Time to bow before the queen?

Nodin

HavingCrack wrote: »

There's certainly elements of discrimination and ethnic cleansing but it's a big jump to genocide. Anyway this has gone off topic.

O it fits perfectly, if you read the definition of genocide. And yes, we are rather off-topic.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

O it fits perfectly, if you read the definition of genocide. And yes, we are rather off-topic.

How?

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How?

"how" what?

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

"how" what?

How do those acts fit the definition of genocide. I would really like to understand your rationale.

I think it is shameful by the way, how you really belittle the term genocide by throwing it around Willy nilly.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How do those acts fit the definition of genocide. I would really like to understand your rationale.

I think it is shameful by the way, how you really belittle the term genocide by throwing it around Willy nilly.

I personally think its shameful that theres actually somebody on here in the 21st century defending various Imperialist crimes - some quite recent - that are well documented and a matter of historical fact.

I've put up the definition a number of times, however you seem unable to read it....

] While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group children of the group to another group."[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
(my bold & underline)

The cromwellian campaign, plantation, deportations and penal laws led to a population drop of anything from 15% up to 50%.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

I personally think its shameful that theres actually somebody on here in the 21st century defending various Imperialist crimes - some quite recent - that are well documented and a matter of historical fact.

I've put up the definition a number of times, however you seem unable to read it....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
(my bold & underline)

The cromwellian campaign, plantation, deportations and penal laws led to a population drop of anything from 15% up to 50%.

But none of those acts were intended to destroy a population or ethnic group.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But none of those acts were intended to destroy a population or ethnic group.

.....you're taking the piss now.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

.....you're taking the piss now.

They weren't though, to say otherwise is complete revisionist.

You are looking for something that quite simply wasn't there. You started this whole genocide thing and are now starting to look foolish.

The only genocide on this island was the 1641 massacre of protestants.

3000 people from a city of 1.5 million turn out to commemorate the 1916 rising. Sure Irish people probably would not even notice if Ireland was annexed to the UK.
Let us all bow before Her Brittanic Majesty.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They weren't though, to say otherwise is complete revisionist.

You are looking for something that quite simply wasn't there. You started this whole genocide thing and are now starting to look foolish.
.

You saying so, Fred, is not exactly a rebuttal. The Irish catholic population was specifically targeted, and vast numbers were killed systematically, and treated in a manner which corresponds to the legal definition I supplied earlier.

I'd suggest
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Civil-War-Pitkin-Guides/dp/0853726477/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333905560&sr=1-1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The only genocide on this island was the 1641 massacre of protestants.

And now the attempt to start a row over something you actually know to be untrue.

That was neither systematic nor planned. Nor would the previously believed figure of 4,000 be accurate - its actually below that. This was already addressed
http://www.tcd.ie/Communications/news/pressreleases/pressRelease.php?headerID=1312&pressReleaseArchive=2010

Contrast that with anything up to 500,000 dead and the systematic targeted disenfranchisement of an entire population.

Now you've already tried to distract from the issue with Gerry and 1641...whats next? The Belgians? How badly the Irish team will do in the forthcoming European cup?

xsiborg

Nodin wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But none of those acts were intended to destroy a population or ethnic group.

.....you're taking the piss now.

i think Nodin Fred means that the british empire at the time only intended to control the irish people, not wipe them out, as distinct from hitler or saddam who actually DID intend to wipe out a whole population!

by that same definition then you could claim that the unrecognised as an army IRA committed acts of genocide on the british people, as they actually DID want to wipe the british population out!

in my opinion though, and to get back to the OP, we should be talking about the PRESENT, and not history, which cannot be changed!

as i previously stated- the world has moved on, modern ireland has no reason to be bitter towards britain or the english as the british empire no longer exists, and no longer is any persecution to the irish republic. one cannot blame the current british government or the current monarchy for the actions of their ancestors, and such persecution was never inflicted on any of us, so some people in this thread need to remove the imaginary chip from their shoulder. both countries now are multi-cultural societies and many of those cultures have no clue, nor do they care, about the history of ireland and britain. they want to live in a prosperous society, and i for one would be more than willing to dissolve the current irish government and default to british government. we are a population only half the size of the population of london, and yet we have so many wasters taking up positions in councils and other wastes of money that would've gone towards paying back our debts and improving our services such as health and education a long time ago! if we joined up with britain, our government and local councils would be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and we couldn't have that now, could we? no, we're far better off stuck in our ghost estates while people go homeless while we bitterly dig our heels into 800 years of the big victim complex.

time to get the fúck over it and move on ffs

CrabRevolution

Deleted User wrote: »

3000 people from a city of 1.5 million turn out to commemorate the 1916 rising. Sure Irish people probably would not even notice if Ireland was annexed to the UK.
Let us all bow before Her Brittanic Majesty.

That's most likely because 96 years isn't a big number to celebrate, the 90th anniversary was attended by tens of thousands of people, and I can guarantee you that the 100th anniversary will also have a massive attendance.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0416/rising.html

CrabRevolution

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

3000 people from a city of 1.5 million turn out to commemorate the 1916 rising. Sure Irish people probably would not even notice if Ireland was annexed to the UK.
Let us all bow before Her Brittanic Majesty.

That's most likely because 96 years isn't a big number to celebrate, the 90th anniversary was attended by tens of thousands of people, and I can guarantee you that the 100th anniversary will also have a massive attendance.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0416/rising.html

So I guess the event is insignificant to the Irish of today, they are more interested in the number of repeats.

Nodin

xsiborg wrote: »

i think Nodin Fred means that the british empire at the time only intended to control the irish people, not wipe them out, as distinct from hitler or saddam who actually DID intend to wipe out a whole population!

It satisfys the legal definition as far as I can see. The quality of argument the other way has been a bit lacklustre, to put it mildly.

xsiborg wrote: »

by that same definition then you could claim that the unrecognised as an army IRA committed acts of genocide on the british people, as they actually DID want to wipe the british population out!

....nope. Nor will you find evidence to support such a claim. There's a number of arguments that can be made against that organisation, but them trying to exterminate the British is too silly to entertain, tbh.

xsiborg wrote: »

in my opinion though, and to get back to the OP, we should be talking about the PRESENT, and not history, which cannot be changed!

Indeed. No going back and all that.

xsiborg wrote: »

as i previously stated- the world has moved on, modern ireland has no reason to be bitter towards britain or the english as the british empire no longer exists, and no longer is any persecution to the irish republic. one cannot blame the current british government or the current monarchy for the actions of their ancestors, and such persecution was never inflicted on any of us, so some people in this thread need to remove the imaginary chip from their shoulder. both countries now are multi-cultural societies and many of those cultures have no clue, nor do they care, about the history of ireland and britain. they want to live in a prosperous society, and i for one would be more than willing to dissolve the current irish government and default to british government. we are a population only half the size of the population of london, and yet we have so many wasters taking up positions in councils and other wastes of money that would've gone towards paying back our debts and improving our services such as health and education a long time ago! if we joined up with britain, our government and local councils would be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and we couldn't have that now, could we? no, we're far better off stuck in our ghost estates while people go homeless while we bitterly dig our heels into 800 years of the big victim complex.

time to get the fúck over it and move on ffs

If you genuinely want to see the country "dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century", would it not be more logical to suggest a union with a modern progressive state such as France or Germany than Britain with its rigid class system, frankly bizzarre voting system etc?

the_syco

I'd rather live under the rule of Hitler the EU than the Queen English!

KeithAFC

CrabRevolution wrote: »

That's most likely because 96 years isn't a big number to celebrate, the 90th anniversary was attended by tens of thousands of people, and I can guarantee you that the 100th anniversary will also have a massive attendance.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0416/rising.html

I bet the anniversary of the Ulster covenant celebrations outside stormont this September will have a higher attendance than 1916 celebrations in 2016.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

I bet the anniversary of the Ulster covenant celebrations outside stormont this September will have a higher attendance than 1916 celebrations in 2016.

I bet my da would beat your da........

xsiborg

Nodin wrote: »

If you genuinely want to see the country "dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century", would it not be more logical to suggest a union with a modern progressive state such as France or Germany than Britain with its rigid class system, frankly bizzarre voting system etc?

tbh Nodin i have always thought Ireland's culture has been slowly erroded away by us having joined the EU, look at how controlled we are by the EU- how our agriculture and fishing industries have been decimated by EU regulations, our social lives have been decimated by EU regulations, and referendum after referendum has clearly shown that the majority of irish people are increasingly unhappy with the EU's daily invasion into our lives and the erosion of our culture and our identity. look at how many times the government made us vote on the lisbon treaty until we "made the right decision", or the decision at least that our French and German overlords wanted us to make, not to mention how they now have full control over our government's financial affairs.

does that fit your definition of genocide?

that our government no longer has any control over neither our laws, our financial affairs, and soon, our government shall abdicate full control of our country to our franco-german counterparts, and yknow what the worst thing is? they didnt even have to fight us for it! just throw us a few breadcrumbs called infrastructure grants in the 90's, and then bend us over a barrel with exorbitant interest rates on bailout money that we never have a hope of paying back within the next 100 years!

youreadthis

Nodin wrote: »

If you genuinely want to see the country "dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century", would it not be more logical to suggest a union with a modern progressive state such as France or Germany than Britain with its rigid class system, frankly bizzarre voting system etc?

Give me strength! France progressive? Most of the young people there act like French speaking wannabe American youths, and the older generation are more stuck in the 19th century than the Brits could ever wish to be even if they tried.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

It satisfys the legal definition as far as I can see. The quality of argument the other way has been a bit lacklustre, to put it mildly.



....nope. Nor will you find evidence to support such a claim. There's a number of arguments that can be made against that organisation, but them trying to exterminate the British is too silly to entertain, tbh.

If you genuinely want to see the country "dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century", would it not be more logical to suggest a union with a modern progressive state such as France or Germany than Britain with its rigid class system, frankly bizzarre voting system etc?

The Cromwellian campaign was just that, a campaign, it was ensuring the security of the English republic than it was about the Irish. People were singled out for their perceived loyalties, not their nationality. This is shy the essentially English royalist garrison at Drogheda was sacked. It was brutal in the extreme, but not genocide. Cromwell and several of his generals were vicious bastards, if they wanted to wipe out the Irish, they would have done.The plantations were similar, if someone was perceived trust worthy they would retain their land. The O'Briens seemed to do ok for example.

The penal laws affected the Irish by coincidence rather than design. They were about controlling Catholics in England rather than Ireland and these laws Volkswagen ne easily got around, you simply converted, which many did. If you were poor and owned no land, as 90% of the population of Britain and Ireland were, there didn't affect you at all. As already stated though, these were about control rather than elimination

Nodin

xsiborg wrote: »

tbh Nodin i have always thought Ireland's culture has been slowly erroded away by us having joined the EU,
!

You reckon? A few examples, if you would.

xsiborg wrote: »

..............
that our government no longer has any control over neither our laws, our financial affairs, and soon, our government shall abdicate full control of our country to our franco-german counterparts, and yknow what the worst thing is? ...

I'm somewhat confused here, in that you seem annoyed at what you perceive as a loss of sovereignty to the EU and the French and Germans, yet advocated earlier the surrender of sovereignty to another state.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Cromwellian campaign was just that, a campaign, it was ensuring the security of the English republic than it was about the Irish. People were singled out for their perceived loyalties, not their nationality.

No, they were singled out for their perceived loyalties and religion. Hence the reduction of landholding by catholics to under 9% of the total.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This is shy the essentially English royalist garrison at Drogheda was sacked. It was brutal in the extreme, but not genocide.

I never mentioned to Drogheda as an example. I referred to the plantation, deportations and penal laws as constituting genocide.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The penal laws affected the Irish by coincidence rather than design..........

To be honest Fred, you need to read a modern biography of Cromwell of some description. It's fairly obvious what the man was at, he made little bones about it, and there was no coincidence whatsoever.

xsiborg

Nodin wrote: »

You reckon? A few examples, if you would..

well i gave you examples there of how EU legislation has destroyed our fishing and agriculture industries, surely we can agree that was ingrained in our culture?

Nodin wrote: »

I'm somewhat confused here, in that you seem annoyed at what you perceive as a loss of sovereignty to the EU and the French and Germans, yet advocated earlier the surrender of sovereignty to another state.

sovereignty means fannyadams to me Nodin tbh, you put it to me would i rather not see us align ourselves with the Franco-German alliance as opposed to an alliance to Britain. i tried to outline my reasons why i wouldnt.

i would still consider myself irish, and we're obviously speaking hypothetically here as it's never going to happen, but the english still consider themselves english if you get me? just under british government rule and british government policies, and they dont bend to the will of the EU quite as easily as the irish government have done.

xsiborg

xsiborg wrote: »

Nodin wrote: »

You reckon? A few examples, if you would..

well i gave you examples there of how EU legislation has destroyed our fishing and agriculture industries, surely we can agree that was ingrained in our culture?

Nodin wrote: »

I'm somewhat confused here, in that you seem annoyed at what you perceive as a loss of sovereignty to the EU and the French and Germans, yet advocated earlier the surrender of sovereignty to another state.

sovereignty means fannyadams to me Nodin tbh, you put it to me would i rather not see us align ourselves with the Franco-German alliance as opposed to an alliance to Britain. i tried to outline my reasons why i wouldnt.

i would still consider myself irish, and we're obviously speaking hypothetically here as it's never going to happen, but the english still consider themselves english if you get me? just under british government rule and british government policies, and they dont bend to the will of the EU quite as easily as the irish government have done.

Actually i am English but consider myself as British.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

No, they were singled out for their perceived loyalties and religion. Hence the reduction of landholding by catholics to under 9% of the total.



I never mentioned to Drogheda as an example. I referred to the plantation, deportations and penal laws as constituting genocide.



To be honest Fred, you need to read a modern biography of Cromwell of some description. It's fairly obvious what the man was at, he made little bones about it, and there was no coincidence whatsoever.

I know what Cromwell was about.

May I suggest you look at wider European history at the same time.

Have a read of the atrocities thread on the history forum.

Wild Bill

Fratton Fred wrote: »

beep beep, wrong, the famine was not genocide.

Per the Geneva Convention it was.

End of. :cool:

Wild Bill

Deleted User wrote: »

I can go on and on, to make to point "peak oil is real and IS happening now!

Just going "on and on" doesn't make 'peak oil' a fact anymore then constant denial makes the famine not a genocide. :cool:

True, the 'new' oil is often relatively expensive and environmentally even dirtier than the liquid pressure-pump reserves; but the new oil (and technologies) suggest our current know reserves may be but the tip of the oil iceberg.

Wild Bill

bwatson wrote: »

Retribution eh? Its estimated that between 20 and 100 thousand people were murdered in the "rebellions". This included men, women, and young children. Hacked down and killed in cold blood on a scale far greater than any alive today could imagine.

Removing ethnic cleansers isn't a crime; nor is it anything to get emotional about.

It should be celebrated

Save your anger, outrage and tears for the victims of the original plantations.

KeithAFC

Wild Bill wrote: »

Removing ethnic cleansers isn't a crime; nor is it anything to get emotional about.

It should be celebrated

Save your anger, outrage and tears for the victims of the original plantations.

What victims? The same victims which which socialised with many of the settlers? A lot of the land which was settled on belonged to no one.

Wild Bill

KeithAFC wrote: »

What victims? The same victims which which socialised with many of the settlers?

Like the Injun scouts?

"The land belonged to no-one"?! Just like America eh?

So, seriously, are you saying there were no victims of the plantations? :rolleyes:

KeithAFC

Wild Bill wrote: »

Like the Injun scouts?

"The land belonged to no-one"?! Just like America eh?

So, seriously, are you saying there were no victims of the plantations? :rolleyes:

Of course there was. It is just exaggerated by Nationalists.

DEFTLEFTHAND

KeithAFC wrote: »

Of course there was. It is just exaggerated by Nationalists.

You must be a plant Keith ( Scots connection am I right?).:D Did you know that Ulster was a Gaelic stronghold beforehand.

Wild Bill

KeithAFC wrote: »

Of course there was.

Thus is justified all and any retaliation. Simple. :cool:

KeithAFC

Wild Bill wrote: »

Thus is justified all and any retaliation. Simple. :cool:

In your opinion. Could argue the same for all conflicts.

Wild Bill

Wild Bill wrote: »

Just going "on and on" doesn't make 'peak oil' a fact anymore then constant denial makes the famine not a genocide. :cool:

True, the 'new' oil is often relatively expensive and environmentally even dirtier than the liquid pressure-pump reserves; but the new oil (and technologies) suggest our current know reserves may be but the tip of the oil iceberg.

Dream on, the current economy requires cheap and plentiful oil to continue in its current form. Growth has stalled due to insufficient supplies of cheap oil, growth cannot be sustained with expensive oil as many consumers will simply "drop out" and stop consuming!

Ireland may be in a better position than the UK in this because of the recent exploration south of Cork, but only if the stuff can be extracted at a viable cost, no one is going to buy it if it needs $500 a barrel more than Brent to get it!

At the end of the day, Nature is the ultimate ruler.

PS the next famine will be as a result of overpopulation and lack of resources.

Fratton Fred

Wild Bill wrote: »

Per the Geneva Convention it was.

End of. :cool:

Genocide isn't even mentioned in the Geneva Convention ffs.

Wild Bill

Deleted User wrote: »

Growth has stalled due to insufficient supplies of cheap oil

Nope - growth (in the West - it hasn't stalled in most of the world) has stalled because we created huge asset bubbles and fought expensive wars on borrowed money!

I first remember hearing of peak oil during the oil crisis in 1973 - the world was to run out by 1990 :rolleyes:

And I've lived through at least half-a-dozen "terminal crises of Capitalism" - I'd love to see the edifice capitalist power collapse - trouble is I'm not a dreamer.

At the end of the day, Nature is the ultimate ruler.

Yep - but what's that got to do with peak oil? At the end of the day humanity is dead anyway - much more likely due to the consequences of Armageddon resulting from attempting to defend a modern Plantation in Palestine.

PS the next famine will be as a result of overpopulation and lack of resources.

Highly unlikely we'll survive long enough to test that assertion !

Wild Bill

KeithAFC wrote: »

In your opinion. Could argue the same for all conflicts.

You could - (and in practice total war results in that anyway) - but I wouldn't.

Ethnic cleansers/planters deserve a special place in hell. :cool:

Wild Bill

Some more holocaust denial......

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Genocide isn't even mentioned in the Geneva Convention ffs.

And following the link we get.......

Genocide is described as a specific act (killing, serious bodily or mental harm, etc.) “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, religious or racial group, as such”.

The term “genocide” is not used in the Geneva Conventions or in their Additional Protocols. It is nevertheless obvious that all the acts that constitute genocide are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and represent war crimes if they are committed in the course of an international armed conflict (Articles 50/51/130/147 of the Geneva Conventions; Article 85 of Protocol I). By the same token, any act that constitutes genocide and is committed in the course of a non-international armed conflict is a violation of common Article 3 and of Protocol II.

Thanks for the reference - now maybe you should actually read it :rolleyes:

Wild Bill

Wild Bill wrote: »

Nope - growth (in the West - it hasn't stalled in most of the world) has stalled because we created huge asset bubbles and fought expensive wars on borrowed money!

I first remember hearing of peak oil during the oil crisis in 1973 - the world was to run out by 1990 :rolleyes:

Had the price of oil remained as cheap as it was, Alaska and the North sea wouldn't have been produced, also people started to switch from oil to other fuels.
If none of those things had happened, there would have been severe shortages by the 1980s

And I've lived through at least half-a-dozen "terminal crises of Capitalism" - I'd love to see the edifice capitalist power collapse - trouble is I'm not a dreamer.

how many people are employed in manufacturing now, where has all the heavy industry and mass production of consumer goods gone!

They did collapse and are now gone, just everyone looked the other way.

Yep - but what's that got to do with peak oil? At the end of the day humanity is dead anyway - much more likely due to the consequences of Armageddon resulting from attempting to defend a modern Plantation in Palestine.

The current use of fossil fuels and other resources to "tame" nature simply cannot go on for ever, when those resources are gone - nature will return and much of the planet will be uninhabitable by humans (who depend on imported energy for their survival)

Highly unlikely we'll survive long enough to test that assertion !

Not in my lifetime, but I worry for my children.

Fratton Fred

Wild Bill wrote: »

Some more holocaust denial......



And following the link we get.......

Thanks for the reference - now maybe you should actually read it :rolleyes:

Ok then, just to allow you to wallow in self pity for a few moments longer, explain how the famine fitted in with the criteria for genocide.

forfuxsake

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ok then, just to allow you to wallow in self pity for a few moments longer, explain how the famine fitted in with the criteria for genocide.

There was no famine in Ireland FFS. Ireland produced a lot food which was taken out of the country. Therefore it was mass starvation or genocide if you prefer.

If the rulers of Ethiopia had been exporting food during the eighties would it have been considered genocide?

During the famine Ireland remained a net exporter of food.

bwatson

Wild Bill wrote: »

Removing ethnic cleansers isn't a crime; nor is it anything to get emotional about.

It should be celebrated

Save your anger, outrage and tears for the victims of the original plantations.

Mods - This is the most disgusting, offensive, evil post I have ever had the displeasure of reading on this message board. If this man thinks the massacre of tens of thousands is something to celebrate, not only should he be removed from the message board but society in general.

bwatson

Wild Bill wrote: »

Thus is justified all and any retaliation. Simple. :cool:

I take it you would then concede that Cromwell's massive retaliatory campaigns against the nation that these people came from was justified retribution?

PS - my "tears" are for anyone who has been mercilessly hacked to death, be they a 17th century protestant little protestant child or a 16th century catholic man, it doesn't make much difference. I cannot understand how your mind works.

bwatson

bwatson wrote: »

Mods - This is the most disgusting, offensive, evil post I have ever had the displeasure of reading on this message board. If this man thinks the massacre of tens of thousands is something to celebrate, not only should he be removed from the message board but society in general.

If you feel that the post is offensive then use the report post option, red triangle under the users name on the left.

galwayrush

This thread has lasted longer than my pop corn, must get more....

bwatson

Deleted User wrote: »

If you feel that the post is offensive then use the report post option, red triangle under the users name on the left.

I believe I did, looking at the past page ive no idea why its been posted but im fairly sure i sent it as a post report!

woodoo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ok then, just to allow you to wallow in self pity for a few moments longer, explain how the famine fitted in with the criteria for genocide.

If the British had suffered similar you could be sure it would be commemorated to death. It would be stand clear how much whinging you would hear about it.

galwayrush

galwayrush wrote: »

This thread has lasted longer than my pop corn, must get more....

Apparently, popcorn has an indefinite shelf life. So you can stock-up and it'll never go bad!
You'll probably expire before it does.

Fratton Fred

woodoo wrote: »

If the British had suffered similar you could be sure it would be commemorated to death. It would be stand clear how much whinging you would hear about it.

I didn't say it shouldn't be commemorated, I'm simply stating it was not genocide. The only reason it is spoken of so often in Ireland is for political reasons.