Bobby Sands R.I.P. 5th May 1981

R P McMurphy

dulpit wrote: »

Were they heroes for Nationlists as a whole or just those that supported the armed conflict of the IRA? (again, I am genuinely curious, and am not looking to troll/etc).

From my (extremely distant) point of view, I can't see how I could support Sands and the hunger strikers unless I was already supporting the armed conflict.

If you want to know a little about the prison protests I would suggest looking into the H-Block/Armagh Committee that was active at the time on prisoners rights. As an organisation they were prominent in addressing the question of prisoners in the North and attracted support from a wide variety of people and a large swathe of the nationalist population as the conditions in the prisons were horrific.

Prisoners that stood for election did not do so under the SF banner but under Anti-HBlock

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

An alternative perspective is that democracy was still in the process of working towards a peaceful outcome

Ah, but you appear to be selective in who to blame when democracy wasn't apparently allowed to take its course. In 1885, Parnell's home rule party took a majority of the Irish seats including 17 of 33 seats in Ulster. Britain could have granted independence then, couldn't it? Also, what about the November 1918 election result? Another chance lost.

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Ah, but you appear to be selective in who to blame when democracy wasn't apparently allowed to take its course. In 1885, Parnell's home rule party took a majority of the Irish seats including 17 of 33 seats in Ulster. Britain could have granted independence then, couldn't it? Also, what about the November 1918 election result? Another chance lost.

So your argument is that, because democratic means hadn't achieved the desired outcome within an arbitrary timescale, it became acceptable to start a war to achieve that outcome?

Once again, that's the dissident justification.

Or is it your assertion that, because peaceful means hadn't been successful up to that point, it is therefore incontrovertible fact that peaceful means could not possibly have succeeded thereafter?

Because that's just begging the question.

Nodin

dulpit wrote: »

Were they heroes for Nationlists as a whole or just those that supported the armed conflict of the IRA? (again, I am genuinely curious, and am not looking to troll/etc).

From my (extremely distant) point of view, I can't see how I could support Sands and the hunger strikers unless I was already supporting the armed conflict.

Nationalists generally, as I recall. There were black flags all over dublin, southside and northside.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

So your argument is that, because democratic means hadn't achieved the desired outcome within an arbitrary timescale, it became acceptable to start a war to achieve that outcome?

Depending on what the stituation is, of course.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

So your argument is that, because democratic means hadn't achieved the desired outcome within an arbitrary timescale, it became acceptable to start a war to achieve that outcome?

Yes, if you believed the British presence in the past to be illegal. The founders of this state thought this too I'd say.

Once again, that's the dissident justification.

If you're a dissident supporter. You appear to be pursuing a black or white absolutist line here. "Dissident violence is bad, therefore all Irish republican violence in the historical past is bad."

Or is it your assertion that, because peaceful means hadn't been successful up to that point, it is therefore incontrovertible fact that peaceful means could not possibly have succeeded thereafter?

No. You can't assume that line of reasoning from my post.

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Ah, but you appear to be selective in who to blame when democracy wasn't apparently allowed to take its course. In 1885, Parnell's home rule party took a majority of the Irish seats including 17 of 33 seats in Ulster. Britain could have granted independence then, couldn't it?

You mean the Government of Ireland Bill of 1886?

Or did you forget?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Also, what about the November 1918 election result? Another chance lost.

This requires elaboration.

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

You mean the Government of Ireland Bill of 1886?

Or did you forget?

No, didn't forget. I'm talking about the result of the November 1885 general election. That bill wasn't passed, therefore denying what most of the Irish people wanted, i.e. independence.

This requires elaboration.

Does it?

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

No, didn't forget. I'm talking about the result of the November 1885 general election. That bill wasn't passed, therefore denying what most of the Irish people wanted, i.e. independence.

And was it not passing the fault of the Gladstone government?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Does it?

Yes, it does. The 1918 election was a defeat for the party campaigning for the enactment of the 3rd Home Rule Bill. We were granted Home Rule anyway in the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 but only Unionists took up the offer. We fought a war of independence, which we won, and then accepted virtually the same thing. Then we fought a civil war for accepting it.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

Depending on what the stituation is, of course.

Yes, depending on the situation. I don't believe the situation in Ireland in 1916 warranted an insurrection.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Yes, if you believed the British presence in the past to be illegal. The founders of this state thought this too I'd say.

For carefully chosen values of "illegal", you could argue that the British (and Irish) presence in Australia in the past was illegal. This doesn't (in my view) justify the Aborigine population starting a war today.

If you're a dissident supporter. You appear to be pursuing a black or white absolutist line here. "Dissident violence is bad, therefore all Irish republican violence in the historical past is bad."

More accurately, I'm pursuing (mostly in vain) a logical distinction between a tiny group shunning democracy to pursue a violent path in 1916, and a tiny group shunning democracy to pursue a violent path in 2013.

I'm not following the rather simplistic line of reasoning that you're attempting to foist on me. I'm arguing from first principles that Irish republican violence in 1916 was wrong for the same reason that Irish republican violence in 2103 is wrong.

No. You can't assume that line of reasoning from my post.

I'm glad to hear it. So we're back to the argument that it's acceptable to start a war if you haven't achieved a political objective within a timeframe that you personally deem acceptable.

We'll have to agree to differ on that one.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, depending on the situation. I don't believe the situation in Ireland in 1916 warranted an insurrection.
.....

Well they did and some of us agree.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

Well they did and some of us agree.

Agree with what, though? That it was the only way that independence would ever be achieved, or that the bloodshed involved was an acceptable price to pay for - possibly - accelerating the process (and I have yet to see a compelling argument that such an acceleration was, indeed, achieved)?

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Agree with what, though? That it was the only way that independence would ever be achieved, or that the bloodshed involved was an acceptable price to pay for - possibly - accelerating the process (and I have yet to see a compelling argument that such an acceleration was, indeed, achieved)?

..both, as hashed out on various threads numerous times.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

..both, as hashed out on various threads numerous times.

Fair enough. Every argument I've seen in favour of either position has boiled down to "I couldn't possibly support violence that wasn't absolutely necessary, and I support 1916, therefore 1916 was absolutely necessary." I'm sure you see it differently, and we're not going to change each other's minds.

Iwasfrozen

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fair enough. Every argument I've seen in favour of either position has boiled down to "I couldn't possibly support violence that wasn't absolutely necessary, and I support 1916, therefore 1916 was absolutely necessary." I'm sure you see it differently, and we're not going to change each other's minds.

Don't forget "If you disagree with me you must be ignorant. Here's a link to read up on it." :rolleyes:

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

For carefully chosen values of "illegal", you could argue that the British (and Irish) presence in Australia in the past was illegal.

Yes.

Irish? Irish individuals as part of British colonial apparatus in Australia?

What do you define as "illegal" in your view though?

I'm arguing from first principles that Irish republican violence in 1916 was wrong

Why first principles? You've conveniently chosen Home Rule as a starting point to do this. Not everyone else will. It's also justified to argue from first principles that colonisation of countries by other countries is wrong.

for the same reason that Irish republican violence in 2103

God, I hope Ireland is peaceful in 2103!

So we're back to the argument that it's acceptable to start a war if you haven't achieved a political objective within a timeframe that you personally deem acceptable.

So it's acceptable then to maintain a colonial occupation (of any country, not just Ireland), thats for arguments sake is deemed to be illegal on the basis that peaceful negotiations between occupiers and occupied can go on ad infinitum?

We'll have to agree to differ on that one.

Yes.

Fr Tod Umptious

michael999999 wrote: »

No it is clearly visible from the main road and the bypass. Have you even seen it?

I have seen it loads of times.
Prior to the bypass you had to stop right beside it when getting on to the Listowel road from the ITT, you could not miss it.

Now that junction has been moved at least fifty yards to the north and is a rounend of a dead end that you would have no business going down unless you wished to visit the last house on the road.

michael999999

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I have seen it loads of times.
Prior to the bypass you had to stop right beside it when getting on to the Listowel road from the ITT, you could not miss it.

Now that junction has been moved at least fifty yards to the north and is a rounend of a dead end that you would have no business going down unless you wished to visit the last house on the road.

When was the last time you were actually there?

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Yes.

So you would applaud Aborigine terrorism?

What do you define as "illegal" in your view though?

I'm not the one trying to justify insurrection, particularly insurrection designed to thwart a democratic process.

Why first principles? You've conveniently chosen Home Rule as a starting point to do this. Not everyone else will.

I haven't chosen a starting point. I've pointed out that, given the circumstances of 1916, there was no justification for immediate aggression, unless you take the position that violence is always and unquestionably justified if there's a dispute over sovereignty.

It's also justified to argue from first principles that colonisation of countries by other countries is wrong.

Fair enough, but that's not a convincing argument for starting a war to subvert a democratic process.

God, I hope Ireland is peaceful in 2103!

As long as people can convince themselves that they have a god-given right to kill others to further their political aims, I wouldn't count on it.

So it's acceptable then to maintain a colonial occupation (of any country, not just Ireland), thats for arguments sake is deemed to be illegal on the basis that peaceful negotiations between occupiers and occupied can go on ad infinitum?

That's the assertion you explicitly rejected earlier: that the democratic process would never have been successful. Now you're adopting it as a justification.

My view is that if there is a possibility of a peaceful resolution, then violence is not morally justifiable. Others' is that violence is acceptable if a peaceful resolution will take longer than a given arbitrary attention span. I'm more comfortable with my view, frankly.

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

Nationalists generally, as I recall. There were black flags all over dublin, southside and northside.

I certainly wouldn't say 'all over' Dublin > http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84477521&postcount=123

bobbysands81

LordSutch wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't say 'all over' Dublin > http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84477521&postcount=123

Quoting an arbitrary post that you yourself posted is hardly a worthwhile source.

Fr Tod Umptious

michael999999 wrote: »

When was the last time you were actually there?

last week, but did not take any notice of it, will be there again next week, will be very disappointed if it has moved

LordSutch

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Quoting an arbitrary post that you yourself posted is hardly a worthwhile source.

True, but I was actually working & living in Dublin at the time, so I guess that counts for something.

Banjo String

LordSutch wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't say 'all over' Dublin > http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84477521&postcount=123

Your opinion would be completely unbiased of course.

Banjo String

LordSutch wrote: »

True, but I was actually working & living in Dublin at the time, so I guess that counts for something.

You'd recall the British embassy almost get burned by protestors so?

OCorcrainn

oscarBravo wrote: »

S I'm not the one trying to justify insurrection, particularly insurrection

Are you implicitly saying that 'insurrection' is never justifiable?

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you would applaud Aborigine terrorism?

Not without a genuine reason, and I wouldn't call it "terrorism" if there was. Plus "applaud" seems a poor choice of word tbh.

I'm not the one trying to justify insurrection, particularly insurrection designed to thwart a democratic process.

Deflection. You stated there were possible grounds for illegality. And why Australia, not Ireland? There was never any time in Irish history when insurrection etc wasn't justifed then?

I haven't chosen a starting point. I've pointed out that, given the circumstances of 1916, there was no justification for immediate aggression, unless you take the position that violence is always and unquestionably justified if there's a dispute over sovereignty.

I'd call it something else. You keep trying to link 1916 to the notion it disrupted the route to Home Rule and exclude any other factors it seems. It's not realistic in my view.

That's the assertion you explicitly rejected earlier: that the democratic process would never have been successful. Now you're adopting it as a justification.

No.

You're attempting to rigidly apply this to Ireland and hence to every scenario thereafter it appears to me. Easy thing to do. Did every colonial transition occur in the same way?

My view is that if there is a possibility of a peaceful resolution, then violence is not morally justifiable.

Ok.

Others' is that violence is acceptable if a peaceful resolution will take longer than a given arbitrary attention span

Yes, I think it's justifiable in the case of illegal colonial occupations if peaceful negotiations ultimately fail between the opposing sides. Tell me, how does one end an occupation when all peaceful methods have failed?

bobbysands81

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Are you implicitly saying that 'insurrection' is never justifiable?

No. He's saying that one State invading another State is completely justifiable but fighting back is never allowed.

oscarBravo

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Or in other words 'Lie down Croppy'.

That's just a lazy refusal to engage with the points I'm making. If you're unable to logically refute what I'm saying, you'd do yourself a favour by not posting.

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Are you implicitly saying that 'insurrection' is never justifiable?

I'm saying explicitly that insurrection isn't justifiable when it subverts an ongoing peace process.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Not without a genuine reason, and I wouldn't call it "terrorism" if there was.

So what pressing reason was there to start a war in 1916? What dire and impending consequence did a bloody war of independence avert?

Deflection. You stated there were possible grounds for illegality.

Well, no. I pointed out that you can argue "illegality" by choosing an arbitrary definition of "legal" that suits your argument. You're the one arguing illegality, but I haven't seen you explain what law was broken.

You keep trying to link 1916 to the notion it disrupted the route to Home Rule and exclude any other factors it seems. It's not realistic in my view.

You, on the other hand, are arguing that because of your arbitrary definition of "illegality", any Irish person was justified in starting a war at any time. And yet, I presume you would deny the same reasoning to present-day dissident Republicans.

At least I'm being consistent.

You're attempting to rigidly apply this to Ireland and hence to every scenario thereafter it appears to me. Easy thing to do. Did every colonial transition occur in the same way?

I don't know what you're asking me here. I'm not "attempting to rigidly apply" anything; I'm arguing that, given a choice between peaceful negotiations or killing people, I believe that it's morally right to choose negotiation. You seem to be arguing that sometimes killing people is the morally right choice rather than a democratic process, but you're not arguing it very clearly or convincingly.

Yes, I think it's justifiable in the case of illegal colonial occupations if peaceful negotiations ultimately fail between the opposing sides. Tell me, how does one end an occupation when all peaceful methods have failed?

I reject the premise that Ireland was occupied in 1916, and I reject the premise that peaceful methods had reached a conclusion, never mind failed.

bobbysands81 wrote: »

No. He's saying that one State invading another State is completely justifiable but fighting back is never allowed.

I'm not saying that. You can tell that I'm not saying it by the very straightforward fact that I haven't said it, or anything like it.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not "attempting to rigidly apply" anything; I'm arguing that, given a choice between peaceful negotiations or killing people, I believe that it's morally right to choose negotiation. You seem to be arguing that sometimes killing people is the morally right choice rather than a democratic process, but you're not arguing it very clearly or convincingly. I reject the premise that Ireland was occupied in 1916, and I reject the premise that peaceful methods had reached a conclusion, never mind failed.

.

What you are doing is climbing up onto ridiculously high moral ground and ignoring that these things have their own contextual imperatives and are usually driven by events that are uncontrollable by all involved. Your need to blame one side makes your agenda very transparent

Why didn't the British not back off when the GPO was taken? They could have 'chosen' peaceful means and negotiated a settlement.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

So what pressing reason was there to start a war in 1916? What dire and impending consequence did a bloody war of independence avert?

I thought you wanted me to answer why I might support Aboriginal "terrorism"?

Well, no. I pointed out that you can argue "illegality" by choosing an arbitrary definition of "legal" that suits your argument. You're the one arguing illegality, but I haven't seen you explain what law was broken.

Quite obvious really, the illegal colonisation of countries by other countries.

You, on the other hand, are arguing that because of your arbitrary definition of "illegality", any Irish person was justified in starting a war at any time. And yet, I presume you would deny the same reasoning to present-day dissident Republicans.

There's nothing "arbitrary" about illegal colonisation. I'm not a dissident supporter.

I'm arguing that, given a choice between peaceful negotiations or killing people, I believe that it's morally right to choose negotiation.

And if negotiations fail with no prospect of resumption?

You seem to be arguing that sometimes killing people is the morally right choice rather than a democratic process

No.

With respect, I'll ask you again: if peaceful negotiations have totally failed with absolutely no prospect of them starting again, does the population of an occupied country/colony etc have the right to use force to eject its occupier?

I reject the premise that Ireland was occupied in 1916

I don't.

and I reject the premise that peaceful methods had reached a conclusion, never mind failed

Fair enough. But we'll never know, will we?

Scofflaw

bobbysands81 wrote: »

No. He's saying that one State invading another State is completely justifiable but fighting back is never allowed.

Your recent posts on this thread have added absolutely nothing at all to the discussion. Further posting in the same style will earn a ban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

sarumite

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You can't say it was wrong, you see, because the only way of proving if the quote was wrong would be to set up a replicable experiment where Bobby Sands could have lived over-and-over again and 50% of the time he was tortured (to what ends?) and 50% of the time he was let be. After this incredible experiment if Bobby sands had 'broke' more times than not we might be able to draw the conclusion on whether the quote was wrong or not.

Now I know you have a penchant for alternate realities but let's just work with the reality we have instead of those you'd like to conjure to underpin your dogma.

In short, you don't even understand what you are saying.

From a scientific point of view, the quote wouldn't pass peer review. In order to say there is nothing in their arsenal, you would need to test everything in their arsenal. So while it is correct to say that his quote cannot be immediately determined to be wrong (since the merits of it haven't been tested), it would be fair to say at best the quote is a personal opinion unsupported by any factual evidence.

RandomName2

Happyman42 wrote: »

What you are doing is climbing up onto ridiculously high moral ground and ignoring that these things have their own contextual imperatives and are usually driven by events that are uncontrollable by all involved. Your need to blame one side makes your agenda very transparent

Why didn't the British not back off when the GPO was taken? They could have 'chosen' peaceful means and negotiated a settlement.

I find it hard to understand what you are talking about. The rebels made no demands. They were not interested in negotiation. Pearse just proclaimed a Republic: an act that virtually nobody noticed, and then rebels seized various locations by force, without any real announcement of their intentions. Volunteer and Citizen Army forces did not send terms to Dublin Castle. Instead they sent Seán Connolly with a force of Volunteers and Citizen Army units, who shot dead a police sentry and overpowered the soldiers in the guardroom, before retreating.

In at least two incidents, at Jacobs Factory and Stephens Green, the Volunteers and Citizen Army shot dead civilians who were trying to attack them or dismantle their barricades.

Two troops of British cavalry, one at the Four Courts and the other on O'Connell Street, were sent out to investigate what was happening (having no idea that there was a Rising), and took fire and casualties from rebel forces On Mount Street, a group of Volunteer Training Corps men stumbled upon the rebel position and four were killed before they reached Beggars Bush barracks.

The only substantial combat of the first day of the Rising took place at the South Dublin Union where a piquet from the Royal Irish Regiment encountered an outpost of Éamonn Ceannt's force at the north-western corner of the South Dublin Union. The British troops, after taking some casualties, managed to regroup and launch several assaults on the position before they forced their way inside and the small rebel force in the tin huts at the eastern end of the Union surrendered. However, the Union complex as a whole remained in rebel hands.

But you are saying that they should have sent men to negotiate with the rebels, who, if they had been successfully contacted, would in all likelihood have said that there was nothing to negotiate; that the GPO was the seat of power of the Irish government, and that the British soldiers should either go away or damn themselves by giving the rebels heroic Fenian deaths.

Would you really have the same sentiments if there had been a Unionist Rising, which had been on the cards in 1914.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Quite obvious really, the illegal colonisation of countries by other countries.

Are... are you talking about the Normans?

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

Are... are you talking about the Normans?

Not exclusively. You can look at it as a generic observation as well if you want.

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

I find it hard to understand what you are talking about.

What I am saying is that you can apply the high moral requirement to either side.
Why didn't the British turn the other cheek, withdraw and seek negotiations if 'violence should be' the 'last option'. They had as many options as oscar says the rebels had. (it's not for one minute my point of view, the British where always going to react as they did, this is the real world after all) I'm just applying oscarbravo's logic unilaterally to show how unrealistic it is in the real world here stuff happens.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

What I am saying is that you can apply the high moral requirement to either side.

So if a group of dissident republicans occupied the GPO in the morning, you think the government should take the moral high ground and surrender?

OCorcrainn

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm saying explicitly that insurrection isn't justifiable when it subverts an ongoing peace process.

Even when it is a 'peace process' implemented by a foreign and hostile power that subverts the freedom and sovereignty of another nation and its people?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if a group of dissident republicans occupied the GPO in the morning, you think the government should take the moral high ground and surrender?

I am applying your logic and saying that it would be imoral not to seek a peaceful outcome first, and I never said the British should have 'surrendered'. They, (according to your logic) should have negotiated first.
Or does your 'peaceful' only apply to rebels and dissidents. It's not like the British had a track record of exclusively administering their colony peacefully.

oscarBravo

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Even when it is a 'peace process' implemented by a foreign and hostile power that subverts the freedom and sovereignty of another nation and its people?

Sounds like a perfect excuse for a dissident republican to refuse to engage with the current peace process. That's the problem with florid rhetoric: it's hard to stop others from co-opting it to suit their own ends.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am applying your logic...

No, you're not. If my logic is that it's morally preferable for a homeless person to ask me for change than to mug me for it, your interpretation of my logic is that I have no moral right to defend myself by force against the mugging.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sounds like a perfect excuse

Any chance of an answer to the following? Third time I've had to ask you now.

if peaceful negotiations have totally failed with absolutely no prospect of them starting again, does the population of an occupied country/colony etc have the right to use force to eject its occupier?

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Any chance of an answer to the following? Third time I've had to ask you now.

"Assume a spherical chicken of uniform density..."

I'm not interested in playing rhetorical word games with the starting assumptions carefully chosen to set up a desired outcome. I'm rejecting your premises. If you can't argue for the legitimacy of armed insurrection without loaded premises, you've already fatally undermined your own argument.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Assume a spherical chicken of uniform density..."

I'm not interested in playing rhetorical word games with the starting assumptions carefully chosen to set up a desired outcome. I'm rejecting your premises. If you can't argue for the legitimacy of armed insurrection without loaded premises, you've already fatally undermined your own argument.

Armed insurrection was the natural outcome of years of subjugation. In the real world it is always the 'natural' outcome eventually. It has happened everywhere in the world. It is not neccessarily wrong an generally takes place in an atmosphere of mistrust and broken promises and where suprise is the most important factor.

LordSutch

TERRORISM IS NEVER JUSTIFIED.

Think Boston Marathon!

Think Enniskillen

Think 9/11

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Armed insurrection was the natural outcome of years of subjugation. In the real world it is always the 'natural' outcome eventually. It has happened everywhere in the world. It is not neccessarily wrong an generally takes place in an atmosphere of mistrust and broken promises and where suprise is the most important factor.

...none of which would sound out of place in a statement issued by a dissident republican group.

Banjo String

LordSutch wrote: »

TERRORISM IS NEVER JUSTIFIED.

Think Boston Marathon!

Think Enniskillen

Think 9/11

Bloody Sunday?

Mr.Micro

LordSutch wrote: »

TERRORISM IS NEVER JUSTIFIED.

Think Boston Marathon!

Think Enniskillen

Think 9/11

With the codicil unless its inflicted officially. eg invasion of Iraq or incursions by Israel or drone attacks in Afghanistan? Its still terror IMO. I do agree with you that terror is never justified and should never be justified.

OCorcrainn

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sounds like a perfect excuse for a dissident republican to refuse to engage with the current peace process. That's the problem with florid rhetoric: it's hard to stop others from co-opting it to suit their own ends.

You still have not answered my question instead you deflected and went on a tangent about dissident republicans which was not what we were discussing. I am referring to this in an international context not from the perspective of Irish nationalism so can you please try to be objective instead of the usual whataboutery.

I will repeat once more as you have not answered.

Is armed insurrection justifiable when:

Even when it is a 'peace process' implemented by a foreign and hostile power that subverts the freedom and sovereignty of another nation and its people?

Yes or no? That is all.

stoneill

True terrorism is never ordinary man versus ordinary man, it is the greedy rich and powerful protecting their interests and using the gullible ignorance of the impressionable to their end.
Bobby Sands is dead - what did that achieve for Bobby Sands? Nothing.

Make you own decision on where the leaders of the IRA council and the string puller of the time are now.

You can apply that logic to all conflicts and wars and it proves true.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

...none of which would sound out of place in a statement issued by a dissident republican group.

You asked us to give legitimacies for armed insurrection and when they are given, this is the best you can do? Retreat to the high moral ground?
'Dissidents' 'terrorists' etc are monikers given perjoratively, they don't see themselves as acting in the wrong. Which makes your moral grandstanding moot, I'm afraid, as the real world will happen around you and your likes.