Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mountbatten's Death

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    :D LOL - Yeah, thieves have this problem. Taking stuff is always a lot easier than giving it all back...Which is why we have police, laws and a court system - to help them out.

    Not true MD - I have read Sean Murphys piece on the theft of the irish crown jewels and Mountbatten isn't even mentioned. And besides he would only have been 7.

    http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/jewels.htm


  • Options
    #63
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Giving back an occupied territory is not a common occurence, even nowadays. Perhaps in recent history it has begun to be the fashionable thing, i.e. liberation. Whether a territory is taken over by wartime victory or colonialism the question of just handing it over to the people who live there has only been made in the last 100 years AFAIK (open to correction on that).

    Democracy is a recent system of government and as I understand it there was no country with universal suffrage in 1900 - parliments but not democracy existed

    http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/democrat.html

    Even today ,according to the Economist, only 13 % of the worlds population live in full democracies compared to 38% in authorotarian regimes.

    They take corruption as a measurement system too.

    http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf

    Another group Freedom House give added weighting to the voting systems
    In 1900, no countries had governments elected on the principal of universal adult suffrage. Today, there are 119 such countries, or 62 percent of all the countries in the world. These are the dramatic findings of a new comprehensive end-of-century study released today by Freedom House, the New York based research group that tracks political rights and civil liberties around the world.

    http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=74

    Key global findings:
    Free:The number of countries designated by Freedom in the World as Free in 2010 stands at 87, two fewer than the previous year, and representing 45 percent of the world’s 194 countries and 43 percent of the world’s population.
    Partly Free:The number of Partly Free countries increased to 60, or 31 percent of all countries assessed by the survey, comprising 22 percent of the world’s total population.
    Not Free:The number of countries deemed to be Not Free remained at 47, or 24 percent of the total number of countries. Nearly 2.5 billion people live in societies where fundamental political rights and civil liberties are not respected. China accounts for more than half of this number.
    Electoral Democracies:The number of electoral democracies dropped from 116 to 115, the lowest number since 1995. Three countries—the Philippines, Tanzania, and Tonga—achieved electoral democracy status after conducting elections that were regarded as improvements over earlier polls. Declines in Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, and Sri Lanka triggered their removal from the list of electoral democracies.
    Worst of the Worst:Of the 47 countries ranked Not Free, nine countries and one territory received the survey’s lowest possible rating for both political rights and civil liberties: Burma, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

    It is not as extensive as people think and Burma is particularly bad. Ironic that.


  • Options
    #64
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Giving back an occupied territory is not a common occurence, even nowadays. Perhaps in recent history it has begun to be the fashionable thing, i.e. liberation. Whether a territory is taken over by wartime victory or colonialism the question of just handing it over to the people who live there has only been made in the last 100 years AFAIK (open to correction on that).

    I was making a jest about thieves - not necessarily territorial - but as for that and shrinking/collapsing empires - the Romans had to leave their occupied territory so it certainly is not a new experience as regards the collapse of Empires and withdrawing from occupied land.

    Not to mention what is called the collapse of "The First British Empire' which ended in 1783 when Britain was forced to withdraw from their lucrative American colonies.


  • Options
    #65
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    Not true MD - I have read Sean Murphys piece on the theft of the irish crown jewels and Mountbatten isn't even mentioned. And besides he would only have been 7.

    http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/jewels.htm

    :confused: No idea how you got that from my post? It was a reference to thieving in general - not specific at all to anyone or any particular event.


  • Options
    #66
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I was making a jest about thieves - not necessarily territorial - but as for that and shrinking/collapsing empires - the Romans had to leave their occupied territory so it certainly is not a new experience as regards the collapse of Empires and withdrawing from occupied land.

    Not to mention what is called the collapse of "The First British Empire' which ended in 1783 when Britain was forced to withdraw from their lucrative American colonies.

    When did the indigenous population get north America back, or any part of America for that matter?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    When did the indigenous population get north America back, or any part of America for that matter?

    I was making a reply to Jonnie's quote which was:
    "Whether a territory is taken over by wartime victory or colonialism the question of just handing it over to the people who live there has only been made in the last 100 years AFAIK"
    And the people who lived there got the territory by revolutionary means. In other words, the British/colonial power had to withdraw. The issue was withdrawal by a colonial power. So withdrawing from a colony is not a new experience for the British within the last 100 years only.


  • Options
    #68
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    :confused: No idea how you got that from my post? It was a reference to thieving in general - not specific at all to anyone or any particular event.

    Did I post that. Oh dear ;)


  • Options
    #69
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I was making a reply to Jonnie's quote which was:

    And the people who lived there got the territory by revolutionary means. In other words, the British/colonial power had to withdraw. The issue was withdrawal by a colonial power. So withdrawing from a colony is not a new experience for the British within the last 100 years only.

    I was responding to your statement about withdrawing from occupied lands.

    With many countries, the US a good example, the colonialism didn't end, only that colonialists didn't have to report to. An empirical power and were free to plunder the riches of their newly occupied lands and keep all the profits themselves.


  • Options
    #70
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I was responding to your statement about withdrawing from occupied lands.

    With many countries, the US a good example, the colonialism didn't end, only that colonialists didn't have to report to. An empirical power and were free to plunder the riches of their newly occupied lands and keep all the profits themselves.

    Fred - as usual if you don't win an argument you change the topic. Nice try but no cigar...The discussion was about a colonial power withdrawing.

    I refuse to be drawn into your nonsense.


  • Options
    #71
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Fred - as usual if you don't win an argument you change the topic. Nice try but no cigar...The discussion was about a colonial power withdrawing.

    I refuse to be drawn into your nonsense.

    Arguement? What argument?

    Fwiw, the Haitian slave revolt was probably the first instance in the "Modern" european colonial era outside of the US, then South America staryted getting independance from the first quaryter of the 19th century.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Arguement? What argument?

    "Argument - who me? I'm shocked, shocked...."didn't know you were in Casablanca Fred, small world.


  • Options
    #73
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Casablanca .

    Ah yes, the Spanish and Portugeese pulled out of there peacefully in the 18th century and it thrived.


  • Options
    #74
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I was responding to your statement about withdrawing from occupied lands.

    With many countries, the US a good example, the colonialism didn't end, only that colonialists didn't have to report to. An empirical power and were free to plunder the riches of their newly occupied lands and keep all the profits themselves.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    Fred - as usual if you don't win an argument you change the topic. Nice try but no cigar...The discussion was about a colonial power withdrawing.

    He has got you there Fred, "no taxation without representation."

    Could you imagine a democracy with 60 Britons in Britain and 1 billion Indians. Well neither did Atlee want to contemplate it.


  • Options
    #75
    charlemont
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭charlemont


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    Not useful but I'd like to see the thread renamed Mountbatten's Murder.

    Or maybe Live by the sword, Die by the sword.


  • Options
    #76
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 24,056 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    charlemont wrote: »
    Or maybe Live by the sword, Die by the sword.

    That would imply that he was a terrorist bomber.


  • Options
    #77
    charlemont
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭charlemont


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    That would imply that he was a terrorist bomber.

    Well he was a part of the establishment that shouldn't have been involved in Ireland, Nothing personal against the man himself but if someone comes into my house and treats me like sh*t, Then violence will be used to remove him.


  • Options
    #78
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    charlemont wrote: »
    Well he was a part of the establishment that shouldn't have been involved in Ireland, Nothing personal against the man himself but if someone comes into my house and treats me like sh*t, Then violence will be used to remove him.

    Ah, so he wasn't murdered, not even killed he was 'removed'. Was it Pickfords? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #79
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 24,056 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    charlemont wrote: »
    Well he was a part of the establishment that shouldn't have been involved in Ireland, Nothing personal against the man himself but if someone comes into my house and treats me like sh*t, Then violence will be used to remove him.

    You unfortunately end up wrecking your own house in the process.


  • Options
    #80
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    You unfortunately end up wrecking your own house in the process.

    So what lifes more valuable than a bloody house:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #81
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    After the astounding bigotry you showed the other day Owen, I'm very surprised you are still allowed post on this forum.


    Very interesting thread, I had always pictured in my mind the boat being somewhat bigger.
    A statement from the organisation said: "This operation is one of the discriminate ways we can bring to the attention of the English people the continuing occupation of our country."
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/27/newsid_2511000/2511545.stm

    Is there anything more to that statement?

    The Warrenpoint Ambush was of course the same day, I imagine the media coverage etc focused more on Mountbatten's death than the ambush?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    After the astounding bigotry you showed the other day Owen, I'm very surprised you are still allowed post on this forum.


    Very interesting thread, I had always pictured in my mind the boat being somewhat bigger.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/27/newsid_2511000/2511545.stm

    Is there anything more to that statement?

    The Warrenpoint Ambush was of course the same day, I imagine the media coverage etc focused more on Mountbatten's death than the ambush?

    don't you even bother speaking to me. You obviously don't know what bigotry means. Actually nvm i will just put you on ignore and you won't have to bother.


  • Options
    #83
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    charlemont wrote: »
    Well he was a part of the establishment that shouldn't have been involved in Ireland, Nothing personal against the man himself but if someone comes into my house and treats me like sh*t, Then violence will be used to remove him.

    Who was he treating like **** and why did he need to be removed?

    The IRA killed him for one reason only, because they could.


  • Options
    #84
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    I think wolfpawnat summarised it very well.
    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    Ruairí O'Brodagh stated in the interview he gave in the documentary that Montbatten should have voiced his grá and respect for Ireland. Apparently there was calls for Montbatten's assassination while O'Brodagh was Chief of staff of the IRA but O'Brodagh declined due to the fact it would be on the soil of the 26 counties.

    Though I do not condone the loss of any innocent life I have to say that I think that the Montbattens were nigh on insane to holiday in a area so close to what was internationally recognised as an active war zone of which he was from the opposing country. ,

    I don't know why anyone needs to say more.


  • Options
    #85
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    charlemont wrote: »
    Or maybe Live by the sword, Die by the sword.
    ejmaztec wrote: »
    That would imply that he was a terrorist bomber.


    The quote is from the Gospel of Matthew - and Jesus doesn't make a distinction.
    '"Put away your sword," Jesus told him. "Those who use the sword will die by the sword"'. Matthew 26:52


  • Options
    #86
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    After the astounding bigotry you showed the other day Owen, I'm very surprised you are still allowed post on this forum.

    Please stick to thread subject.


  • Options
    #87
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MarchDub wrote: »
    The quote is from the Gospel of Matthew - and Jesus doesn't make a distinction.

    I'm pretty sure Mountbatten put his sword away in 1959 when he retired from the navy.


  • Options
    #88
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure Mountbatten put his sword away in 1959 when he retired from the navy.

    I think what people are saying Fred is that he was a high profile relative of the Royal Family who had had high profile jobs, and, whether they agree or disagree he did not take the risk of a terrorist attack seriously and ignored the risk. Its like saying you retire from being famous or from public life. Well, he didn't really and maintained a public profile.

    Its a bit like Rangers and Celtic supporters the majority support their teams because if tradition and a Celtic supporter will not go to a Rangers Supporters Pub wild drunk singing republican songs. Mostly, he would be Ok, but there is a chance that someone would take offence and respond violently. While the Celtic supporter is within his legal rights he is being irresponsible and wreckless.

    What most people are saying here is that, like the Rangers/Celtic Supporters example, they do not agree with his assasination but can understand it and disagree totally with the killings of the teenage boys . What part of that is controvercial.


  • Options
    #89
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    CDfm wrote: »
    I think what people are saying Fred is that he was a high profile relative of the Royal Family who had had high profile jobs, and, whether they agree or disagree he did not take the risk of a terrorist attack seriously and ignored the risk. Its like saying you retire from being famous or from public life. Well, he didn't really and maintained a public profile.

    Its a bit like Rangers and Celtic supporters the majority support their teams because if tradition and a Celtic supporter will not go to a Rangers Supporters Pub wild drunk singing republican songs. Mostly, he would be Ok, but there is a chance that someone would take offence and respond violently. While the Celtic supporter is within his legal rights he is being irresponsible and wreckless.

    What most people are saying here is that, like the Rangers/Celtic Supporters example, they do not agree with his assasination but can understand it and disagree totally with the killings of the teenage boys . What part of that is controvercial.

    He was certainly reckless for ignoring the threats, I wouldn't argue with that.

    His murder was widely condemned by all communities though and the for the IRA it was a PR cock up. It does appear as though there has been almost a smear campaign against Mountbatten to try and almost justify his killing.

    He was a soft target and regardless of Mountbatten's lack of awareness of the risks, his murder and that of those with him served absolutely nothing.


  • Options
    #90
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure Mountbatten put his sword away in 1959 when he retired from the navy.

    Violence committed in the past is not mitigated by the passing of time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    He was certainly reckless for ignoring the threats, I wouldn't argue with that.
    .
    MarchDub wrote: »
    Violence committed in the past is not mitigated by the passing of time.

    There seems to be a general agreement on this by everyone including an ex IRA chief of staff which is as close to a condemnation as you are going to get.

    The history of it is that 2 young boys got killed too as did a very old woman got killed along with him.

    That is the history of it.

    Statements of fact.


Advertisement