "Jewish Defence League", while Cottrill was part of the Animal Liberation Front. However, i will go into further detail about these guys after you accept that the likes of Stone and McVeigh's motives were the same as those who committed Warrenpoint, the shooting of Mountbatten etc.

Can't believe you condone a terrorist like Timothy McVeigh. Hypocrisy. Stone murdered civilians based on their religion, not from which army they came from.

Warrenpoint didn't involve the murder of innocent civilians, it involved British soldiers. A difference there.

Where did Stone and McVeigh attack the armed security forces? Your knowledge of NI affairs is really well unknowledgeable.

danbohan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

really donegallfella , how absent minded of you that you did not remind us of fine gaels collebration with the nazis just for balance or do you do balance ?

Eliot Rosewater

Rebelheart wrote: »

Be honest: that's not all you believe, is it? You also believe that those Irishmen of the "We serve neither king nor kaiser but Ireland" variety who refused to join Britain's imperial war and opted instead to fight for the freedom of this small nation in Easter 1916 were "terrorists".

Yes, I do not support the 1916 Rising.

So, to summarise, not supporting the 1916 Rising and believing that those Irish soldiers who fought in WWI in the belief they were fighting for Ireland should be honoured makes me a "poppy-brigade" British imperialist. Right?

danbohan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't see your point. the Geneva convention had nothing to do with Loughall. a group of armed men attacked a Police Station, armed with a bomb as well as automatic weapons. they were caught in an ambush and killed.

perhaps your not familar with what happened in loughgall or pretend not to be but many of the ira attackers were executed after capture , still i am sure your fine with '' our boys'' just doing their job

junder

Rebelheart wrote: »

Well done, Donegalfella; so you've got Seán Russell. Does the list ever exceed that one person - except when you all embarrass yourselves by including Frank Ryan as a "fascist"? The number of British people who collaborated with the Nazis far exceeded the number of Irish people who did so. But let's overlook things like the British Free Corps, a fact which, when pointed out, really annoys the hell out of British nationalists who are feeling smug about Seán Russell. Ooops, I must now be "anti-British" for pointing this collaboration out in response to a condemnation of a single Irish person who "collaborated" with the Third Reich.

And I'd swear I read something about the British state collaborating with Adolf Hitler for some years in the late 1930s in a policy which became known as "appeasement". But shhhh - we must all sign up to the great revisionism of post-War Britain where apparently the entire war was fought in order to save the Jews. Ahem!

The British free corps numbered about 10 individuals of which only 1 ever saw active service with the nazis.

karma_

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Yes, I do not support the 1916 Rising.

So, to summarise, not supporting the 1916 Rising and believing that those Irish soldiers who fought in WWI in the belief they were fighting for Ireland should be honoured makes me a "poppy-brigade" British imperialist. Right?

Are you drawing a distinction between the two? The men during the rising believed they were doing their part for Ireland also. Even though you do not support the rising, would you honour the men fighting in it, as they believed they were being patriotic?

RandomName2

Het-Field wrote: »

What a stupid statement to make. I think you have just lost your mandate to debate on this issue. You are just another Brit-Basher, who cannot properly debate this subject on the grounds of you obvious bias, and blind hatred for those who you would tar as West-Brit or whatever.

Heart with one purpose alone through summer and winter seems enchanted to a stone to trouble the living stream.

It's the same old theme since 1916 / In your head they're still fighting.

I'm afraid the Jesuit proverb comes to mind and no extortions of gnosi sauton can possibly hope to change the hue of that which is dyed in the wool. Just be glad when such a view is merely expressed in words (albeit wrong, quite an erudite manner) and not in arms.

Other than that all I can advise is: admire the silicon equivalent of Belfast murals, wonder at the archaic nature of it. But don't rush at it with a bucket of paint. Or the silicon equivalent.

Eliot Rosewater

karma_ wrote: »

The men during the rising believed they were doing their part for Ireland also.

You could apply that to every single act of terrorism committed. There's clearly a difference. The First World War was already happening, and some Irish people felt that their helping the war effort would advance the cause of Home Rule. The Risers, on the other hand, initiated, by themselves, a violent campaign that that majority didn't want.

deise go deo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes but men In the British army were fighting for the British Empire.
You might like to thing they were fighting for some high Ideal that transends national politics but theye were fighting for Britain.

Perhaps you'd have preferred if the Central Powers had won World War I? That certainly would have worked out well for the boys in the GPO with their Proklamation der Irischen Republik....

Why not. Germany was no worse than the Colonial powers they were fighting with. There probably would not have been Nazism either but thats neither here nor there.

The men of 1916 had no intrest in Germany other than what they could do for Ireland.
''Proklamation der Irischen Republik''? And a god save the King to you.:p

deise go deo

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You could apply that to every single act of terrorism committed. There's clearly a difference. The First World War was already happening, and some Irish people felt that their helping the war effort would advance the cause of Home Rule. The Risers, on the other hand, initiated, by themselves, a violent campaign that that majority didn't want.

And some Irish people felt that England's difficulty was Ireland's oppertunity.

In what way was 1916 Terrorism?
They dident try to instill terror to acheive their aims. They tried to best the British Army in open Warfare, When this became inpossible due to the countermanding order they set out to inspire the country to free its self.
Neither relied on Terror.

Denerick

gurramok wrote: »

So, you change the subject from the mandate to free hats. Nice debating.

I'm sorry for dumbing it down for you. It just seemed that you didn't understand the difference between 46% and 51%.

You also discount the 6 northern counties, saying that they 'don't count'. Do they count any more?

gurramok

Denerick wrote: »

I'm sorry for dumbing it down for you. It just seemed that you didn't understand the difference between 46% and 51%.

You also discount the 6 northern counties, saying that they 'don't count'. Do they count any more?

Who got 51%?

Point was that SF got an overwhelming majority from the Nationalist population north and south for our independence for the entire island which ended up only been the 26.

Only Unionists and a small minority of mislead NP's voters were against independence. The NP then faded out and the entire electorate in the Free State endorsed independence at the next election by voting for parties that recognised the Dail and our independence.

Only Unionists were the ones against both independence and Home Rule.

MarkGrisham

Big Mouth wrote: »

As so many are you on here are , so I pose the question what should the people of Northern (and indeed in the Republic of) Ireland have done in the 60's, 70's, 80's?

Do a Ghandi. More effective in the long run, even if some thugs don't get the brutal satisfaction of caving in someone's head.