Britain has invaded 9/10 countries

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

You never answered the question, was what the British Empire did(invading countries against their will and their methods) criminal?

Nodin wrote: »

My problem is with Empire. What it says on the birth cert of those who fought for it is imatterial.

I really don't see whats so hard to understand there.

wow, be careful you don't get altitude sickness up there on your moral highground guys.:rolleyes:

was slavery a crime?

was Brian Boru's conquest of Leinster a crime?

Was the burning of the four courts a crime?

You are sat in your nice comfy self righteous 21st century seats asking if something that happened in the past is a crime. It's a bit of a farce to be honest.

Was empire a crime? by today's standards of course, but there isn't a country on earth that can hold it's head up and say it had never engaged in empire building.

It is/was part of the development of the human race.

summerskin

Nodin wrote: »

'But the Belgians'/'But Gerry Adams'.

When have I ever mentioned either???

indioblack

Nodin wrote: »

I suggest you read what I posted again.

In the examples you gave me I answered that they acted out of self interest - it was for their own gain. Not for the benefit of any Chinese or the unidentified natives you mentioned.

Nodin

indioblack wrote: »

In the examples you gave me I answered that they acted out of self interest - it was for their own gain. Not for the benefit of any Chinese or the unidentified natives you mentioned.

I said it was a crime, you said it was self interest, I countered that "an awful lot of criminality takes place for other than altruistic motives"

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

wow, be careful you don't get altitude sickness up there on your moral highground(....) of the human race.

Yet we still have people glorifying it, justifing it, praising it. Hence the problem.

golden lane

empires have been a big part of history.......and a big essential part of human progress....

the empires that still exist will grow in the future....

and ireland will be part of the fourth reich......

5 million innocent people that wouldn't harm a fly....

and all the 60 million brit murderers will be wiped out by pestilence brought on by the wrath of god......

the buggery gang in rome will see to that......

Nodin

golden lane wrote: »

empires have been a big part of history.......and a big essential part of human progress....

the empires that still exist will grow in the future....

and ireland will be part of the fourth reich......

5 million innocent people that wouldn't harm a fly....

and all the 60 million brit murderers will be wiped out by pestilence brought on by the wrath of god......

the buggery gang in rome will see to that......

....I'd like to think that was an attempt at humour.

indioblack

Nodin wrote: »

I said it was a crime, you said it was self interest, I countered that "an awful lot of criminality takes place for other than altruistic motives"

Pointless - you merely state the obvious. In a previous post you asked me did I think they were doing a good thing in these two examples - and to that I replied that it was self interest.
I suggest you read the rest of my reply to that post.

golden lane

Nodin wrote: »

....I'd like to think that was an attempt at humour.

oh no sir.....i am very serious.....after all i am irish, and i know everything...

maybe the germans will get rid of the buggers....just realised their leader is german..............doh!!!!...

gurramok

summerskin wrote: »

Ethically yes. No problem in saying that.

What's your opinion on 1916?

The shelling of the GPO by the British was indeed criminal, was that what you asked?

Sound of Silence

golden lane wrote: »

oh no sir.....i am very serious.....after all i am irish, and i know everything...

maybe the germans will get rid of the buggers....just realised their leader is german..............doh!!!!...

I've read your posts for the last couple of months, and I must say that they've become increasingly heated of late.

Much like Fratton Fred, it would seem that you continue to mistake any criticism of the UK for being a deliberate and concerted attack on Britain and the British, which I must insist is not true. We understand that Unionist posters on this forum are not microcosms of British attitudes or sensibilities; we simply view them as the opposition in Political and social debates.

You must understand that we are raising issue with posters personal perspectives, which is the fundamental basis of any debate. As such, these debates should not be considered the embodiment of a competition between our two peoples, but as a clash of two inherently different attitudes and perspectives held by Posters and not by Nations.

These threads continue to devolve at a fantastic pace as the arguments become ever more personal and the rhetoric ever more toxic. When in an argument we can expect that nothing will ever be conceded, this is simply par for the course.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

Yet we still have people glorifying it, justifing it, praising it. Hence the problem.

I've only ever seen people put it in to perspective.

gurramok wrote: »

The shelling of the GPO by the British was indeed criminal, was that what you asked?

If they actually did, why was it criminal? the real criminal act was the IRA taking the four courts against the democratic wishes of the vast majority of the people of Ireland.

Sound of Silence wrote: »

I've read your posts for the last couple of months, and I must say that they've become increasingly heated of late.

Much like Fratton Fred, it would seem that you continue to mistake any criticism of the UK for being a deliberate and concerted attack on Britain and the British, which I must insist is not true. We understand that Unionist posters on this forum are not microcosms of British attitudes or sensibilities; we simply view them as the opposition in Political and social debates.

You must understand that we are raising issue with posters personal perspectives, which is the fundamental basis of any debate. As such, these debates should not be considered the embodiment of a competition between our two peoples, but as a clash of two inherently different attitudes and perspectives held by Posters and not by Nations.

These threads continue to devolve at a fantastic pace as the arguments become ever more personal and the rhetoric ever more toxic. When in an argument we can expect that nothing will ever be conceded, this is simply par for the course.

I'm not sure if that is patronising, condescending or actually very true.

Unfortunately it is difficult not to get too tribal during these debates, especially when people are being overly judgemental

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If they actually did, why was it criminal? the real criminal act was the IRA taking the four courts against the democratic wishes of the vast majority of the people of Ireland.

If they actually did, where did you spring that one from? Suppressing the Irish peoples freedom for centuries was criminal, that shameful thing from your countries colonial past.

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

If they actually did, where did you spring that one from? Suppressing the Irish peoples freedom for centuries was criminal, that shameful thing from your countries colonial past.

apologies, getting mixed up. Interesting article about the Four Courts and whether or not it was the British that shelled it.

Still, why was it criminal to shell the GPO. We can look back with black and white views on history, but to the people in Dublin at the time, the people who took the GPO were the criminals.

As we are oft told on this board, the victors write the history...

indioblack

Sound of Silence wrote: »

I've read your posts for the last couple of months, and I must say that they've become increasingly heated of late.

Much like Fratton Fred, it would seem that you continue to mistake any criticism of the UK for being a deliberate and concerted attack on Britain and the British, which I must insist is not true. We understand that Unionist posters on this forum are not microcosms of British attitudes or sensibilities; we simply view them as the opposition in Political and social debates.

You must understand that we are raising issue with posters personal perspectives, which is the fundamental basis of any debate. As such, these debates should not be considered the embodiment of a competition between our two peoples, but as a clash of two inherently different attitudes and perspectives held by Posters and not by Nations.

These threads continue to devolve at a fantastic pace as the arguments become ever more personal and the rhetoric ever more toxic. When in an argument we can expect that nothing will ever be conceded, this is simply par for the course.

It's because threads like these are impossible.
Any attempt at reasonable debate is doomed.
How many people in this thread have claimed they cherish the memory of the British empire?
How do you respond to being asked if you think it right for an imperial, invading army to shoot down natives? Do you ask for time to think about it?
It makes no difference if you acknowledge that Western imperialism is something no-one would want to see again.
Another thread will pop up and the same issues will be argued as if this thread had never been.
Expect any historian worth his salt to accept that Britain invaded 90% of the world's countries and he'd laugh at you.
To simplify the dynamics of world history does nothing to advance a thread like this.
It comes down to this - you British made all the mistakes - now say sorry.
When you're expected to feel personal shame for the past - as happened on this thread - it shouldn't be suprising when people respond energetically.
The reality of imperialism, the grim reality as MarchDub called it, is not unknown.
Seek out those in Britain who would still view it through rose tinted glasses and have the debate with them.

Fratton Fred

Sound of Silence

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not sure if that is patronising, condescending or actually very true.

Unfortunately it is difficult not to get too tribal during these debates, especially when people are being overly judgemental

I think "unreasonable" would be a better word to describe it.

Recently I was listening to an episode of "This American Life" (http://tinyurl.com/aq9dqpw) which is a US based Radio show on the NPR Network. On it they were discussing the dissonance which seems to have permeated in the US between Democrats and Republicans; a divide which has grown so vast in recent years that it has even begun to affect how people relate to each other and debate key issues.

The episode strongly reminded me of the perpetual conflict on this forum between Unionist and Republican posters, where just like the Democrats and Republicans we have ceased to view the opposite side as individuals with their own personal perspectives, and more as parodies and stereotypes.

In order to have a productive debate on these threads, I really believe that we need to distance ourselves from our assumptions and try to understand why the other side feels the way they do. Ultimately we're never likely to actually convince each other of one argument over another, but we might just well begin to understand why a person holds the beliefs they do, rather than instantly jump to the assumption that they are either bigoted or immoral.

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Still, why was it criminal to shell the GPO. We can look back with black and white views on history, but to the people in Dublin at the time, the people who took the GPO were the criminals.

As we are oft told on this board, the victors write the history...

Treated as crims, thats a new one! There were alleged instances of anger at our founding fathers. Shelling a historic building by the British was a criminal act, as you know shelling (at that time) from a distance away was indiscriminate, kills anybody in the area nevermind in the GPO itself.

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

Treated as crims, thats a new one! There were alleged instances of anger at our founding fathers. Shelling a historic building by the British was a criminal act, as you know shelling (at that time) from a distance away was indiscriminate, kills anybody in the area nevermind in the GPO itself.

The rebels managed to kill their fair share of civilians as well did they not? which is why people lined up to spit on them as they were marched off to prison.

and then of course, there's the civil war......

Fratton Fred

Sound of Silence wrote: »

I think "unreasonable" would be a better word to describe it.

Recently I was listening to an episode of "This American Life" (http://tinyurl.com/aq9dqpw) which is a US based Radio show on the NPR Network. On it they were discussing the dissonance which seems to have permeated in the US between Democrats and Republicans; a divide which has grown so vast in recent years that it has even begun to affect how people relate to each other and debate key issues.

The episode strongly reminded me of the perpetual conflict on this forum between Unionist and Republican posters, where just like the Democrats and Republicans we have ceased to view the opposite side as individuals with their own personal perspectives, and more as parodies and stereotypes.

In order to have a productive debate on these threads, I really believe that we need to distance ourselves from our assumptions and try to understand why the other side feels the way they do. Ultimately we're never likely to actually convince each other of one argument over another, but we might just well begin to understand why a person holds the beliefs they do, rather than instantly jump to the assumption that they are either bigoted or immoral.

you've already made the assumption that we are all Unionists...

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The rebels managed to kill their fair share of civilians as well did they not? which is why people lined up to spit on them as they were marched off to prison.

and then of course, there's the civil war......

Perhaps a small number, the vast majority of civilians were killed by British artillery and shot at in massacres. Thats criminal behaviour and yet again they got away with it, surprise surprise!

Sound of Silence

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you've already made the assumption that we are all Unionists...

Are you or are you not in agreement with at least the sentiment of my post.

Would you prefer that I said "Non-specific Political and value orientation Vs Non-specific Political and value orientation". I assume even this qualification could be used when referring to describe certain Democrats and Republicans, but it only serves pedantry when I'm trying to make a short and concise point.

Judgement Day

gurramok wrote: »

Treated as crims, thats a new one! There were alleged instances of anger at our founding fathers. Shelling a historic building by the British was a criminal act, as you know shelling (at that time) from a distance away was indiscriminate, kills anybody in the area nevermind in the GPO itself.

How was the GPO an historic building in 1916 given that it only opened in 1818?

Fratton Fred

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Are you or are you not in agreement with at least the sentiment of my post.

Would you prefer that I said "Non-specific Political and value orientation Vs Non-specific Political and value orientation". I assume even this qualification could be used when referring to describe certain Democrats and Republicans, but it only serves pedantry when I'm trying to make a short and concise point.

I must remember that Sarcasm doesn't work on t 'internet:-D

Spread

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229576/Did-Britains-Commando-heroes-die-vain-Their-daring-raids-drove-Hitler-order-shot-sight-new-book-argues-soldiers-died-hundreds-did-little-change-course-war.html

Could we have your thoughts Fred?

Fratton Fred

Spread wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229576/Did-Britains-Commando-heroes-die-vain-Their-daring-raids-drove-Hitler-order-shot-sight-new-book-argues-soldiers-died-hundreds-did-little-change-course-war.html

Could we have your thoughts Fred?

You're a troll

Not what you're looking for?

LincolnsBeard

Spread wrote: »

In your utopian world ........ peoples of invaded lands should revere their invaders and revel in the atrocities imposed on them by the opressors. Do you realise that there are only 22 countries in the world that Britain hasn't invaded. Presumably all were invaded for altruistic purposes?

Many of my ancestors are from Ireland. Most of them came to London after the famine (or so I assume based on the period they were alive).

You are using a 21st century mind set to evaluate the British Empire. THE 18th to 20th century is not the same period that we live in today.

Every European nation was trying to build empires. Ireland would have done the same had they not been a part of the British Empire.

Even a country like the US that was founded on the natural rights of man had no problem cleansing the Natives and engaging in the slave trade.

Spread wrote: »

Regarding the embarrassment jibe? I think Britain is now a laughing stock - still clinging to the past. Football, cricket, athletics, manufacturing, the Royal Family, the race divides in the cities, the left behinds in the North Country and the oil that only benefitted the corporations. You see, ye have a lot to be proud of!

Now you have simply expressed your hate.

In what way is Britain still clinging to the past? If anything Britain is a forward thinking country that does a good job of looking to the future.

For the record, football is the world's most popular sport. I'm not sure what's embarrassing about that? England invented a sport that is played in every corner of the world. When England doesn't win the world cup, it's because there's great competition around the world competing.

Not sure why cricket is embarrassing either? It's played in many of the former colonies of the British Empire. It's the most popular sport in India, which has a billion plus people and will become one of the world's super powers this century.

I'm not a fan of the Royal Family but they are a great tourist attraction.

As a white person, I can go through any area of Britain and not worry about being attacked BECAUSE of the colour of my skin. Can the same be said about the country you live in? Most people in Britain get along just fine.

Cheer up, Sleepy Jean. Oh, what can it mean? To a daydream believer...and a...homecoming queen.

Sound of Silence

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

You are using a 21st century mind set to evaluate the British Empire. THE 18th to 20th century is not the same period that we live in today.

Every European nation was trying to build empires. Ireland would have done the same had they not been a part of the British Empire.

Even a country like the US that was founded on the natural rights of man had no problem cleansing the Natives and engaging in the slave trade.

It would seem that the general argument here has been lost in translation.

I imagine that the majority of people on this thread are more than capable of contextualising and rationalising historic events, and perhaps even determining for themselves whether such actions were right or wrong within the context of the era.

The problem often lies with the fact that certain posters here tend not to be willing to entertain the less admirable but very real ramifications of Empire and Colonialism, preferring to glorify it's memory and immerse themselves in a sense of National pride and reverence. As such, one could forgive them for failing to see that this period in British history has had some long lasting and very real ramifications for people throughout the Globe; ramifications that continue to resonate to this day, whether it be in Kenya, Israel, Zimbabwe, South Africa, or even Northern Ireland. The spectre of Empire hasn't simply disappeared.

Whilst those of a certain perspective may consider these criticisms to be inherently anti-British, I would have to disagree. I would argue that this is more an issue of clemency than anything else.

LincolnsBeard

Sound of Silence wrote: »

The problem often lies with the fact that certain posters here tend not to be willing to entertain the less admirable but very real ramifications of Empire and Colonialism, preferring to glorify it's memory and immerse themselves in a sense of National pride and reverence.

I haven't seen this. I don't see this in real life. I rarely ever hear about the empire. I didn't even learn about it in school.

This idea that Britain is living in the past is just nonsense.

Sound of Silence wrote: »

Whilst those of a certain perspective may consider these criticisms to be inherently anti-British, I would have to disagree. I would argue that this is more an issue of clemency than anything else.

Sorry, but when you have posters saying "The British are the laughing stock of the world" it's clearly anti-Brit rhetoric.

caste_in_exile

so who's the 1 in 10.. UB40 as Britons emselves??

Fratton Fred

Sound of Silence wrote: »

It would seem that the general argument here has been lost in translation.

I imagine that the majority of people on this thread are more than capable of contextualising and rationalising historic events, and perhaps even determining for themselves whether such actions were right or wrong within the context of the era.

The problem often lies with the fact that certain posters here tend not to be willing to entertain the less admirable but very real ramifications of Empire and Colonialism, preferring to glorify it's memory and immerse themselves in a sense of National pride and reverence. As such, one could forgive them for failing to see that this period in British history has had some long lasting and very real ramifications for people throughout the Globe; ramifications that continue to resonate to this day, whether it be in Kenya, Israel, Zimbabwe, South Africa, or even Northern Ireland. The spectre of Empire hasn't simply disappeared.

Whilst those of a certain perspective may consider these criticisms to be inherently anti-British, I would have to disagree. I would argue that this is more an issue of clemency than anything else.

aah, now this isn't sarcastic.

When have you seen anyone on this thread glorify the empire? you are simply putting words into people's mouths to satisfy your own assumptions. Assumptions which, I hasten to add, are wrong.

and lets face it, the posters on here who are are apparently bleeding heart liberals who are sobbing their hearts out for the Mau Maus couldn't actually give a flying **** about them, all they are interested in is point scoring.

As I said in an earlier post, the article isn't very factual. Britain did not invade 90% of the world, it is a figure drawn from some very tenuous events. It was light hearted and thought provoking yet it has been jumped upon by the usual suspects in order that they can show how awful the British are.

caste_in_exile

Newsflash: anti-British sentiment to spike tenfold on the release of Assassins Creed III

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

aah, now this isn't sarcastic.

When have you seen anyone on this thread glorify the empire? you are simply putting words into people's mouths to satisfy your own assumptions. Assumptions which, I hasten to add, are wrong.

and lets face it, the posters on here who are are apparently bleeding heart liberals who are sobbing their hearts out for the Mau Maus couldn't actually give a flying **** about them, all they are interested in is point scoring.

As I said in an earlier post, the article isn't very factual. Britain did not invade 90% of the world, it is a figure drawn from some very tenuous events. It was light hearted and thought provoking yet it has been jumped upon by the usual suspects in order that they can show how awful the British are.

Mau maus? This may come as a shock Fred, but when thousands and herded into camps and tortured and raped, some of us do actually give a crap. Referring to it as "point scoring" is just another method employed to allow dismissal without acknowledging what was done.

caste_in_exile

There's a reason you're portrayed a certain way in historical adaptations, fred.. a bit evil, a bit sinister... a bit "sure they'll never realize our major motivation; or what we really think of em".. ring any bells my son

billybudd

Every European nation was trying to build empires. Ireland would have done the same had they not been a part of the British Empire.


So hitler had the right idea? doesnt matter if he was evil and wanted to exterminate certain parts of society cause after all that was the empire he was trying to build.

billybudd

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

I haven't seen this. I don't see this in real life. I rarely ever hear about the empire. I didn't even learn about it in school.

This idea that Britain is living in the past is just nonsense.



Sorry, but when you have posters saying "The British are the laughing stock of the world" it's clearly anti-Brit rhetoric.

Rule Britania, britania rules the waves!!! still a poplular song.

Sound of Silence

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When have you seen anyone on this thread glorify the empire? you are simply putting words into people's mouths to satisfy your own assumptions. Assumptions which, I hasten to add, are wrong.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81586271&postcount=84
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81633409&postcount=257

Reading the comments at the end of the articles also gives this impression to some degree. Then again, you don't necessarily need to qualify yourself as a glorifier of imperialism when I make sure to preface my point with "certain posters".

and lets face it, the posters on here who are are apparently bleeding heart liberals who are sobbing their hearts out for the Mau Maus couldn't actually give a flying **** about them, all they are interested in is point scoring.

Didn't you just criticize me for making assumptions? I've seen you make some bonkers assumptions in other threads.

As I said in an earlier post, the article isn't very factual. Britain did not invade 90% of the world, it is a figure drawn from some very tenuous events. It was light hearted and thought provoking yet it has been jumped upon by the usual suspects in order that they can show how awful the British are.

I think you will find that the first post to even display any sort of antagonism was posted by Golden Lane, who felt the need to preemptively take pot shots at the Irish, claiming that we are inherently more hateful than the British.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81583036&postcount=12

old hippy

gurramok wrote: »

The shelling of the GPO by the British was indeed criminal, was that what you asked?

Tbf, in an historical context - it did belong to the British at that period of time. Whether that makes is "legal" or not, I'm not entirely sure...

phoenix999

Fratton Fred wrote: »

apologies, getting mixed up. Interesting article about the Four Courts and whether or not it was the British that shelled it.

Still, why was it criminal to shell the GPO. We can look back with black and white views on history, but to the people in Dublin at the time, the people who took the GPO were the criminals.

As we are oft told on this board, the victors write the history...

The British never shelled the Four Courts. It was Free State troops under Michael Collins who shelled it after the IRA refused to leave it in 1922. The Brits threatened military intervention if he didnt move on them. The IRA leader, Rory O'Connor, an experienced mining engineer, deliberately set explosives in the treasury of The Record Office and destroyed almost all of its precious records. Attempts by the distinguished historians Eoin MacNeill and Seamus O Ceallaigh to persuade him not to do this failed. He believed, fatuously, that this destroyed the records of 'Irish slavery.' Just as fatuously the then leader of the Labour Party stated: 'we all start equal now.' It was the greatest single act of cultural vandalism ever committed on the historical records of Ireland. The IRA in their wisdom also set fire to James Gandon's 18th century Custom House. Not to mention the destruction of most of the country's railways, bridges, etc during the mindless Civil War. The economic cost crippled the New Free State from birth.

LordSutch

phoenix999 wrote: »

The British never shelled the Four Courts. It was Free State troops under Michael Collins who shelled it after the IRA refused to leave it in 1922. The Brits threatened military intervention if he didnt move on them. The IRA leader, Rory O'Connor, an experienced mining engineer, deliberately set explosives in the treasury of The Record Office and destroyed almost all of its precious records. Attempts by the distinguished historians Eoin MacNeill and Seamus O Ceallaigh to persuade him not to do this failed. He believed, fatuously, that this destroyed the records of 'Irish slavery.' Just as fatuously the then leader of the Labour Party stated: 'we all start equal now.' It was the greatest single act of cultural vandalism ever committed on the historical records of Ireland. The IRA in their wisdom also set fire to James Gandon's 18th century Custom House. Not to mention the destruction of most of the country's railways, bridges, etc during the mindless Civil War. The economic cost crippled the New Free State from birth.

Good post that^
I also read somewhere that about 500 stately homes+ all their historical contents were also lost (burnt) during this crazed period of Irish history.

gurramok

LordSutch wrote: »

Good post that^
I also read somewhere that about 500 stately homes+ all their historical contents were also lost (burnt) during this crazed period of Irish history.

Stately? Not in the hands of the state but aristocrats who were planters on Irish land.

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

Stately? Not in the hands of the state but aristocrats who were planters on Irish land.

Planters like the O 'Connells?

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Planters like the O 'Connells?

Who? You sure it was not Lord something?

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

Who? You sure it was not Lord something?

I was thinking of Aristocrats like Daniel O 'Connell, he lived in a stately home.

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I was thinking of Aristocrats like Daniel O 'Connell, he lived in a stately home.

Aristocrat, you sure? Sounds like he was born into a wealthy family who earned their way from dispossessed lands unlike their planter cousins who stole them.

Funny you pick out a single prominent person out of Irish politics who actually did great for Irish freedom, are you educated now on Irish matters Fred?

phoenix999

gurramok wrote: »

Aristocrat, you sure? Sounds like he was born into a wealthy family who earned their way from dispossessed lands unlike their planter cousins who stole them.

Funny you pick out a single prominent person out of Irish politics who actually did great for Irish freedom, are you educated now on Irish matters Fred?

What does it matter? Lord Edward Fitzgerald was an aristocrat, was a great great grandson of King Charles II and lived in one of the finest houses in Ireland (Carton House). But he also happened to be a revolutionary and gave his life in the cause of Irish freedom in 1798. Everything isn't black and white in Irish history.

gurramok

phoenix999 wrote: »

What does it matter? Lord Edward Fitzgerald was an aristocrat, was a great great grandson of King Charles II and lived in one of the finest houses in Ireland (Carton House). But he also happened to be a revolutionary and gave his life in the cause of Irish freedom in 1798. Everything isn't black and white in Irish history.

Rare indeed, if only they were all like that. Pity it wasn't a bit like English planters in USA turning on their masters hence USA independence.

phoenix999

The cruelest irony being that Ulster was the most Gaelic of all the provinces of Ireland before the plantations.

long range shooter

mikemac1 wrote: »

Aye but Norway and Denmark deserved it for the Viking raids

When did Britain invade Norway and Denmark??
I know the Vikings invaded Britain allright!!:D

mikemac1

long range shooter wrote: »

When did Britain invade Norway and Denmark??
I know the Vikings invaded Britain allright!!:D

Churchill sent troops to Norway in WWII.
Not realy an invasion, it'll do

And that one eyed guy, Lord Nelson burned a fleet of ships in Copenhagen.