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

RandomName2

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.

Likewise it was inevitable that the subjugation of the American people by an overly powerful central government, which has significant human rights and civil liberties issues, was countered through people like Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh's options were limited, due to the fact that he was essentially working alone, but he made sure to target the administrative centre of the central government. He didn't seek to target civilians, and any that died (and there were many) were collateral damage; he said so himself.

Many felt the US central government should never have been vested with such powers in the first place; a consequence of winning the Civil War. Once the government executed McVeigh he became a martyr. What's worse, they had the audacity to call him a criminal.

Happyman42 wrote: »

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.

No, the rebels could have chosen to not take up arms in the first place. Not so much the rank-and-file, they were merely following orders. But what on Earth were the leaders playing at? The rebels were not about to negotiate anything whilst their position was tenable: once they had started the Rising it was reasonable enough for them to continue until the outcome was in no doubt. They behaved like soldiers; they fought like soldiers; they surrendered like soldiers; they were shot like solders. But they should never have fought in the first place.

Mr Cumulonimbus

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.

Evasive rubbish. So you'd rather your position on this remains unknown to me? Bizarre in the extreme.

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

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?

Define fail.

Also; did anybody really think WW1 was a permanent fixture? WW1 could be still be going on today, sure.

The only negotiations that had failed were with Unionists.

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

Define fail.

Doesn't the question itself make it clear?

oscarBravo

OCorcrainn wrote: »

You still have not answered my question...

I don't answer rhetorical questions.

Happyman42 wrote: »

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?

I'm not sure why you find moral high ground so repulsive that you seek to avoid it at all costs, but I'm simply pointing out that the justifications that are given for 1916 continue to be given today, and the best anyone seems to be able to offer by way of differentiation is "yeah but that's different".

I've consistently stated that I don't believe that republican terrorism has ever been justifiable, whether at the foundation of the state or this week. I find that a more consistent position than cherry-picking which republican terrorism to approve of, but I guess that's just me having morals, which you don't seem to believe exist in the real world you keep preaching to me about.

'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.

So your sole moral standard by which you judge people is that they don't believe themselves to be acting in the wrong? There's nothing morally wrong with any action, as long as the actor believes it to be the right thing to do?

Or is that a standard that you apply only to people who do things you agree with?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Evasive rubbish. So you'd rather your position on this remains unknown to me? Bizarre in the extreme.

Why is it bizarre that I'm refusing to be drawn on a hypothetical (and extremely unrealistic) question that you've asked purely as a rhetorical trap?

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Doesn't the question itself make it clear?

Of course not. How do you define "no prospect" of peaceful negotiations? Twenty years ago there was "no prospect" of a joint DUP/Sinn Fein government in Northern Ireland. Did that mean that it was never going to happen?

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, the rebels could have chosen to not take up arms in the first place.

The 'rebels' believed the British shouldn't have been there in the 'first place'.
Are you begining to see that adopting a 'moral' standpoint is ultimately pointless and useless to anybody other than yourself and those who have the same moral code?
Nobody ever solved anything in Ireland from the high moral ground, it just doesn't cut it in a real world.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 'rebels' believed the British shouldn't have been there in the 'first place'.

You're glossing over a rather important point - a moral point, if you like - which is that disagreeing with something doesn't automatically give you the right to kill people to change it.

Are you begining to see that adopting a 'moral' standpoint is ultimately pointless and useless to anybody other than yourself and those who have the same moral code?
Nobody ever solved anything in Ireland from the high moral ground, it just doesn't cut it in a real world.

That's because there are far too many people in this country with no interest in morality, and who feel they have every right to kill people to get their way.

Why do you have such a problem with morals?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't answer rhetorical questions.

I'm not sure why you find moral high ground so repulsive that you seek to avoid it at all costs, but I'm simply pointing out that the justifications that are given for 1916 continue to be given today, and the best anyone seems to be able to offer by way of differentiation is "yeah but that's different".

I've consistently stated that I don't believe that republican terrorism has ever been justifiable, whether at the foundation of the state or this week. I find that a more consistent position than cherry-picking which republican terrorism to approve of, but I guess that's just me having morals, which you don't seem to believe exist in the real world you keep preaching to me about. So your sole moral standard by which you judge people is that they don't believe themselves to be acting in the wrong? There's nothing morally wrong with any action, as long as the actor believes it to be the right thing to do?

Or is that a standard that you apply only to people who do things you agree with?

No, what I am saying is, 'so what?' What difference does it make to anything what you or I think of something morally? The proverbial cows will be home and tucked up in bed if we take moral stances, there is no solution down that road.
Terror, terrorism, force, military might, etc etc etc are all used by all people's, governments, militants etc etc etc to get what they want.

OCorcrainn

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't answer rhetorical questions.

My question was not rhetorical, you are deliberately misconstruing at as such because you do not wish to be perceived as a hypocrite.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

rhetorical trap?

Erm, no oscar. Your position continues to remain unknown to me.

Of course not.

In my opinion the question is clear, but you won't answer it.

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Doesn't the question itself make it clear?

The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand?

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 'rebels' believed the British shouldn't have been there in the 'first place'.
Are you begining to see that adopting a 'moral' standpoint is ultimately pointless and useless to anybody other than yourself and those who have the same moral code?
Nobody ever solved anything in Ireland from the high moral ground, it just doesn't cut it in a real world.

This isn't to do with the moral high-ground. The rebels were morally wrong, but that can be ignored.

They were not going to win an armed insurrection with the amount of men, arms, infrastructure, local support, foreign support and logistical means open to them.

You say:

The 'rebels' believed the British shouldn't have been there in the 'first place'.

But their actions were not going to make that not so. If anything they were going to increase tensions, Britain's military presence, and damage the political process. Such tensions would help prevent conscription from coming into force, but I hardly think that that was something that even crossed their minds.

They had no hope of success. Some of them didn't even care whether or not they succeeded.

A government can never allow armed insurgents who are disregarding the authority of the government to persist, particularly within a major city and administrative centre. Michael Collins later came to the same conclusion as the British government.

The rebels caused the deaths of many civilians, caused the destruction of many historic buildings, crippled the political infrastucure of the nationalist movement, bolstered the unionist movement, made partition more likely, civil unrest inevitable. They gave the nationalist politcal movement to ultra-nationalists who crippled this country socially and economically; and granted terrorists a mythos to call upon to justify their own actions.

Interestingly, when you talk about high-moral ground, this would not describe the position of the British authorities. Their military reaction to the revolutionaries was exactly the same as it would have been had that been a German regiment that had landed in Dublin and taken up strongholds across the city. The British army just wanted to defeat the insurrection in the fastest and easiest fashion; they had no particular angle on it.

Mr.Micro

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course not. How do you define "no prospect" of peaceful negotiations? Twenty years ago there was "no prospect" of a joint DUP/Sinn Fein government in Northern Ireland. Did that mean that it was never going to happen?

Indeed that is so true. The prospect of peace was believed to be impossible. Different people come into office or organizations change personnel which can mitigate change. We all hope to see peace in the middle east and at this time it may appear to be never, but optimism will prevail.

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand?



This isn't to do with the moral high-ground. The rebels were morally wrong, but that can be ignored.

They were not going to win an armed insurrection with the amount of men, arms, infrastructure, local support, foreign support and logistical means open to them.

You say:



But their actions were not going to make that not so. If anything they were going to increase tensions, Britain's military presence, and damage the political process. Such tensions would help prevent conscription from coming into force, but I hardly think that that was something that even crossed their minds.

They had no hope of success. Some of them didn't even care whether or not they succeeded.

A government can never allow armed insurgents who are disregarding the authority of the government to persist, particularly within a major city and administrative centre. Michael Collins later came to the same conclusion as the British government.

The rebels caused the deaths of many civilians, caused the destruction of many historic buildings, crippled the political infrastucure of the nationalist movement, bolstered the unionist movement, made partition more likely, civil unrest inevitable. They gave the nationalist politcal movement to ultra-nationalists who crippled this country socially and economically; and granted terrorists a mythos to call upon to justify their own actions.

Interestingly, when you talk about high-moral ground, this would not describe the position of the British authorities. Their military reaction to the revolutionaries was exactly the same as it would have been had that been a German regiment that had landed in Dublin and taken up strongholds across the city. The British army just wanted to defeat the insurrection in the fastest and easiest fashion; they had no particular angle on it.

So are you saying that only misguided and stupidly idealistic insurrectionists are morally wrong, if they had managed to 'win' and drive the British out, would it then have been the right thing to do?

I have avoided answering the above by saying none of the casualities would have happened if the British hadn't been there in the first place.

RandomName2

Happyman42 wrote: »

So are you saying that only misguided and stupidly idealistic insurrectionists are morally wrong, if they had managed to 'win' and drive the British out, would it then have been the right thing to do?

Yes, if you are removing moralistic considerations as you were advocating. If you removed morals then the ends would justify the means.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have avoided answering the above by saying none of the casualities would have happened if the British hadn't been there in the first place.

Because the Rising would not have had to happen in the first place?
How did that work during the civil war?

Chuck Stone

OCorcrainn wrote: »

you do not wish to be perceived as a hypocrite.

Don't you get it? It's a quasi-religious black-and-white form of thinking. Republican violence is illegitimate, evil, and deemed 'terrorism' (spit). State violence, on the other hand, is virtuous and deemed security. The hypocrisy and double standards are quite plain to see for anyone who's able to apply a moderate level of critical thought to their bullshit.

Take 'the troubles'; the usual suspects will condemn, in no uncertain terms, the Republican backlash against state violence while completely ignoring the violence and dysfunction of the state. The usual suspects will conjure alternate realities (but, there was no need for a backlash) and cite childrens proverbs (two wrongs don't make a right) in flaccid attempts to underpin their dogma, double standards and hypocrisy. When their alternate realities are responded to in kind (if the British had nurtured the NICRA... If Unionists had not treated the minority as untermenschen...) they are ignored.

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Don't you get it? It's a quasi-religious black-and-white form of thinking. Republican violence is illegitimate, evil, and deemed 'terrorism' (spit). State violence, on the other hand, is virtuous and deemed security. The hypocrisy and double standards are quite plain to see...

So apply a single standard. Are both state violence and insurrection violence equally acceptable, or equally repugnant?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

So apply a single standard. Are both state violence and insurrection violence equally acceptable, or equally repugnant?

Because responsibility, compassion and trust is expected of any state , then, violence visited on one section of the community, to the benefit of another section is always the more repugnant because it will always unleash a backlash...always. And it is always an uncontrolable backlash. The State should be able to control itself, the British state frequently didn't and refused to learn the lesson it recieved in the South. That is why one of the states vested with responsibility (and the very one that held everyone else to it's dubious moral code) is busy reviewing and apologising for actions taken on its behalf by its agencies.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

So apply a single standard. Are both state violence and insurrection violence equally acceptable, or equally repugnant?

I believe the principle role of the state, ideally, is to protect its citizenry. When the state metes out violence in an attempt to bolster the privileges and power of one group at the expense of another it stands, and deserves, to lose its monopoly on force.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

So apply a single standard. Are both state violence and insurrection violence equally acceptable, or equally repugnant?

This ignores the motivation behind the violence, which really is the primary concern. Violence to prop up a sectarian statelet cannot be justified, while violence to overthrow one can.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

This ignores the motivation behind the violence, which really is the primary concern. Violence to prop up a sectarian statelet cannot be justified, while violence to overthrow one can.

Which category does 1916 fit into?

Chuck Stone

Nodin wrote: »

This ignores the motivation behind the violence, which really is the primary concern. Violence to prop up a sectarian statelet cannot be justified, while violence to overthrow one can.

Like the purgatorial game of 'Snakes and Ladders' these discussions are, the anti-Republicans inevitably end up at the bottom of the board, staring at this reality, pretending it's an apparition.

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Like the purgatorial game of 'Snakes and Ladders' these discussions are, the anti-Republicans inevitably end up at the bottom of the board, staring at this reality, pretending it's an apparition.

I'm guessing that made sense in your head.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm guessing that made sense in your head.

Ah yes. A weak attempt to goad when you've run out of something useful to contribute.

How eminently predictable.

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Ah yes. A weak attempt to goad when you've run out of something useful to contribute.

How eminently predictable.

Unlike, say, for example:

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Like the purgatorial game of 'Snakes and Ladders' these discussions are, the anti-Republicans inevitably end up at the bottom of the board, staring at this reality, pretending it's an apparition.

Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not anti-republican. I get accused of it a lot, because I question the orthodoxy. Adherents to orthodoxies tend to get stroppy when their dogma is questioned, but that's not a good reason not to question it.

There was no justification for the 1916 rising. All I've seen offered as justification is republican orthodoxy. If you can't justify your position without reference to the creed on which you base it, your position is pretty much untenable.

You will disagree, because you don't question your own creed. That's fair enough, but I'll continue to question it, and you'll continue to come up with trite and incomprehensible board game references.

Chuck Stone

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unlike, say, for example:

Make up your mind. It's morphed from being incomprehensible to an attempt to goad? So you weren't able to understand it but yet you decided it was goading? You've been tripped up by your own sophistry.

Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not anti-republican. I get accused of it a lot, because I question the orthodoxy. Adherents to orthodoxies tend to get stroppy when their dogma is questioned, but that's not a good reason not to question it.

You, and your fellow travellers, treat Republican orthodoxy, inasmuch as it exists, as monolithic. It's not. That's simply more evidence of black-and-white conceptualizing of a complex issue.

There was no justification for the 1916 rising. All I've seen offered as justification is republican orthodoxy. If you can't justify your position without reference to the creed on which you base it, your position is pretty much untenable.

See what you did there? You just proved my point as it is above. 'oscarBravo's hive-mind Republicans' if you will. I wasn't involved in that part of the discussion - not that you noticed.

You will disagree, because you don't question your own creed. That's fair enough, but I'll continue to question it

This creed exists only in your mind.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unlike, say, for example:



Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not anti-republican. I get accused of it a lot, because I question the orthodoxy. Adherents to orthodoxies tend to get stroppy when their dogma is questioned, but that's not a good reason not to question it.

There was no justification for the 1916 rising. All I've seen offered as justification is republican orthodoxy. If you can't justify your position without reference to the creed on which you base it, your position is pretty much untenable.

You will disagree, because you don't question your own creed. That's fair enough, but I'll continue to question it, and you'll continue to come up with trite and incomprehensible board game references.

All your questions where answered by several posters, yet you blithely glided away from the answers.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which category does 1916 fit into?

Overthrow of a colonial regime. Perfectly valid use of force there.

Scofflaw

There's a certain amount of rather pointless handbagging happening - I'm looking particularly at oscarBravo and Chuck Stone's recent exchange here. Pack it in, please.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Norwesterner

Nodin wrote: »

Overthrow of a colonial regime. Perfectly valid use of force there.

And today?

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

Overthrow of a colonial regime. Perfectly valid use of force there.

Perhaps, but only if it is successful ? And when you look at what we have today both north and south how successful are we ?

I think Oscarbravo's point is that we would be farther along the independence road if we has not resorted to violence. And there is a case to be made for that, but to even raise that possibility is seen as betrayal.

RandomName2

Nodin wrote: »

This ignores the motivation behind the violence, which really is the primary concern. Violence to prop up a sectarian statelet cannot be justified, while violence to overthrow one can.

Anything can be justified. Some people see the primacy of the state of vital importance. "Anything beats anarchy"

Some others feel that any means are legitimate in combating sectarianism... including the use of sectarianism.

Since when has 'motivation' been a primary concern?
Rejection of the November criminals, power to the proletariat, freedom of the branch Davidian, the Pacific war against European colonialists, etc. etc.

Nodin wrote: »

Overthrow of a colonial regime. Perfectly valid use of force there.

The former is questionable, the latter highly unlikely.

Despite Chuck Stone's apathy for criticism of Irish Republicanism as if it were a single, contiguous block (and I mean, he has a point), I still think that there isn't a single Republican who would say that the 1916 Rising was 'wrong'. The distinction between Republicans is generally in relation to what side they fall down on concerning various splits.

Nodin

Norwesterner wrote: »

And today?

A rather different situation.

marienbad wrote:

Perhaps, but only if it is successful ? And when you look at what we have today both north and south how successful are we ?

I think Oscarbravo's point is that we would be farther along the independence road if we has not resorted to violence. And there is a case to be made for that, but to even raise that possibility is seen as betrayal.

If you look at the first hundred years of any state post independence, they aren't going to look too good. Greece has been a financial basket case since the get-go, even back as far as Byrons day, and has had far more internal conflict. Algeria had a particularily violent period soon after the French departure and again more recently. Australia became remarkably racist, America had rebellion, wars, a ferocious civil conflict, racial issues.....

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

Anything can be justified. Some people see the primacy of the state of vital importance. "Anything beats anarchy"

Some others feel that any means are legitimate in combating sectarianism... including the use of sectarianism.

Since when has 'motivation' been a primary concern?
Rejection of the November criminals, power to the proletariat, freedom of the branch Davidian, the Pacific war against European colonialists, etc. etc.
.

I've genuinely no idea what point you're trying to make there.

RandomName2

Nodin wrote: »

I've genuinely no idea what point you're trying to make there.

Violence against the state can be justified if the state is sectarian?

You mean, regardless of what form that violence takes? Is that some sort of blanket justification?

Violence by a sectarian state can never be justified?

There would be many who'd disagree with you there. Many who would, in fact, justify such violence by the state.

People can justify anything they like. It doesn't make them right.

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

It doesn't make them right....

...within your moral framework, if they can justify it within theirs, (and they can, just like a 'state soldier can morally justify what he/she does) where are you then? As I say, it's pointless going down the moral judgement road.

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This creed exists only in your mind.

How many Irish republicans have you met who disagree with the Easter rising?

Nodin wrote: »

Overthrow of a colonial regime. Perfectly valid use of force there.

That's three tenets of the creed right there: that Ireland was a colony; that overthrowing the regime (as opposed to negotiating for secession) was the right thing to do; and that killing people to do so was the right way to go about it.

Those aren't Euclidean axioms; they are articles of faith. Every argument I've been presented with is derived from those premises, and I'm rejecting the idea that they are objectively and incontrovertibly true.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

...within your moral framework, if they can justify it within theirs, (and they can, just like a 'state soldier can morally justify what he/she does) where are you then? As I say, it's pointless going down the moral judgement road.

So Timothy McVeigh shouldn't have been convicted, because he could justify his actions within his own moral framework?

RandomName2

Happyman42 wrote: »

...within your moral framework, if they can justify it within theirs, (and they can, just like a 'state soldier can morally justify what he/she does) where are you then? As I say, it's pointless going down the moral judgement road.

You are left with the futility of sweeping statements. "Violence agianst the state is justified if the state is sectarian." "The state is justified in persecuting people who are against the state", "internment without trial is legitimate during war", "civilian casualties are tolerable in war", violence is a legitimate avenue if politics have failed.

They sound as if they has meaning ... but they don't. These statements are too abstract; they are a moralistic whitewash, and anyone who adheres to any of these perspectives without question is tending towards absolutism.

I didn't say "violence in the stead of political dialogue is wrong". I said "the 1916 Rising was wrong: and here is why".

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many Irish republicans have you met who disagree with the Easter rising?

Are you assuming from that then that all Irish republicans agree with the Easter Rising?

That's three tenets of the creed right there

Merely opinions.

that Ireland was a colony

Yes, in my opinion it was. If you believe that the British colonial presence here was illegal, it’s impossible to argue on the basis of legality how a colony can become part of somebody else’s country. And merely stating that it was a historical fact that we were integrated into the “UK of Britain and Ireland” is not a convincing argument to argue in favour of the legality of that event. You said in a previous thread on “Irish Unity” that Ireland was a colony up to 1800. Was the British colonial presence up to that point legal or illegal in your opinion?

that overthrowing the regime (as opposed to negotiating for secession) was the right thing to do; and that killing people to do so was the right way to go about it.

You continue to argue against the Rising on the basis that that an alternative route to independence was available, yet you won’t say what your position is when such an alternative may not be available.

Those aren't Euclidean axioms; they are articles of faith. Every argument I've been presented with is derived from those premises, and I'm rejecting the idea that they are objectively and incontrovertibly true.

I never said myself they were incontrovertibly true. You’re engaging in an exercise of counterfactual speculation which obviously can never have an endgame.

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

If you believe that the British colonial presence here was illegal...

...you have to explain what your basis in law for declaring it "illegal" is.

And merely stating that it was a historical fact that we were integrated into the “UK of Britain and Ireland” is not a convincing argument to argue in favour of the legality of that event.

But merely stating as a historical opinion that the British presence in Ireland was illegal is enough to base an entire political movement on?

Was the British presence in Australia "legal"? Is the Australian presence in Australia "legal"? Is the presence of anyone other than Mapuche in Chile "illegal"?

You said in a previous thread on “Irish Unity” that Ireland was a colony up to 1800. Was the British colonial presence up to that point legal or illegal in your opinion?

Was the Norman presence in England up to that point legal or illegal in your opinion?

(Cue dismissal of that parallel on the grounds of "irrelevance".)

You continue to argue against the Rising on the basis that that an alternative route to independence was available, yet you won’t say what your position is when such an alternative may not be available.

Are you claiming that no alternative was available; that without the Easter rising, Ireland would never have gained independence? Or is it, as I've already pointed out, a rhetorical question?

If the only way to avoid Ireland being hit by a meteor was to rejoin the UK, would you be happy to do so?

I never said myself they were incontrovertibly true. You’re engaging in an exercise of counterfactual speculation which obviously can never have an endgame.

They are generally presented as axioms in discussions such as these, and those of us who disagree with them are frequently told how naive and ignorant we are, and instructed to "educate" ourselves on Irish history.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

A rather different situation.



If you look at the first hundred years of any state post independence, they aren't going to look too good. Greece has been a financial basket case since the get-go, even back as far as Byrons day, and has had far more internal conflict. Algeria had a particularily violent period soon after the French departure and again more recently. Australia became remarkably racist, America had rebellion, wars, a ferocious civil conflict, racial issues.....

Quite possibly true, but times and conditions do move on. Does anyone doubt that if Scotland wishes it can now have complete and absolute independence from London and without a shot being fired and the country partitioned ?

Most of those examples are not comparable to ours, I could just as easily posit New Zealand and Canada.

And just as with civil rights in the USA , due to changing times an argument can be made that all those ills in the North could have and would have been corrected without the use of force.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

...you have to explain what your basis in law for declaring it "illegal" is.

Erm, the invasion and colonisation of countries by other countries?

But merely stating as a historical opinion that the British presence in Ireland was illegal is enough to base an entire political movement on?

Yes. The founders of this state based their actions on this idea.

Was the British presence in Australia "legal"? Is the Australian presence in Australia "legal"? Is the presence of anyone other than Mapuche in Chile "illegal"? Was the Norman presence in England up to that point legal or illegal in your opinion?

So you wont even discuss the possibility that the process of colonisation can be considered illegal around the world?

(Cue dismissal of that parallel on the grounds of "irrelevance".)

Nah, thats a ruse used by you to avoid discussing that the process of colonisation can ever be considered illegal.

Are you claiming that no alternative was available; that without the Easter rising, Ireland would never have gained independence? Or is it, as I've already pointed out, a rhetorical question?

How can I have a full discussion with you on this when you wont reveal your position on a point that I (and others) have raised previously?

If the only way to avoid Ireland being hit by a meteor was to rejoin the UK, would you be happy to do so?

Oh dear.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Erm, the invasion and colonisation of countries by other countries?



Yes. The founders of this state based their actions on this idea.



So you wont even discuss the possibility that the process of colonisation can be considered illegal around the world?



Nah, thats a ruse used by you to avoid discussing that the process of colonisation can ever be considered illegal.



How can I have a full discussion with you on this when you wont reveal your position on a point that I (and others) have raised previously?



Oh dear.

Why are you insisting on a definition of whether colonising was legal or illegal ? Of course it was legal, was it moral no , but legal yes. If not before the event it certainly was after.

The whole world as we know it is shaped by colonisation and empire . That dos'nt make it right but the passage of time does make it legal.

And if in doubt ask the UN , we are all members together there and the biggest 'offenders' run the security council.

R P McMurphy

marienbad wrote: »

Quite possibly true, but times and conditions do move on. Does anyone doubt that if Scotland wishes it can now have complete and absolute independence from London and without a shot being fired and the country partitioned ?

Most of those examples are not comparable to ours, I could just as easily posit New Zealand and Canada.

And just as with civil rights in the USA , due to changing times an argument can be made that all those ills in the North could have and would have been corrected without the use of force.

Hmmm it was those ills that led to the regrowth of armed nationalism though. If they had been addressed then we would not have faced into 30 years of conflict. The unionist state as it existed would never have agreed to equal rights. The british government effectively killed the civil rights movement by deploying their armed forces into a march and shooting civilians to death. It was however how they handled the aftermath that convinced nationalist communities that the british state was a corrupt entity not to be trusted and the best option was to remove it. If you reside in a state where its armed representatives can effectively kill civilians without repurcussions then you are going to look for alternatives. Or should you wait to be treated as an equal citizen but how long, 5 year, 10, 15, 50

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

If not before the event it certainly was after.

?

Explain the transition from illegality to legality.

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

?

Explain the transition from illegality to legality.

With all due respect you're going up the garden path with invasion and colonisation, particularly in relation to Ireland. Perhaps what you are looking for is the Act of Union? If you persist in talking in this vain you will need to elaborate on what you mean by "invasion", by "country", and by "illegal".

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

yet you won’t say what your position is when such an alternative may not be available.

Yet an alternative was available. That makes this a very difficult point to discuss; because the supposition is that there wasn't any alternative at the time of the Rising. This has been demonstrated to not be true. So while your question sounds hypothetical it is still framed within the discussion of the Rising. It is making the discussion go around in circles.

Either say "violence was right DESPITE the availability of alternative means" or say "no I'm not talking about this event at all, but am talking from an entirely hypothetical point of view"

walshb

KyussBishop wrote: »

Starvation is a pretty horrible way to go, and it takes enormous effort to force yourself through it; so, whatever personal/political criticisms people may have of Bobby Sands, it has to be admired, the sheer determination, integrity of personal principles, and incredible willpower that it takes, to tortuously starve yourself to death over two months, in protest.
.

I would have admired him even more if he chose to live for the cause!

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

Act of Union?

Already touched on in the concept that oscarBravo believes that Ireland was a colony pre 1800.

"invasion", by "country", and by "illegal"

Are they not self-explanatory even in Ireland's case?

Yet an alternative was available. That makes this a very difficult point to discuss;

Counterfactual speculation is this by its very nature. Yes?

because the supposition is that there wasn't any alternative at the time of the Rising. This has been demonstrated to not be true.

But as already stated it's a counterfactual theme which you quite rightly say makes it very difficult to discuss. How do you cover all the variables available?

So while your question sounds hypothetical it is still framed within the discussion of the Rising.

So its not possible to give an answer based on the question asked as a generic concept?

It is making the discussion go around in circles.

I think you need to look elsewhere for who to blame for that.

Either say "violence was right DESPITE the availability of alternative means" or say "no I'm not talking about this event at all, but am talking from an entirely hypothetical point of view"

I can't express an opinion in the way I wish?

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Already touched on in the concept that oscarBravo believes that Ireland was a colony pre 1800.

Depends what you mean by colony.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Are they not self-explanatory even in Ireland's case?

Well, first off, Ireland wasn't a country until the early 1920s.

The word 'invasion' is problematic when talking about Vikings, Normans, etc

The word 'illegal' has no context at all. You could call it legal, illegal, it has no meaning within this discourse. You... kind of needs laws before something can break them.

Jupiter is illegal!

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

But as already stated it's a counterfactual theme which you quite rightly say makes it very difficult to discuss. How do you cover all the variables available?

By either discussing it or not discussing it. Go ahead: what are you talking about? That is, what subject are you attempting to discuss?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I can't express an opinion in the way I wish?

The problem is, you aren't expressing it.