The RIRAs legitimacy

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Thats a headscratching statement. You are so far down the revisionist rabbithole that in order to criticise todays iteration of physical force republicanism you are coming out with asinine nonsense like the above to completly rewrite history to deligitimise all Irish rebels.

You don't like the dissidents. I don't like the dissidents. We get it. This sort of mental gymnastics makes you look very, very foolish.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ireland wasn't under occupation in 1916.

Talk about revisionist waffle.

Britain had no mandate to control Ireland in 1916. Britain at no point in history controlled Irish affairs through the will of the people. How exactly is that not an occupation? The people wanted independence and Britain wasn't willing to give it to them.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

You believe that Pearse kicked off an armed movement in Ireland? And not the campaigns of 1594, 1641, 1642, 1798, 1803, 1848, 1867 directly before the Easter Rising? The reality of the situation is that armed resistance is not unique to Ireland. It exists everywhere around the world where a people feel under occupation.

As for the north goes - the nationalist community certainly do feel under occupation, while the unionist community does not. And that's more important than your black & white view on the constitutional outlook of the north.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

I never attempt to make a claim of any certainly. It is in my estimation that the chances of Ireland ever gaining anything beyond devolution were minimal. It is also in my estimation that to resist an occupying force that had absolutely no mandate to control Irish affairs was both noble and just. It's irrelevant if sometime down the line 100 years later, Ireland would have had a small chance of inevitably gaining independence.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Ireland didn't achieve independence through terrorism. It achieved it through war. The centuries that preceded it however, were most certainly state-terrorism by Britain.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You keep talking about the 1918 election, as if it took place in a vacuum.

Of course I keep talking about the 1918 election! It's the most important piece of data that we have of the mindset of the Irish people in the early 20th century. 70% of all the seats were won by Sinn Féin.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would the results have been the same, in the absence of 1916?

That fact that Sinn Féin received 70% of all seats just 2 years after the Easter Rising shows quite clearly that the Irish people not only supported full independence, but also that they supported the actions of the Easter Rising.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Scotland is of none of my concern. The difference between Ireland and Scotland is that the majority of Irish people supported and sought full independence. I'm not sure what the current mindset is of the Scottish people - you'd have to ask them.

The 1918 election didn't make Ireland occupied. How on earth could the results of elections make it occupied? The 1918 election proved that Ireland was under occupation. How exactly was it not occupied if Britain had no mandate to control it? Please - do tell me.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

I never once asserted that. I stated that the 1918 election proved that there was a majority support for him and his colleagues. You see - You assert that he did not have a mandate, but you haven't provided evidence for that assertion.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

I don't know what SNP voters believe. I don't remember claiming to be a political analyst on Scottish affairs at any point. I would assume that SNP voters would be in favour of either strong-devolution or full independence.

KeithAFC

Ireland has never been at peace. History shows us this. These people aren't interested in peace, aren't interested in politics. Only interested in killing people. No FACTUAL mandate, no strategy. Nothing to offer which has been repeated over and over again to some people who still don't get it.

LordSutch

Ireland was not occupied in 1916, but then again, I'm not an Irish Nationalist.

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

Ireland has never been at peace. History shows us this. These people aren't interested in peace, aren't interested in politics. Only interested in killing people. No FACTUAL mandate, no strategy. Nothing to offer which has been repeated over and over again to some people who still don't get it.

Thats not true. They don't get up and go "jayzus lads, international break is on, this is boring. A few bombs yeah?"

dlofnep

LordSutch wrote: »

Ireland was not occupied in 1916, but then again, I'm not an Irish Nationalist.

Define occupation.

KeithAFC

What do these RIRA people want? What do they expect? Unionists to just hand over the 6 counties and be done with it? If they know the history of loyalisim, they would know its not going to be like that.

The life style of no surrender has been fed into them. Many follow this life style like muslims lead their life by the quran. George Washington, who said: “If defeated everywhere
else, I will make my stand for liberty, among the Scots-Irish in my native
Virginia”.



They should drop this act of trying to force it and stop planting bombs to kill police officers and kids coming across bombs and picking them up.

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Thats not true. They don't get up and go "jayzus lads, international break is on, this is boring. A few bombs yeah?"

Tell me what is sensible about opening fire and catching pizza delivery men and also killing an innocent catholic police officer and two soldiers and then planting bombs all over the country which will get us nowhere and if anything will only make the side they are fighting against stronger.

They only need to get lucky once and kill protestants and there will be trouble.

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

What do these RIRA people want? What do they expect? Unionists to just hand over the 6 counties and be done with it? If they know the history of loyalisim, they would know its not going to be like that.

The life style of no surrender has been fed into them. Many follow this life style like muslims lead their life by the quran. George Washington, who said: “If defeated everywhere
else, I will make my stand for liberty, among the Scots-Irish in my native
Virginia”.



They should drop this act of trying to force it and stop planting bombs to kill police officers and kids coming across bombs and picking them up.

I believe loyalists did that? If you are talking about the most recent issue of that which I can recall.

dlofnep

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I believe loyalists did that? If you are talking about the most recent issue of that which I can recall.

Indeed they did.

KeithAFC

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I believe loyalists did that? If you are talking about the most recent issue of that which I can recall.

I meant the estate that had a bomb near it and nearly killed children. Those loyalists are idiots.

Wolfe Tone

I made a thread about it too if I recall.


Yeah, this one. Some rather interesting comments in there from certain posters....

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats a headscratching statement. You are so far down the revisionist rabbithole that in order to criticise todays iteration of physical force republicanism you are coming out with asinine nonsense like the above to completly rewrite history to deligitimise all Irish rebels.

I'm not re-writing history. I'm interpreting history. I know it's hard for you to grasp this, but you don't have a monopoly on such interpretation. I also realise it's vitally important for the internal consistency of your worldview for Ireland to have been some sort of glorified concentration camp in 1916, but I don't share your worldview.

You don't like the dissidents. I don't like the dissidents. We get it. This sort of mental gymnastics makes you look very, very foolish.

It's not mental gymnastics, and I don't care what you think I look like. Ireland wasn't occupied. Northern Ireland isn't occupied now. Scotland isn't occupied now. Being part of a country that you don't want to be a part of doesn't make you occupied. You're using militaristic language to justify an unnecessary military action a century ago, and in the process you're justifying unnecessary military action now, whether you are prepared to open your eyes to that fact or not.

You and dlofnep are indulging in the bizarre rhetorical device of deciding that if a percentage of people believe something, then that something is automatically true - and that's before we get into the strange idea that a vote for Sinn Féin automatically meant that people felt that they were under the jackboot of a foreign army.

Yes, a political party with a goal of independence won a majority of seats in 1918. The fact that people want independence doesn't imply that they believe they are occupied. Many Scottish people want independence, but they don't believe they are occupied.

But hey, go ahead with the militaristic rhetoric. And then profess wide-eyed wonder that others use the same rhetoric to justify violence.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amhran Nua

oscarBravo wrote: »

I also realise it's vitally important for the internal consistency of your worldview for Ireland to have been some sort of glorified concentration camp in 1916, but I don't share your worldview.

Er, the population of Ireland only ~60 years before that was around 8 million people, while the population of England was 14 million. Fast forward to today, the UK has around 60 million while Ireland has around 4 million.

This is not indicative of a happy and mutually beneficial relationship between the two countries, to say nothing of the constant uprisings.

R P McMurphy

If Ireland was not occupied in 1916, was it occupied between 1919 to 1921?

oscarBravo

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Er, the population of Ireland only ~60 years before that was around 8 million people, while the population of England was 14 million. Fast forward to today, the UK has around 60 million while Ireland has around 4 million.

There was a famine. Look it up.

This is not indicative of a happy and mutually beneficial relationship between the two countries, to say nothing of the constant uprisings.

I didn't say there was a happy and mutually beneficial relationship; I said there was no occupation. Less of the straw man stuff, please.

oscarBravo

R P McMurphy wrote: »

If Ireland was not occupied in 1916, was it occupied between 1919 to 1921?

Was it part of the United Kingdom from 1919 to 1921?

R P McMurphy

Was it part of the United Kingdom from 1919 to 1921?

Yes but by all accounts there was a flood of scumbags sent into the country to quell a popular uprising

R P McMurphy

What is your definition of occupation? I think it must differ from the vast majority of people.

The country was occupied. The British had to send these WW1 soldiers which were little more than thugs/rapists/murders to try to prevent Irish people from attaining independence.

OhNoYouDidn't

dlofnep wrote: »

Define occupation.

This question has been pointedly avoided...

100,000 troops in Dublin alone in 1916. Thats 8 times more than in the whole of the north at the height of the conflict.

If thats not a military occupation to pacify the locals, I'm intrigued to know what it was.

OhNoYouDidn't

R P McMurphy wrote: »

What is your definition of occupation? I think it must differ from the vast majority of people.

I would also wager that Iraq wasn't occupied, nor is Tibet. Some smart arsed semantic response will be given. But its Republicans with the pie in the sky narrative and version of history?

Amhran Nua

oscarBravo wrote: »

There was a famine. Look it up.

Really? Hmm, and who was responsible for the gargantuan death toll of that famine? The deaths and forced evictions didn't stop in 1848 of course, which would indicate to me and indeed to any impartial observer that the British government without question saw the native Irish as "different", whether nationally or ethnically, which would in fact support the position of an occupation of one people by another rather than whatever you're calling it.

What are you calling it, incidentally?

The population of Irish emigrants and their descendants in the US meanwhile is estimated to be in and around the 25 million mark, which is approximately where you'd expect the Irish population to be today given a more or less linear growth.

Funny, that.

dlofnep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What a rose-tinted view of 19th century Ireland. The Irish people had no alternatives and politics in Ireland was determined by the elite class. It wasn't until the late 19th century, that the Home Rule League came about, eventually evolving into the Irish Parliamentary Party. This gave the Irish people a genuine thirst for controlling their own affairs.

As soon as a party emerged that sought independence - it became largest political party in the country. Sinn Féin went from a political unknown, to holding 75% of the seats across Ireland within the space of a few years. That's the reality of the matter.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

At what point were the Irish people asked whether or not they wanted their affairs to be represented in Westminster?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But yet, 2 years after the Easter Rising - Sinn Féin held 75% of all seats. Imagine that? Revisionism. What a wonderful thing to behold.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're aware that a devolved government, is not independence, right? Secondly, the third home rule bill (yes the third), was only signed to ease aspirations of independence. There was never an intent of granting Ireland political freedom in it's truest form.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

I said there was no occupation. Less of the straw man stuff, please.

Define occupation.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And the minute a party that was linked to a violent insurrection stood they got 80% of the vote on an abstentionist ticket.

Doesn't say a lot for the strength of the moderates at the time that the instant a militant alternative was offered, they won the election hands down.

KeithAFC

Not even King George could tell the Ulster men what to do.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

Not even King George could tell the Ulster men what to do.

Out of interest, would you class the south as being militarily occupied in the 1916 to 21 period?

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

100,000 troops in Dublin alone in 1916.

Why?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I would also wager that Iraq wasn't occupied...

Occupied by whom?

...nor is Tibet.

That would be the Tibet that's not in China, on your map?

Some smart arsed semantic response will be given.

Out here in the real world, those "smart arsed semantics" are called "facts".

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Really? Hmm, and who was responsible for the gargantuan death toll of that famine? The deaths and forced evictions didn't stop in 1848 of course, which would indicate to me and indeed to any impartial observer that the British government without question saw the native Irish as "different", whether nationally or ethnically, which would in fact support the position of an occupation of one people by another rather than whatever you're calling it.

What are you calling it, incidentally?

I'm not sure what "it" is that you're asking me to name. A country can't occupy itself. Ireland was part of the UK, as Scotland is now. Scotland isn't occupied now; Ireland wasn't then.

The population of Irish emigrants and their descendants to the US meanwhile is estimated to be in and around the 25 million mark, which is approximately where you'd expect the Irish population to be today given a more or less linear growth.

Funny, that.

Hilarious. What does it have to do with the topic?

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

Not even King George could tell the Ulster men what to do.

Ulster has 9 counties. In 1914, 5 of them had a nationalist majority - including Derry City, South Down & South Armagh on top of those. Who exactly are these "Ulster Men" that you speak of and what relevance does your statement have to the current discussion?