The RIRAs legitimacy

oscarBravo

Cú Giobach wrote: »

For a great many people in NI, Britian is an occupying power, and this is not just a small minority of people so I wouldn't just dismiss them.
If a large number of people believe they are "occupied" then they are occupied, basic logic.

For a great many people in the United States, the world was created less than ten thousand years ago and people co-existed with dinosaurs - and this isn't just a small minority of people, so we can't just dismiss them.

But they are still totally and utterly wrong.

Northern Ireland isn't occupied by Britain. Northern Ireland is part of the UK. It's entertaining, in a slightly depressing way, to watch some republican posters here even avoid the use of the phrases "Northern Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland", as if the words have talismanic powers to erode their beliefs.

The nationalist vote for the GFA was more of a vote to accept this occupation for the time being and put in place the democratic means to end it, and to put the Executive in place.
Swapping the gun for the ballot box to end the occupation.

To end the killing, rather. But hey, keep reinforcing the republican mythology. Keep telling them they are militarily occupied. Keep pretending that the 26-county Republic of Ireland doesn't exist, and keep repeating Pearse's threat about Ireland never being at peace.

And if some people take that fantasy just a little further and decide that it justifies terrorism, well, that's not your fault, is it?

JustinDee

paky wrote: »

If the men of 1916 had a claim to legitimacy in this country and we celebrate that fact every year, doesnt the RIRA and CIRA share that same claim? Im not a supporter of either, I would just like to see your arguments on this matter. Please try to keep it civil.

No.
The majority of the people on both sides of the border voted in referenda for compromise.
These illegal organisations you mention choose to conveniently ignore the democratic wishes of this island's inhabitants.
No two ways about it. The people have spoken.
So called 'dissidents' and their deluded followers are not wanted.
Thats democracy.

CiDeRmAn

They are not interested in the democratic wishes if the people and justify this outrageous position by claiming the government in Ulster is both an illegal occupying power and a traitor filled assembly, and the government in the republic is illegal in its foundation and so its mandate is illegitimate.
This way the dissident republican groups can toil away, feeling they are done sort of actual army of the idealized Irish state and can take action against those they decide are "enemies" of this state.
And wasn't much of the above also the IRAs position not so long ago?

Cú Giobach

oscarBravo wrote: »

For a great many people in the United States, the world was created less than ten thousand years ago and people co-existed with dinosaurs - and this isn't just a small minority of people, so we can't just dismiss them.

But they are still totally and utterly wrong.

Northern Ireland isn't occupied by Britain. Northern Ireland is part of the UK.

Just in case you don't know I'll explain something.
There are, in NI two communities, one lot usually referred to as Unionist/British who feel the 6 counties rightfully belong in the UK, the other lot usually referred as Irish/Nationalist feel the British presence is an an occupation.
Now if you want to stick your head in the sand and, like the creationists you mentioned above, refuse to accept the reality of a situation, then you will never really understand what is actually going on.

It's entertaining, in a slightly depressing way, to watch some republican posters here even avoid the use of the phrases "Northern Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland", as if the words have talismanic powers to erode their beliefs.

What on earth are you going on about here??

To end the killing, rather. But hey, keep reinforcing the republican mythology. Keep telling them they are militarily occupied. Keep pretending that the 26-county Republic of Ireland doesn't exist, and keep repeating Pearse's threat about Ireland never being at peace.

And if some people take that fantasy just a little further and decide that it justifies terrorism, well, that's not your fault, is it?

It is not "us" that tells "them" they are occupied but rather the other way round.
Who is pretending the ROI doesn't exist??

And No the NI problems are not my fault.

Oh by the way the statement you refer to about Ireland never being at peace isn't a threat but a statement of fact, and one that has been quite true up to this day.

JustinDee

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

They are not interested in the democratic wishes . . .

And there is no condition to these wishes. What the majority on this island wants is what counts.
Anything else is fascistic convenient delusion

Bottle_of_Smoke

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

They are not interested in the democratic wishes if the people and justify this outrageous position by claiming the government in Ulster is both an illegal occupying power and a traitor filled assembly, and the government in the republic is illegal in its foundation and so its mandate is illegitimate.
This way the dissident republican groups can toil away, feeling they are done sort of actual army of the idealized Irish state and can take action against those they decide are "enemies" of this state.
And wasn't much of the above also the IRAs position not so long ago?

Yes it was. To be honest that is what makes Sinn Fein's condemnation so empty. Until they condemn themselves and the provos during the troubles they cannot be taken seriously condemning the dissidents. Their new line is ''it was ok back then because the Orange state ruled'' but the reality is the provos never had Catholic rights high on their list of priorities they always referred to British occupation.

What I find intriguing is many unionist politicians claim Sinn Fein know who the dissidents are. This is insane. Sinn Fein need the dissidents to go away more than anyone. They're making a laughing stock of Sinn Fein's claims to be republican.

oscarBravo

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Just in case you don't know I'll explain something.
There are, in NI two communities, one lot usually referred to as Unionist/British who feel the 6 counties rightfully belong in the UK, the other lot usually referred as Irish/Nationalist feel the British presence is an an occupation.
Now if you want to stick your head in the sand and, like the creationists you mentioned above, refuse to accept the reality of a situation, then you will never really understand what is actually going on.

Interesting juxtaposition. You describe two groups of people and how they "feel" things are, while neatly side-stepping the minor detail of how they actually are.

Those people in Northern Ireland who believe that Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom have the advantage of being factually correct.

What you've done in the quote above is exactly the same as creationists trying to get their fantasies taught alongside evolution in US schools: they try to claim that their belief in a myth is equivalent to science's statements of fact.

Northern Ireland isn't occupied. Claiming that it is only lends legitimacy to terrorists. It's time everyone grew up and dealt in facts, rather than myths.

It is not "us" that tells "them" they are occupied but rather the other way round.

It doesn't matter who's telling whom; it's not true.

Who is pretending the ROI doesn't exist??

Everyone who childishly refers to the "26 counties". Everyone who claims allegiance to an imaginary republic that was declared in 1916, instead of the actual one that was declared in 1948. Everyone who uses silly phrases like "the six county statelet" instead of "Northern Ireland". It's all incredibly silly, and could be dismissed as laughable if it didn't underpin the reasons terrorism continues to be a problem.

And No the NI problems are not my fault.

Of course not. It's not the fault of anyone who glorifies the use of violence in the past, or anyone who claims that Northern Ireland is militarily occupied, or anyone who parrots the "Ireland unfree will never be at peace" line, or anyone who sings rebel songs, or anyone who calls people who disagree with their republican fantasies "West Brits", or any of that stuff. It's always someone else's fault, and until that someone else conforms to the ideals of republican mythology, well then they only have themselves to blame when the terrorism continues, right?

Oh by the way the statement you refer to about Ireland never being at peace isn't a threat but a statement of fact, and one that has been quite true up to this day.

It's a statement of fact only because some people have decided that Pearse was an infallible messenger delivering a divine message from God Almighty. When those people grow up and realise that - shock, horror! - Pearse was a fallible human being, we'll have made some progress.

Pearse's statement is true in only one context, and that is the context in which people make up their own unilateral definitions of "unfree", and decide that they therefore have carte blanche to commit grotesque acts of violence with the blessing of the Prophet himself.

Irish republicanism shares many of the trappings of religion, and - like religion - has a lot to answer for in terms of justifying atrocities.

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

Correct. They have invented an imaginary republic in their parallel universe of which they are the legitimate armed forces.

As may be, but they profess to have a strong historical mandate, the same one that our state is deroved from. Its not imaginary at all, but the reality. You may disagree with that political tradition, but to deny it exists is simply mental.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unfortunately, makey-uppy legitimacy doesn't count out here in the real world. Unfortunately, that occupation also only exists in the republican parallel universe. Out here in the real world, Northern Ireland has been democratically accepted - through a constitutional amendment that was overwhelmingly ratified by the citizens of this republic - as being part of the United Kingdom, until democratically decided otherwise.

Out here in the real world we have a disputed situation where there has and will always be armed resistance to that very real occupation for a very real section of Irish society. You are sticking your head in the sand on this one. You may disagree with that political tradition, but to deny it exists is simply mental.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not an occupation. The so-called "occupation" exists only in the fevered imagination of those who desperately need to believe in it, in order to legitimise their beliefs.

It is an occupation to a large number of the people who live there, and who are you to patronise them? You may disagree with that political tradition, but to deny it exists is simply mental.

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

Interesting juxtaposition. You describe two groups of people and how they "feel" things are, while neatly side-stepping the minor detail of how they actually are

Those people in Northern Ireland who believe that Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom have the advantage of being factually correct.

And those of us who object to the Anglo bailout are in the same boat presumably. Don't get angry, don't even debate it on the internet, its reality and reality cannot be challenged? What balls.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What you've done in the quote above is exactly the same as creationists trying to get their fantasies taught alongside evolution in US schools: they try to claim that their belief in a myth is equivalent to science's statements of fact.

Again, arrogant balls.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Northern Ireland isn't occupied. Claiming that it is only lends legitimacy to terrorists. It's time everyone grew up and dealt in facts, rather than myths. It doesn't matter who's telling whom; it's not true. Everyone who childishly refers to the "26 counties". Everyone who claims allegiance to an imaginary republic that was declared in 1916, instead of the actual one that was declared in 1948. Everyone who uses silly phrases like "the six county statelet" instead of "Northern Ireland". It's all incredibly silly, and could be dismissed as laughable if it didn't underpin the reasons terrorism continues to be a problem. Of course not. It's not the fault of anyone who glorifies the use of violence in the past, or anyone who claims that Northern Ireland is militarily occupied, or anyone who parrots the "Ireland unfree will never be at peace" line, or anyone who sings rebel songs, or anyone who calls people who disagree with their republican fantasies "West Brits", or any of that stuff. It's always someone else's fault, and until that someone else conforms to the ideals of republican mythology, well then they only have themselves to blame when the terrorism continues, right? It's a statement of fact only because some people have decided that Pearse was an infallible messenger delivering a divine message from God Almighty. When those people grow up and realise that - shock, horror! - Pearse was a fallible human being, we'll have made some progress.

Says YOU. To so comprehensively dismiss the opinion of so many people why actually live there and have to deal with the consequences of the occupation is arrogant balls.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Pearse's statement is true in only one context, and that is the context in which people make up their own unilateral definitions of "unfree", and decide that they therefore have carte blanche to commit grotesque acts of violence with the blessing of the Prophet himself.

Balls. Its an historically self evident statement of fact.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't accept that the men of 1916 had any legitimacy. They had no mandate whatsoever. They were a tiny minority of a tiny minority, and we shouldn't celebrate their decision to choose violence over peaceful means.

And yet, 2 years later in the 1918 elections - Sinn Féin became the largest party in Ireland. The reality of the matter was that Britain had no mandate in Ireland.

I find it curious that you would state "we shouldn't celebrate their decision to choose violence over peaceful means". That's fine and well if you are balanced with your pacifism in all worldly events. However, the reality of the matter is - without an armed campaign, Ireland would have never received independance. The best we could hope for was a devolved Government, in which our affairs would still be controlled by the British Government.

This was clearly unacceptable. Britain had no mandate to control Ireland.

JustinDee

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And those of us who object to the Anglo bailout are in the same boat presumably. Don't get angry, don't even debate it on the internet, its reality and reality cannot be challenged? What balls.

Again, arrogant balls.

Says YOU. To so comprehensively dismiss the opinion of so many people why actually live there and have to deal with the consequences of the occupation is arrogant balls.

Balls. Its an historically self evident statement of fact.

What is "arrogant" is ignoring the will and want of the vast majority of the inhabitants of this island. If you want the island to be considered "whole" you consider the views of its people as a "whole".
The word "deluded" also comes to mind.

OhNoYouDidn't

dlofnep wrote: »

And yet, 2 years later in the 1918 elections - Sinn Féin became the largest party in Ireland. The reality of the matter was that Britain had no mandate in Ireland.

I find it curious that you would state "we shouldn't celebrate their decision to choose violence over peaceful means". That's fine and well if you are balanced with your pacifism in all worldly events. However, the reality of the matter is - without an armed campaign, Ireland would have never received independance. The best we could hope for was a devolved Government, in which our affairs would still be controlled by the British Government.

This was clearly unacceptable. Britain had no mandate to control Ireland.

OB isn't a pacifist, IIRC he is a copper, the least pacifist job in the world. Its got less to do with pacifism and more to do with 'shut your mouth and do what you are told-ism'.

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

As may be, but they profess to have a strong historical mandate, the same one that our state is deroved from. Its not imaginary at all, but the reality. You may disagree with that political tradition, but to deny it exists is simply mental.

They claim to derive their mandate from the proclamation of 1916 and the election in 1918.

Now, maybe in a republican utopia, the results of one election stand for a century, but out here in reality, we have elections a little more often than that.

They have no legitimacy. They have no mandate. Stop pretending they do, it's only encouraging them.

Out here in the real world we have a disputed situation where there has and will always be armed resistance to that very real occupation for a very real section of Irish society. You are sticking your head in the sand on this one. You may disagree with that political tradition, but to deny it exists is simply mental.

I agree that it exists, but I refuse to accept that something that only exists in people's heads is a sane basis on which to run a society. If it's OK to take up arms against an imaginary occupation, why shouldn't it be OK to take up arms against the lizard overlords who run the government?

It is an occupation to a large number of the people who live there, and who are you to patronise them? You may disagree with that political tradition, but to deny it exists is simply mental.

I'm not patronising them, I'm pointing out that I, and almost everyone else who voted back in 1998, declared as a statement of fact that Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and will not be a part of the Republic of Ireland until there is a democratic mandate for such a change.

In the meantime, Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, and the Earth is billions of years old. I have no time for people who believe the Earth is a few thousand years old, and no time for people who believe the UK is militarily occupying itself. If you prefer to believe fairy tales - even when those fairy tales lead to terrorism and murder - knock yourself out.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And those of us who object to the Anglo bailout are in the same boat presumably. Don't get angry, don't even debate it on the internet, its reality and reality cannot be challenged? What balls.

Reality can be challenged. At the ballot box. People who challenge reality - especially reality that only exists in their imagination - by murdering others are terrorists. People who encourage others to believe in the fantasy that the terrorists use to justify their actions are not exactly helping.

Again, arrogant balls.

Your logic is devastating.

Says YOU. To so comprehensively dismiss the opinion of so many people why actually live there and have to deal with the consequences of the occupation is arrogant balls.

Northern Ireland isn't occupied. Deal with it.

Balls. Its an historically self evident statement of fact.

Actually, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

dlofnep wrote: »

And yet, 2 years later in the 1918 elections - Sinn Féin became the largest party in Ireland. The reality of the matter was that Britain had no mandate in Ireland.

And that reality was working its way through the political system in the form of a Home Rule bill, until the IRB decided to torpedo it.

I find it curious that you would state "we shouldn't celebrate their decision to choose violence over peaceful means". That's fine and well if you are balanced with your pacifism in all worldly events. However, the reality of the matter is - without an armed campaign, Ireland would have never received independance.

You can't know that, and you don't know it, and that's precisely the sort of revisionist fairy tale that continues to allow republican terrorists to flourish.

The best we could hope for was a devolved Government, in which our affairs would still be controlled by the British Government.

Just like Australia and Canada still have today. Because there's absolutely no possible way that it could ever have come about under any circumstances ever that a devolved government could lead to full independence. Here endeth the lesson.

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to republican scripture which sets boundaries on what could have happened in order to retrospectively justify the violence that did happen, and - as an unfortunate side effect - lends legitimacy to the violence that continues today.

Any analysis of history that includes the phrase "would never have" is revisionism, because it's stating as a fact something which is, by definition, unknowable.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

OB isn't a pacifist, IIRC he is a copper...

Oh man, I actually laughed out loud at that one. You don't know how to stop being wrong about stuff, do you?

Cú Giobach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Interesting juxtaposition. You describe two groups of people and how they "feel" things are, while neatly side-stepping the minor detail of how they actually are.

Those people in Northern Ireland who believe that Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom have the advantage of being factually correct.

What you've done in the quote above is exactly the same as creationists trying to get their fantasies taught alongside evolution in US schools: they try to claim that their belief in a myth is equivalent to science's statements of fact.

Northern Ireland isn't occupied. Claiming that it is only lends legitimacy to terrorists. It's time everyone grew up and dealt in facts, rather than myths.

Not accepting the fact that a large proportion of the NI population feel they are under occupation is obviously something you are entitled to do.
But telling someone who feels under occupation that they are not, is quite frankly ludicrous.

Everyone who childishly refers to the "26 counties". Everyone who claims allegiance to an imaginary republic that was declared in 1916, instead of the actual one that was declared in 1948. Everyone who uses silly phrases like "the six county statelet" instead of "Northern Ireland". It's all incredibly silly, and could be dismissed as laughable if it didn't underpin the reasons terrorism continues to be a problem.

How people refer to NI is quite irrelevant to the situation, and will not either increase or decrease the violence there.

Of course not. It's not the fault of anyone who glorifies the use of violence in the past, or anyone who claims that Northern Ireland is militarily occupied, or anyone who parrots the "Ireland unfree will never be at peace" line, or anyone who sings rebel songs, or anyone who calls people who disagree with their republican fantasies "West Brits", or any of that stuff. It's always someone else's fault, and until that someone else conforms to the ideals of republican mythology, well then they only have themselves to blame when the terrorism continues, right?

It is the fault of people who refuse to recognise and change a situation, that is leading to violence.

It's a statement of fact only because some people have decided that Pearse was an infallible messenger delivering a divine message from God Almighty. When those people grow up and realise that - shock, horror! - Pearse was a fallible human being, we'll have made some progress.]

It is a statement of fact because it is true.

Pearse's statement is true in only one context, and that is the context in which people make up their own unilateral definitions of "unfree",

The definition of "unfree" is to be controlled by someone you don't want to be in control. Which applies to a very large number of people in NI.

OhNoYouDidn't

Is what you are saying OB that we have to accept the Loyalist narrative and completely reject the Republican one because they are currently 'winning'?

No doubt you consider the French Resistance and the ANC to have been wrong for a while and then overnight became correct when they 'won'?

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

And that reality was working its way through the political system in the form of a Home Rule bill, until the IRB decided to torpedo it.

The Second home Rule bill was rejected in the House of Lords. A 3rd Home Rule bill was essentially throwing us scraps, when what the Irish public wanted was self-determination and not devolution. Unless you wish to argue with the results in the 1918 general elections?

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can't know that, and you don't know it, and that's precisely the sort of revisionist fairy tale that continues to allow republican terrorists to flourish.

It has nothing to do with "allowing republican terrorists to flourish". I'd appreciated if you dropped the hyperbole and discussed this issue in a rational manner. There was absolutely nothing on the horizon that would indicate Ireland would have ever received independance.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just like Australia and Canada still have today. Because there's absolutely no possible way that it could ever have come about under any circumstances ever that a devolved government could lead to full independence. Here endeth the lesson.

The Irish situation cannot be compared to Canada & Australia. It was a completely different situation, from a geographical and political perspective. Britain was quite adament in controlling Irish affairs. It saw it geographically assimilated into Britain, and saw it beneficial to Britain's from a military standpoint, due to it's atlantic edge.

Secondly, Canada & Australia had become far too powerful from Britain to continue to control. Ireland was a 1 hour boat-ride away, to slap us on the wrist if we did wrong. Ireland would have remained a part of the UK, under a devolved Government in the North, and another devolved Government in the South, as set out in the 1920 act. Ireland would have a similar position to Scotland or Wales does today under a UK framework. This is the reality of the matter.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to republican scripture which sets boundaries on what could have happened in order to retrospectively justify the violence that did happen, and - as an unfortunate side effect - lends legitimacy to the violence that continues today.

So they should never have rebelled against an occupying force that had no mandate in Ireland, on the hope that one day they might have gained independance? Right.

JustinDee

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Is what you are saying OB that we have to accept the Loyalist narrative and completely reject the Republican one because they are currently 'winning'?
No doubt you consider the French Resistance and the ANC to have been wrong for a while and then overnight became correct when they 'won'?

The only thing anyone here must accept is what the majority of people on this island want and have already expressed a view upon.

oscarBravo

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Not accepting the fact that a large proportion of the NI population feel they are under occupation is obviously something you are entitled to do.
But telling someone who feels under occupation that they are not, is quite frankly ludicrous.

What about someone who feels the world is run by lizards? Is it ludicrous to tell them that it's not? Or someone who feels that human beings lived side-by-side with dinosaurs?

Why do we have to accept the beliefs of some people who are factually wrong, but not others?

How people refer to NI is quite irrelevant to the situation, and will not either increase or decrease the violence there.

Words have power. The continued refusal to accept that things are as they are, and that the only legitimate way to change them is through democratic means - these are the things that allow violence to continue.

Sure, changing how people refer to Northern Ireland won't extinguish the violence. But continuing to lend support to the myth that part of one sovereign country is occupied by another will only perpetuate it - and language is a big part of that mythology.

It is the fault of people who refuse to recognise and change a situation, that is leading to violence.

Nope. Refusal to recognise and change a situation is par for the course in political discourse throughout the world. It leads to violence in Irish republicanism because we incubate the mythology in which it's OK to change situations through violence.

It is a statement of fact because it is true.

It's true because people keep making it true. Ireland will never be at peace as long as people are committed to keeping Ireland from peace.

Ireland could be at peace - "unfree" or otherwise - if people stopped using violence to achieve their aims. It's a facile cop-out to claim that present-day terrorism is merely fulfilling Pearse's prophecy, when the terrorists are using Pearse as their inspiration.

The definition of "unfree" is to be controlled by someone you don't want to be in control. Which applies to a very large number of people in NI.

It applies to me. I don't want to be controlled by Fianna Fáil. Does that mean I can use Pearse's prophecy as an excuse to bomb Leinster House?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Is what you are saying OB that we have to accept the Loyalist narrative and completely reject the Republican one because they are currently 'winning'?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about accepting partisan narratives, I'm talking about facts. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. That's a fact. Some people in Northern Ireland don't want it to be a part of the United Kingdom. That's another fact. The people of the Republic of Ireland voted in overwhelming numbers to relinquish our territorial claim on Northern Ireland. Yet another fact. Northern Ireland will become a part of the Republic of Ireland when the people of the Republic and the people of Northern Ireland make a democratic decision for that to happen. Facts, facts, facts.

The other fact at play here is that some people have decided that they don't give a damn what the rest of us think, and they're going to try to change things through murder and destruction.

There are no narratives involved. These are facts. If you feel the need to look at things from the perspective of an alternate universe where these things are not true, feel free - but don't act all surprised when others don't agree with you.

No doubt you consider the French Resistance and the ANC to have been wrong for a while and then overnight became correct when they 'won'?

"No doubt"? You've already demonstrated that you know nothing about me, so it's more than a little arrogant to try to claim you know what I think.

Bottle_of_Smoke

oscarBravo wrote: »

Northern Ireland isn't occupied. Claiming that it is only lends legitimacy to terrorists. It's time everyone grew up and dealt in facts, rather than myths. It doesn't matter who's telling whom; it's not true. Everyone who childishly refers to the "26 counties". Everyone who claims allegiance to an imaginary republic that was declared in 1916, instead of the actual one that was declared in 1948. Everyone who uses silly phrases like "the six county statelet" instead of "Northern Ireland"

In fairness the Irish Times and most other Irish newspapers refer to ''the north'' rather than Northern Ireland or the UK. I don't think they're pretending the ROI does'n't exist or supporting dissidents, it's just many people here don't feel like its a different country and consider it a bit odd referring to the British version

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

It has nothing to do with "allowing republican terrorists to flourish". I'd appreciated if you dropped the hyperbole and discussed this issue in a rational manner.

Sorry, but no. You're dismissing my entire point without even attempting to address it.

My whole argument is that some people think that violence was the only possible way that we could have achieved independence, and that we would still be a part of the United Kingdom today were it not for 1916. This is debatable at best. Then it is argued that violence was the only possible way that civil rights could have been achieved in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, and that if the IRA hadn't embarked on a campaign of terrorism, Catholics would still be denied voting rights in Northern Ireland today.

Then the same people would have us believe that the "Brits" - who, throughout their entire history up to and including the late 20th century, only understood the language of violence - suddenly embraced enlightenment in the last twelve years, and are now amenable to persuasion using political and diplomatic means. Therefore, although violence was not only acceptable but absolutely necessary throughout all of history, now - suddenly - violence isn't acceptable, because this time it's different.

It's a nonsense narrative, and it's no surprise that some people choose to reject it. In my case, I reject the idea that nothing would ever have been achieved without violence; in the case of the dissidents, they reject the idea that anything is different now.

But the bottom line is, glorifying past violence is an enabling factor for today's terrorists. It's like parents who smoke telling their kids that they shouldn't: they have no credibility.

There was absolutely nothing on the horizon that would indicate Ireland would have ever received independance.

Yes, that's the narrative that justifies the violence. Coincidentally, it's the narrative that the dissidents use to justify their violence today: there's nothing on their horizon to indicate that Ireland will be united.

The Irish situation cannot be compared to Canada & Australia. It was a completely different situation, from a geographical and political perspective. Britain was quite adament in controlling Irish affairs. It saw it geographically assimilated into Britain, and saw it beneficial to Britain's from a military standpoint, due to it's atlantic edge.

Secondly, Canada & Australia had become far too powerful from Britain to continue to control. Ireland was a 1 hour boat-ride away, to slap us on the wrist if we did wrong. Ireland would have remained a part of the UK, under a devolved Government in the North, and another devolved Government in the South, as set out in the 1920 act. Ireland would have a similar position to Scotland or Wales does today under a UK framework. This is the reality of the matter.

So you believe that the only way Scotland or Wales could ever possibly achieve independence is through terrorism?

So they should never have rebelled against an occupying force that had no mandate in Ireland, on the hope that one day they might have gained independance? Right.

Ah, there's the O-word again.

Seriously, objectively: what percentage of Irish people at the start of the 20th century would have described themselves as under occupation by Britain?

Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom at the time. People knew that, accepted it as fact, and - to a greater or lesser extent - wanted to change it. But the vast majority wanted it done without war. And, as usual, a minority decided that killing people was the right way to go about it. Some things never change.

OhNoYouDidn't

JustinDee wrote: »

The only thing anyone here must accept is what the majority of people on this island want and have already expressed a view upon.

I agree, as I assume do most people on here, which is why not one person has supported the dissidents. But its la la land to assume that Republicans would in their entirety accept the occupation enforced in the GFA and play nice and wait for demographics. Its a sad, but true, fact of life that someone will always want to take a pop at the Brits.

Happy Monday

dlofnep wrote: »

It saw it geographically assimilated into Britain, and saw it beneficial to Britain's from a military standpoint, due to it's atlantic edge.

Secondly, Canada & Australia had become far too powerful from Britain to continue to control. Ireland would have remained a part of the UK, under a devolved Government in the North, and another devolved Government in the South, as set out in the 1920 act. Ireland would have a similar position to Scotland or Wales does today under a UK framework. This is the reality of the matter.

Scotland and Wales as nations both have the right to vote for independence at any time they wish - they haven't chosen to as the people of these places recognise that they are far better off in the UK.

The 1920 Act only came about as a result of the Rising and what followed - the need for two separate parliaments when it became clear that the peoples on different parts of the island had different political objectives going forward. The 1914 Act would have provided for one parliament in Dublin.

What was eventually achieved in 1922 was little more than home rule on only a 26 county basis with any hope of national reconciliation put back for decades if not centuries.

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, changing how people refer to Northern Ireland won't extinguish the violence. But continuing to lend support to the myth that part of one sovereign country is occupied by another will only perpetuate it - and language is a big part of that mythology. .

As myths go, its quite a real one. Tens of thousands of soldiers, a massive intellegence organisation, paramilitary police, death squads...

The majoroty of people of the nationalist persuasion in the 6 counties vote for a policical party that refers to it as an occupation. Are they all wrong too? You know more about the reality of their lives becasue of semantics?

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about accepting partisan narratives, I'm talking about facts. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. That's a fact. Some people in Northern Ireland don't want it to be a part of the United Kingdom. That's another fact. The people of the Republic of Ireland voted in overwhelming numbers to relinquish our territorial claim on Northern Ireland. Yet another fact. Northern Ireland will become a part of the Republic of Ireland when the people of the Republic and the people of Northern Ireland make a democratic decision for that to happen. Facts, facts, facts.

So Tibet is part of China. Shut up, deal with it. Might is right etc.

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I agree, as I assume do most people on here, which is why not one person has supported the dissidents. But its la la land to assume that Republicans would in their entirety accept the occupation enforced in the GFA and play nice and wait for demographics. Its a sad, but true, fact of life that someone will always want to take a pop at the Brits.

Wow, that's some impressive doublespeak.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

As myths go, its quite a real one. Tens of thousands of soldiers, a massive intellegence organisation...

By that logic, England is occupied by Britain.

...paramilitary police...

What?

...death squads...

Now you sound like Sarah Palin.

Seriously, you wonder why people don't take your denial of support for the dissidents at face value? You sound like their marketing manager.

The majoroty of people of the nationalist persuasion in the 6 counties vote for a policical party that refers to it as an occupation. Are they all wrong too? You know more about the reality of their lives becasue of semantics?

I'm not claiming to know more about the reality of their lives. I'm stating - as a simple fact - that Northern Ireland is not under occupation. You're trying to claim that the fact that people believe something is the case automatically means that it is the case, which - outside of the republican parallel universe - isn't true.

So Tibet is part of China.

In the republican parallel universe, there isn't a region called "Tibet" in China?

Shut up, deal with it. Might is right etc.

Hell, no. Stick your fingers in your ears, go "lalala I'm not listening", and pretend the world is different from how it is. Then claim not to support people who think the same way you do, but use the same fantasies to justify terrorism.

JustinDee

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

its la la land to assume that Republicans would in their entirety accept the occupation enforced in the GFA and play nice and wait for demographics

Its irrelevant, deluded and ignorant what anyone else thinks.
They are fascists if they persist against the will of the people they allege to represent.
Who the f*** do they think they are to purport to know what I think is better?
The reality is that they haven't a clue what democracy or freedom actually entails hence the idiotic rhetoric.
The people of this island have spoken. If these deluded fools can claim to support "freedom" then they should show this by accepting what the majority wants.

RDM_83 again

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm stating - as a simple fact - that Northern Ireland is not under occupation. You're trying to claim that the fact that people believe something is the case automatically means that it is the case, which - outside of the republican parallel universe - isn't true.

But if there was a simple majority that voted for a party that refered to the situation as an occupation presumably, it would then be the case? or is there an intrinsic claim that supersedes the democratic will? also in relations to boundaries. There was never an opportunity to amend the boundaries of NI in a democratic way, what was put forward in the GFA was that NI would be considered a single entity for the purposes of re-unification (have to use this word even though there is a strong argument about Ireland never having been unified, well at least Ulster), but the problem is that the borders of NI were set up by unelected non representative commision working under a strict deadline (and even if there had been a will to look at the democratic will of the people living in those areas the gerrymandering situation would have prevented it).

***before I'm accused of something I'm not I am a full supporter of the GFA as it was the best deal that could have been done, though I wish stormont wasn't so paralysed****

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sorry, but no. You're dismissing my entire point without even attempting to address it.

I'm not dismissing your point at all. You're naively oblivious to the realities of occupation. Sometimes, war is just. Not always, but sometimes. Britain had no mandate to control the affairs of the Irish people, and weren't willing to let Ireland go.

oscarBravo wrote: »

My whole argument is that some people think that violence was the only possible way that we could have achieved independence, and that we would still be a part of the United Kingdom today were it not for 1916. This is debatable at best.

It is in my estimation, the only way we would have achieved independence. You obviously disagree. But let's look at the reality of the situation, and place the Easter Rising in context.

In 1886 and 1893, two Irish home rule bills were defeated. This was the culmination of a century of struggle for Irish self determination, which went all the way back to 1798 and additionally - the repeal movement. For an entire century, the Irish population had sought to end the Union. Look at what happened O'Connell - Arrested and throw in prison.

By the time they eventually got around to passing a Home Rule Bill on it's third attempt in 1914, it never came to pass because Britain wanted Irish soldiers for World War 1. It was a critical moment in Irish history, and at that point - the Irish public no longer sought Home Rule - but sought complete independence, which is evident by the results of the 1918 elections after the Easter Rising. If the Irish public did not want full independence, they would have continued to vote for the IPP. But they didn't. Not that the voters of the IPP wouldn't desire complete independence either...

oscarBravo wrote: »

Then it is argued that violence was the only possible way that civil rights could have been achieved in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, and that if the IRA hadn't embarked on a campaign of terrorism, Catholics would still be denied voting rights in Northern Ireland today.

The fact that they had to seek "civil equality" in the first place, gave merit to ending British rule in Ireland. You see - you believe that we should have just been patient, and accepted scraps. We were patient, for (and pardon the cliché) - but for 100's of years. And that's no exaggeration. 1594, 1641, 1642, 1798, 1803, 1848, 1867 and 1916. All well known rebellions against British rule in Ireland. But yet, in 1914 - we were still begging for scraps in a devolved parliament.

No matter what way you spin it - the results of the 1918 elections say more than you or I could ever say on the matter. The Easter Rising was not only justified, but it was essential.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a nonsense narrative, and it's no surprise that some people choose to reject it. In my case, I reject the idea that nothing would ever have been achieved without violence; in the case of the dissidents, they reject the idea that anything is different now.

On what basis are you suggesting we would have achieved independence without an armed struggle? You keep repeating that line, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it would ever have happened. You laughably cite Canada and Australia, places that are not geographically tied to Britain as examples of nations that were weaned away from British rule - always overlooking the reality that they did not have the political or geographical composition that Ireland had.

You seem to believe that armed resistance is never just, when removing an occupying force that has no mandate whatsoever in the said nation. That is either naive, or selective reasoning.

oscarBravo wrote: »

But the bottom line is, glorifying past violence is an enabling factor for today's terrorists.

I'll glorify the hell out of the brave men and women of 1916, who died for Irish independence against an illegitimate Government, who had absolutely no mandate to control us. And I certainly won't let you dictate me into who I can, or cannot pay homage to. The majority of the Irish people rightfully see the men and women of 1916 as heroes.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Seriously, objectively: what percentage of Irish people at the start of the 20th century would have described themselves as under occupation by Britain?

70% of them, if the 1918 elections are anything to go by.

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wow, that's some impressive doublespeak..

How is it? Its the reality. Enough people in Ireland see the situation as an occupation and are willing to do something about it. Alas, thats life. T

oscarBravo wrote: »

By that logic, England is occupied by Britain. .

Because the historical narrative is the same....

oscarBravo wrote: »

What? Now you sound like Sarah Palin..

I do?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Seriously, you wonder why people don't take your denial of support for the dissidents at face value? You sound like their marketing manager. I'm not claiming to know more about the reality of their lives. I'm stating - as a simple fact - that Northern Ireland is not under occupation. You're trying to claim that the fact that people believe something is the case automatically means that it is the case, which - outside of the republican parallel universe - isn't true.

I'm stating as a simple fact that not everyone agrees with you.

oscarBravo wrote: »

In the republican parallel universe, there isn't a region called "Tibet" in China? Hell, no. Stick your fingers in your ears, go "lalala I'm not listening", and pretend the world is different from how it is. Then claim not to support people who think the same way you do, but use the same fantasies to justify terrorism.

Think the same way as me? Get real.

I dislike unionism, I think they are wrong and history will judge them as such. I do however understand their concerns and am hopeful the the compromise with them will work. I don't pontificate that their world view doesn't even exist like you do.

Your entire premise is that people are forbidden from challenging the status quo. Tibet is in China and anyone who doesn't like that fact is wrong, and if you are wrong, you are illegal in resisting. Its the narrowest world view possible and is one of the reasons the country is in the mess we are in now. Do what you are told or whack. Spare us.

oscarBravo

RDM_83 again wrote: »

But if there was a simple majority that voted for a party that refered to the situation as an occupation presumably, it would then be the case? or is there an intrinsic claim that supersedes the democratic will?

Democracy doesn't control facts. Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom. A country can't occupy itself. Northern Ireland is not occupied.

If a majority of the US Senate expressed the view that the Earth was less than ten thousand years old, would that become a fact by virtue of democracy?

also in relations to boundaries. There was never an opportunity to amend the boundaries of NI in a democratic way, what was put forward in the GFA was that NI would be considered a single entity for the purposes of re-unification (have to use this word even though there is a strong argument about Ireland never having been unified, well at least Ulster), but the problem is that the borders of NI were set up by unelected non representative commision working under a strict deadline (and even if there had been a will to look at the democratic will of the people living in those areas the gerrymandering situation would have prevented it).

So campaign for a democratic re-partition, if it's important to you. I have no problem - none - with people who wish to change the status quo. My problem is with people who (a) claim that the status quo is other than it is, in order to justify their actions, and (b) try to change the status quo through violence.

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not dismissing your point at all. You're naively oblivious to the realities of occupation.

Ireland wasn't under occupation in 1916. Northern Ireland isn't under occupation now. I can't be oblivious to the realities of something that doesn't exist.

I'm reiterating this point because the claim that Northern Ireland is under military occupation creates a false justification for military resistance. It's utterly disingenuous to claim that Northern Ireland is occupied by a foreign military power, and then distance yourself from the violence that results from other (more inherently violent) people make the same claim.

It is in my estimation, the only way we would have achieved independence. You obviously disagree. But let's look at the reality of the situation, and place the Easter Rising in context.

In 1886 and 1893, two Irish home rule bills were defeated. This was the culmination of a century of struggle for Irish self determination, which went all the way back to 1798 and additionally - the repeal movement. For an entire century, the Irish population had sought to end the Union. Look at what happened O'Connell - Arrested and throw in prison.

By the time they eventually got around to passing a Home Rule Bill on it's third attempt in 1914, it never came to pass because Britain wanted Irish soldiers for World War 1. It was a critical moment in Irish history, and at that point - the Irish public no longer sought Home Rule - but sought complete independence, which is evident by the results of the 1918 elections after the Easter Rising. If the Irish public did not want full independence, they would have continued to vote for the IPP. But they didn't.

Would they have, if Pearse et al hadn't kicked off?

Your position is that there is no possibility whatsoever that Ireland could possibly have found any path to independence without violence, and that - in the absence of such violence - Ireland would unquestionably still be a part of the United Kingdom today.

So I'll ask you again: do you believe that Scotland and Wales will never achieve independence, except through terrorism?

The fact that they had to seek "civil equality" in the first place, gave merit to ending British rule in Ireland. You see - you believe that we should have just been patient, and accepted scraps. We were patient, for (and pardon the cliché) - but for 100's of years. And that's no exaggeration. 1594, 1641, 1642, 1798, 1803, 1848, 1867 and 1916. All well known rebellions against British rule in Ireland. But yet, in 1914 - we were still begging for scraps in a devolved parliament.

Which is the same rhetoric the dissidents use to justify their continued campaign of violence. I see little difference between the sentiments of "it was the only language they understood" and "it's the only language they'll understand".

No matter what way you spin it - the results of the 1918 elections say more than you or I could ever say on the matter. The Easter Rising was not only justified, but it was essential.

You keep talking about the 1918 election, as if it took place in a vacuum. Would the results have been the same, in the absence of 1916?

On what basis are you suggesting we would have achieved independence without an armed struggle? You keep repeating that line, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it would ever have happened.

I don't think I've claimed that it would have happened; I've rejected the premise that it couldn't possibly have happened, which is your position.

You laughably cite Canada and Australia, places that are not geographically tied to Britain as examples of nations that were weaned away from British rule - always overlooking the reality that they did not have the political or geographical composition that Ireland had.

Wait, what? You're trying to claim that Ireland was the single most strategic asset in the entire British Empire? Ye gods.

You seem to believe that armed resistance is never just, when removing an occupying force that has no mandate whatsoever in the said nation. That is either naive, or selective reasoning.

You're arguing from your conclusion. Ireland wasn't occupied, any more than Scotland is. The fact that a sizeable percentage of Scottish people want independence doesn't make Scotland occupied, and the 1918 election didn't make Ireland occupied.

I'll glorify the hell out of the brave men and women of 1916, who died for Irish independence against an illegitimate Government, who had absolutely no mandate to control us.

The irony is delicious. Are you going to try to tell me that Pearse drew his mandate for violence in 1916 from the 1918 election?

And I certainly won't let you dictate me into who I can, or cannot pay homage to.

You can pay homage to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you like.

The majority of the Irish people rightfully see the men and women of 1916 as heroes.

Sadly, they don't see the connection between the glorification of that violence and the its continuation by those who claim their mandate from it today. I'm working on it.

70% of them, if the 1918 elections are anything to go by.

Nice extrapolation. So every SNP voter - every single one - believes Scotland is occupied by a hostile foreign power?

Or are they just a little more pragmatic than that, not being as emotionally wedded to a past history of violence?

LordSutch

paky wrote: »

The RIRAs legitimacy

Answer "(They have none)" simples!