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

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

Rather stating the obvious there.

Nodin

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.

Thats speculation and hindsight in action there, tbh.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

?

Explain the transition from illegality to legality.

You are projecting modern concepts back in time . Which invasions was illegal and why ? The Gaelic raids that brought St.Patrick to Ireland ? The Viking invasions ? The Norman invasions ?

Generally speaking if something persists long enough it becomes legal, that is if it was ever illegal in the first place. Thus the colonisation of the New World or Australia or Africa . Or the Roman invasion of Britain .

By the late 19th century and particularly after the land reforms Ireland was part of the UK and legally so . I am just raising the question of transitioning to a modern democracy without the use of violence, just like New Zealand Australia or Canada and as Scotland now can if they so choose..

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

Thats speculation and hindsight in action there, tbh.

Indeed , but we can still compare with what happened in other countries in similar circumstances.

And even more so compare what we have achieved with the original goals of the men of 1916., or better still with the principles of Wolf Tone .

IMHO opinion it has been the most abject failure .

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

Depends what you mean by colony.

When the organs of government of a country/state etc occupy and govern another without that populations consent.

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

So before it was......?

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

How?

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.

Even within the context of right and wrong? Is law not an attempt at the codification of these supposed pre-existing concepts? If murder wasn't codified into law until 1946 for example how would you address the issue of the Jewish Holocaust?

Jupiter is illegal!

? Jupiter is an inanimate body incapable of thought or action.

That is, what subject are you attempting to discuss?

This: 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?

The problem is, you aren't expressing it.

I disagree.

Originally posted by marienbad: You are projecting modern concepts back in time

Project it forward in time and its an excuse for it to continue.

marienbad

No Mr Cumulonimbus. your final statement re projecting forward in time is hard to comprehend. You are treating history as static. How far back do you actually want to go ?

Going by what you are saying the jews are entitled to Palestine , The native americans to America and the aborigines to Australia and New Zealand and Ulster Unionists should just pack up a f%&k off home ( where ever that is ) ?

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

When the organs of government of a country/state etc occupy and govern another without that populations consent.

Does Dublin govern Cork without that population's consent?

Oh Cork has consented to being governed by Dublin?

Prove it.

A colony doesn't have to be a case of subjugation at all. Technically all a colony is is a place that is under the direct administration of a government. Colonies can be set up where nobody lives. The colonies of the 13 US States weren't provinces of Native Americans under the control of the United Kingdom, but rather the direct administration of land that had been settled by... well.. colonisers.

I think the work you mind be looking for is annexation...? Certainly not colony.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So before it was......?

Part of the United Kingdom.

Okay, that's a bit glib... but it was never codified into a single state prior to 1920. It had been lots of little competing kingdoms from before Ireland had a history. Territory owned by the English crown eventually became the most dominant possession within the island.

Your narrow definitions don't really work in this general context. Ireland invaded Ireland several times and subjected Ireland to the rule of Ireland. There wasn't even a notion of 'Ireland' until the eighteenth century at all. During the Reformation there was a notion of Catholicsm vs Protestantism; so the 'Irish' were willing to hand land over to the Hapsburgs on the grounds that the Hapsburgs practised the one true religion...

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

How?

Because they didn't really invade. The Vikings pillaged, or settled, not in any real organised fashion. The Normans invaded England and subjugated it with an iron fist. The Normans at least made a proper invasion of the island of Ireland, bringing a good deal of land under the direct control of the English crown, and strengthening the position of the Papacy. Of course, the Papacy ruled all of Christendom, de jure.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Even within the context of right and wrong? Is law not an attempt at the codification of these supposed pre-existing concepts? If murder wasn't codified into law until 1946 for example how would you address the issue of the Jewish Holocaust?

Well it would be quite difficult to convict someone of having broken a law that does not exist.

You can still say things are 'right' and 'wrong' though.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

This: 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?

Depends on the ramifications of political failure, both local and long term. Depends on what sort of occupier you are talking about: are they like the United States with Puerto Rico or more like Nazi Germany with Lithuania? Depends on what sort of force you are talking about, at whom it would be aimed, and what likelihood it would have of success. It would also depend on whether there was a general consensus whether this was the right thing to do, among the people who have been occupied.

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed , but we can still compare with what happened in other countries in similar circumstances. .

Yes. Some have had a rough ride, some have not.

marienbad wrote: »

And even more so compare what we have achieved with the original goals of the men of 1916., or better still with the principles of Wolf Tone .

IMHO opinion it has been the most abject failure .

I wasn't aware the project had been abandoned. The fact is that the "mainstream" co-opted the revolutionary aspect and subverted it. This is not a uniquely Irish phenomena by any manner of means.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

Yes. Some have had a rough ride, some have not.



I wasn't aware the project had been abandoned. The fact is that the "mainstream" co-opted the revolutionary aspect and subverted it. This is not a uniquely Irish phenomena by any manner of means.

The countries most similar to us have anything but rough transition, there is definately a race/religion element at play in this but nonetheless they are all now prosperous united functioning democracies

Well it is the nature of history that nothing is ever abandoned but after 100 years it hard to see it as anything other that a major disappointment .

On the point you raise on the ''mainstream'' co-opting the revolution. Did they though ? Particularly in the republic ? It is hard to see the men of 1916 ( obviously with some major exceptions) as anything other essentially right wing revolutionaries and that is exactly the state that was founded.

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

The countries most similar to us have anything but rough transition, there is definately a race/religion element at play in this but nonetheless they are all now prosperous united functioning democracies.

.....well everything works out when you cherry pick your examples.

marienbad wrote: »

Well it is the nature of history that nothing is ever abandoned but after 100 years it hard to see it as anything other that a major disappointment ..

It has not even been a hundred years, which itself is a relatively short span of time.

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

No Mr Cumulonimbus. your final statement re projecting forward in time is hard to comprehend. You are treating history as static. How far back do you actually want to go ?

Going by what you are saying the jews are entitled to Palestine , The native americans to America and the aborigines to Australia and New Zealand and Ulster Unionists should just pack up a f%&k off home ( where ever that is ) ?

Don't know from this whether you think the process itself (colonisation) is right/wrong, legal/illegal.

Originally posted by Randomname2:annexation

Thanks. A word I'd genuinely forgotten about, but useful nonetheless! Can you decouple it from the concept of colonisation though? Don't think you can.

Ireland invaded Ireland several times and subjected Ireland to the rule of Ireland. There wasn't even a notion of 'Ireland' until the eighteenth century at all. During the Reformation there was a notion of Catholicsm vs Protestantism

Ireland v Ireland? Exclusive of external interference? Don't follow you here.

Even accepting as you do that Ireland may have emerged as a country in the 18th century, by that time it was under the control of another country. Religion was a key sign of loyalty to a state in the era you describe and after. It contributed alot to the strained relations between the 2 islands. (Penal Laws etc.)

The Normans at least made a proper invasion of the island of Ireland

But didn't complete it. The view exists that it disrupted the gradual amalgamation of the various Celtic kingdoms on the island into a single entity under a central leadership.

Depends on the ramifications of political failure, both local and long term. Depends on what sort of occupier you are talking about: are they like the United States with Puerto Rico or more like Nazi Germany with Lithuania? Depends on what sort of force you are talking about, at whom it would be aimed, and what likelihood it would have of success. It would also depend on whether there was a general consensus whether this was the right thing to do, among the people who have been occupied.

Nazi Germany with Poland would be an even more clearcut example to use I'd say.

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Nazi Germany with Poland would be an even more clearcut example to use I'd say.

So Ireland's relationship with Britain in 1916 was directly comparable to Poland's with Germany in 1940?

Wow.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

.....well everything works out when you cherry pick your examples.



It has not even been a hundred years, which itself is a relatively short span of time.

But I am not cherrypicking my examples, I am using those countries that were in a similar position to us in 1916 and are most closely related by race religion and ethnicity !

In the modern era 100 years is a very long time . Enough time for the rest of Europe to recover from two world wars and still end up far more prosperous more secular and more equitable than we are.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

So Ireland's relationship with Britain in 1916 was directly comparable to Poland's with Germany in 1940?

Wow.

RandonName2 responded to the question that you wouldn't answer. It was a response to one of the analogies he provided. Are you having a go now then?

Also you wouldn't answer that question on the grounds that it was hypothetical. You do realise that the counterfactual speculation you are engaging in is also a form of hypothetical reasoning.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

marienbad wrote: »

But I am not cherrypicking my examples, I am using those countries that were in a similar position to us in 1916 and are most closely related by race religion and ethnicity !

In the modern era 100 years is a very long time . Enough time for the rest of Europe to recover from two world wars and still end up far more prosperous more secular and more equitable than we are.

You are using every other country but the pertinent one. The men/women of 1916 did not have the advantage of foresight, all they had to go on was the past. And that told them that the only way to be rid of Britain was to revolt and attempt an overthrow.
Why you need to know anything other than that defeats me.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus

Asking if colonisation is right/wrong/legal/illegal and throw in moral/immoral for good measure - is a meaningless question .

Is it wrong today in the 21st century ? yes, I would say it is wrong today.

But it is meaningless to project that back in time. You could just as easily ask was monarchy wrong , or feudalism , or not having one man one vote.

We can say it is wrong today because we have progressed through all those previous phases to get where we are .

Are you saying that it is wrong at all times and in all places ?

RandomName2

Happyman42 wrote: »

The men/women of 1916 did not have the advantage of foresight, all they had to go on was the past. And that told them that the only way to be rid of Britain was to revolt and attempt an overthrow.

What part of the past told them that, pray tell.

...

...

You aren't seriously referring to the war of the three kingdoms are you?

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are using every other country but the pertinent one. The men/women of 1916 did not have the advantage of foresight, all they had to go on was the past. And that told them that the only way to be rid of Britain was to revolt and attempt an overthrow.
Why you need to know anything other than that defeats me.

How do you mean they did not have the advantage of foresight ? You are not seriously contending that they embarked on their course without some idea of their goals ?

As for the only way to get rid of Britain being physical force - history elsewhere has disproved that in the examples I have given .

And as an aside, imho, the primary objective of any revolutionary movement is to improve the lot of the people they believe they represent and on that measure, it could be argued, ours was a signal failure.

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

What part of the past told them that, pray tell.

...

...

You aren't seriously referring to the war of the three kingdoms are you?

I have no idea what Pearse or Dev's etc thought processes where, nor do I care all that much, all I need to know is that nobody of intellect embarks on a mission like they did without serious thought and without having come to the conclusion (whatever you or I think of merits of that conclusion) that it was the only way.
The only other conclusion I could draw is that there is an innate Irish trait for bloodlust for the sake of bloodlust.

marienbad wrote: »

How do you mean they did not have the advantage of foresight ? You are not seriously contending that they embarked on their course without some idea of their goals ?

Of course they would have thought of the consequences while weighing up their options. But not with knowledge of what we know now, which you don't seem to be able to separate out of your thought processes.

As for the only way to get rid of Britain being physical force - history elsewhere has disproved that in the examples I have given .

They believed it was the only way, that is all we need to know, frankly.

And as an aside, imho, the primary objective of any revolutionary movement is to improve the lot of the people they believe they represent and on that measure, it could be argued, ours was a signal failure.

Yes it could but it could also be argued the other way.

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

is a meaningless question......

Is it wrong today in the 21st century ? yes, I would say it is wrong today.

But you answered it anyway with the above, at least in the context of today.

We can say it is wrong today because we have progressed through all those previous phases to get where we are

Many down the ages thought it wrong then too and this contributed to the situation we have arrived at today.

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Also you wouldn't answer that question on the grounds that it was hypothetical.

Of course it was hypothetical. You asked me to answer a question based on the premise that there was no prospect of peace. You declined to commit yourself to the assertion that there was no prospect of peace in 1916; therefore the question was inherently hypothetical.

The logic I'm applying is really very simple: either there was a future prospect of achieving independence by peaceful means in 1916, or there wasn't. If there was no such prospect, that's a belief that in the absence of the 1916 rising, there is no conceivable outcome other than that we would still be a part of the United Kingdom, which strikes me as risible.

If there was a prospect of achieving independence without going to war, then the justification for starting a war is the belief that it wouldn't have been achieved in a satisfactory timeframe. That requires that you define the calculus of how many deaths a given delay in achieving independence is worth, as well as explaining how you arrive at the respective timeframes for peaceful versus violent means.

Perhaps you could explain which of these positions you subscribe to, and if the latter, explain the calculus for me. While you're at it, you might answer my (distinctly non-hypothetical) question as to whether the occupation of Chile by anyone other than Mapuche is illegal; if you could explain what law was broken by the British presence in Ireland, that would be good too.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The men/women of 1916 did not have the advantage of foresight, all they had to go on was the past. And that told them that the only way to be rid of Britain was to revolt and attempt an overthrow.

Can you explain which past experiences had demonstrated the success of violence in removing Britain from Ireland?

Also, care to explain why your rejection of objective morality doesn't apply to Tim McVeigh?

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

But I am not cherrypicking my examples, I am using those countries that were in a similar position to us in 1916 and are most closely related by race religion and ethnicity ! .

...cherry picking.

marienbad wrote: »

In the modern era 100 years is a very long time . Enough time for the rest of Europe to recover from two world wars and still end up far more prosperous more secular and more equitable than we are.

You'll find that various parts of Europe were on that road long before the country became independent. As regards being "equitable", the British lagged behind many states on that score.

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Even accepting as you do that Ireland may have emerged as a country in the 18th century, by that time it was under the control of another country. Religion was a key sign of loyalty to a state in the era you describe and after. It contributed alot to the strained relations between the 2 islands. (Penal Laws etc.)

More the case that the lack of royal authority contributed to strained relations. Counter-intuitive, I know.

Henry VIII could one day say "We are no longer Catholic, from this day we will be Protestant" and KAZAM, England was Protestant. Okay, it was a little bit more complicated than that, but such an edict had no such bearing on Ireland. Indeed, the English settlers in Ireland were very distressed by this abandonment of Catholicism and spent the next hundred years angsting over their competing loyalties to Crown and Pope... until Cromwell came along and crushed them.

Ireland's appreciation of religion filtered down from England; so while most of the British Isles were Tridentine Catholic, most of Ireland was pre-Tridentine Catholic. Tellingly, the only real Protestants in Ireland were settlers during the Reformation. Ironically it was the much more radical Protestantism of Scotland which helped increase tensions leading to the civil war; and of course as Ulster was the most planted province, so there was a particular Scottish Presbyterian flavour to such colonies. It was a shame as this really created a clear divide between native and foreigner; which is ultimately why we have Northern Ireland today I suppose.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

But didn't complete it. The view exists that it disrupted the gradual amalgamation of the various Celtic kingdoms on the island into a single entity under a central leadership.

Possible I suppose, but unlikely.

In the British Isles Alfred the Great had been the single best candidate for a king strong enough and competent enough to create some sort of unified province. Some people tout Brian Boru as the great opportunity that Ireland missed, but quite frankly there isn't enough fact to go on to suppose a single celtic king of all Ireland was an achievable objective of the time.

No, weirdly enough, the Norman conquest was probably Ireland's best bet for political unity; but such unity was ultimately not achieved until well into the sixteenth century, by which time it was far too late for any sort of homogeneous whole to be achieved.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have no idea what Pearse or Dev's etc thought processes where, nor do I care all that much, all I need to know is that nobody of intellect embarks on a mission like they did without serious thought and without having come to the conclusion (whatever you or I think of merits of that conclusion) that it was the only way.
The only other conclusion I could draw is that there is an innate Irish trait for bloodlust for the sake of bloodlust.

That's arguing from your conclusion, as well as an appeal to authority (worse still, an authority being rejected by those you're arguing with).

You're saying that people you admire decided something was right, therefore it couldn't possibly have been wrong. Can you see how utterly unconvincing an argument that is to someone who doesn't admire those people?

They believed it was the only way, that is all we need to know, frankly.

That's a flat-out rejection of rational analysis: you are claiming that starting a war was justified for no other reason than that the people who started the war thought it was the right thing to do. By that analysis, the invasion of Iraq was justified.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

... That's a flat-out rejection of rational analysis: you are claiming that starting a war was justified for no other reason than that the people who started the war thought it was the right thing to do. By that analysis, the invasion of Iraq was justified.

I'm open to correction, but I'm reasonably sure that crown forces were in situ in the country during the rising.....

RandomName2

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have no idea what Pearse or Dev's etc thought processes where, nor do I care all that much, all I need to know is that nobody of intellect embarks on a mission like they did without serious thought and without having come to the conclusion (whatever you or I think of merits of that conclusion) that it was the only way.
The only other conclusion I could draw is that there is an innate Irish trait for bloodlust for the sake of bloodlust.

You don't say?

Pearse: "We must accustom ourselves to the thought of arms, to the use of arms. We may make mistakes in the beginning and shoot the wrong people, but bloodshed is a cleansing and a sanctifying thing, and a nation which regards it as the final horror has lost its manhood."

We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead.
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

I'm open to correction, but I'm reasonably sure that crown forces were in situ in the country during the rising.....

Yes. The army of the United Kingdom was in the United Kingdom. Film at 11.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you explain which past experiences had demonstrated the success of violence in removing Britain from Ireland?

As the saying goes, they didn't come up the canal in a bubble, they grew up and became involved in a revolution, most recently they had watched the signing of the Ulster Covenant and witnessed the formation and activities of the Bitish armed and backed UVF. They where witnessing their positions weakening.

Pearse wrote:

Life springs from death; and from the graves of patriot men and women spring living nations. The Defenders of this Realm have worked well in secret and in the open. They think that they have pacified Ireland. They think that they have purchased half of us and intimidated the other half. They think that they have foreseen everything, think that they have provided against everything; but, the fools, the fools, the fools! — They have left us our Fenian dead, and while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree shall never be at peace.

Also, care to explain why your rejection of objective morality doesn't apply to Tim McVeigh?

If I could see a possible relevance to the discussion I might have something to say, but I can't. Are we going to go on a trawl of world events?


edit: That's deadly...'Originally posted by Pearse'

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course it was hypothetical.

Go on oscar have a go...... Others have. What are you afraid of?

there is no conceivable outcome other than that we would still be a part of the United Kingdom, which strikes me as risible.

Have I said that? I wouldn't argue against that premise in total isolation.

if you could explain what law was broken by the British presence in Ireland, that would be good too.

I'm extending the concept of it being wrong to one of illegality at that time (1921 and back) by interpreting today's body of law in the area (Rome Statutes etc). Dont forget you agreed with me here that one could argue from first principles that the colonisation of countries by other countries is wrong.

And even if no law was in place at the time to cover such an eventuality I would still argue it was wrong. Would you? You've argued in the past on the basis of morality that its wrong to kill people. Would you still argue that its wrong to kill people on morality alone if no law existed that decreed that killing people was wrong?

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

If I could see a possible relevance to the discussion I might have something to say, but I can't.

You're saying that the only thing that mattered in 1916 is that the instigators of the violence felt that the violence was justified - no further justification is needed.

Do you apply the same reasoning to McVeigh's actions? If not, why not? Isn't that precisely what I was accused of earlier: double standards?

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

...cherry picking.




You'll find that various parts of Europe were on that road long before the country became independent. As regards being "equitable", the British lagged behind many states on that score.

Chery picking ? not really . But if you like give some examples of your own to refute my point.

And Ireland and the UK were also on that road before independence , land reform , old age pension, etc . But even after two world wars we have fallen far behind Europe in prosperity secularity and equitability.
.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

But you answered it anyway with the above, at least in the context of today.



Many down the ages thought it wrong then too and this contributed to the situation we have arrived at today.

What are you saying here ? are you saying that all invasion was wrong or what ?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're saying that the only thing that mattered in 1916 is that the instigators of the violence felt that the violence was justified - no further justification is needed.

You are attempting to apply your own moral imperatives to people who had entirely different ones. That is pointless and a waste of pixels because the real world doesn't work like that.

Do you apply the same reasoning to McVeigh's actions? If not, why not?

No I don't, everything that crosses my desk (so to speak) is given it's own separate consideration based on the circumstances. That is why I reject the relevance of McVeigh and what he did to this discussion.

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

What are you saying here ? are you saying that all invasion was wrong or what ?

Colonisation of countries by others.

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Go on oscar have a go...... Others have. What are you afraid of?

Why? Did it suddenly stop being a hypothetical question and develop some relevance to the discussion?

Have I said that? I wouldn't argue against that premise in total isolation.

I don't know what you mean by this, and I'm not sure why you took that one partial sentence out of the context of the whole argument.

I'm extending the concept of it being wrong to one of illegality at that time (1921 and back) by interpreting today's body of law in the area (Rome Statutes etc). Dont forget you agreed with me here that one could argue from first principles that the colonisation of countries by other countries is wrong.

If no law is in place to cover such an eventuality will you refuse to argue on the basis of right and wrong alone? You've argued in the past on the basis of morality that its wrong to kill people. Would you still argue that its wrong to kill people on morality alone if no law existed that decreed that killing people was wrong?

Of course. I'm happy to operate on the basis of morality, if it means you'll stop making the rather daft argument that the British presence in Ireland was illegal.

So let's talk about whether it was morally wrong for Ireland to be a part of the United Kingdom in 1916. Your argument seems to be that because Ireland had been invaded and settled in the past, it was morally wrong for Ireland to be ruled by the invaders. So, is it morally wrong for Australia to be ruled by anyone other than Aborigines, or Chile by non-Mapuches?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Colonisation of countries by others.

Why is everyone so cryptic in their answers ? We are just having a discussion.

Do you mean in the 21st century ? If so I agree with you.

Do you mean for all time ? if so it is an utterly meaningless statement.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are attempting to apply your own moral imperatives to people who had entirely different ones. That is pointless and a waste of pixels because the real world doesn't work like that.

So we shouldn't apply our own moral imperatives to George W Bush or Tony Blair, because the real world doesn't work like that? We should cheerfully accept that they operate according to a different moral compass, and therefore what they decide to do is acceptable?

No I don't, everything that crosses my desk (so to speak) is given it's own separate consideration based on the circumstances. That is why I reject the relevance of McVeigh and what he did to this discussion.

Those are precisely the double standards I was accused of earlier.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why? Did it suddenly stop being a hypothetical question and develop some relevance to the discussion?

Sigh........

rather daft argument

High quality rebuttal there.

Your argument seems to be that because Ireland had been invaded and settled in the past, it was morally wrong for Ireland to be ruled by the invaders.

And your argument against is?

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, weirdly enough, the Norman conquest was probably Ireland's best bet for political unity; but such unity was ultimately not achieved until well into the sixteenth century, by which time it was far too late for any sort of homogeneous whole to be achieved.

True enough in that context. As I said previously, the Norman conquest of Ireland was not completed. If it had been completed to the same extent as in England the unfolding history of the 2 islands could have been alot similar.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

So we shouldn't apply our own moral imperatives to George W Bush or Tony Blair, because the real world doesn't work like that? We should cheerfully accept that they operate according to a different moral compass, and therefore what they decide to do is acceptable? Those are precisely the double standards I was accused of earlier.

They do operate according to different moral compasses, (ask any of the mothers and children bombed into the 'acceptance of their gifts') despite what I think of them morally.

getzls

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Just out of interest, if you were forced to live as a second class citizen, not afforded any protection by the state and watched your family come under attack and be burned out of your house would you continue to bend over

If you are talking about BS, he was not burned out,

Not in Rathcoole anyway.

TOMASJ

Wonder how many of our computer lawyers scribing here would have the guts to die for their beliefs,
Only a few men of this caliber have lived in our country,
condescending posts only belittle those posters.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscar, in response to OCorcrainn's post when he asked you the following:

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

you responded with:

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Logically the opposite answer to this must be that insurrection is justifiable if there is no ongoing peace process to subvert? Yes?

Happyman42

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Logically the opposite answer to this must be that insurrection is justifiable if there is no ongoing peace process to subvert? Yes?

They are working on the Charter For Revolutionaries and Terrorists in the UN as we speak. Get your revolting done before they make a law against it!

RandomName2

TOMASJ wrote: »

Wonder how many of our computer lawyers scribing here would have the guts to die for their beliefs,
Only a few men of this caliber have lived in our country,
condescending posts only belittle those posters.

The fact that someone dies for their beliefs makes them right?

You can be brave, you can be steadfast, you can be loyal, and you can still be totally wrong.

OCorcrainn

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 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.

Is this directed at me? Because being an republican myself who follows and firmly adheres to the original founding principles of Irish republicanism, I can assure you that I very much 'get it'.

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

and you can still be totally wrong.

You keep forgetting three little letters...'imo'.
There is no universal law governing decisions to revolt.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

You keep forgetting three little letters...'imo'.
There is no universal law governing decisions to revolt.

My God Stop Press !

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

And your argument against is?

...contained in the questions about Chile and Australia which you've studiously avoided.

Happyman42 wrote: »

They do operate according to different moral compasses, (ask any of the mothers and children bombed into the 'acceptance of their gifts') despite what I think of them morally.

But you accept that it's possible for someone who does what they firmly believe to be the right thing to do something that's objectively wrong?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Logically the opposite answer to this must be that insurrection is justifiable if there is no ongoing peace process to subvert? Yes?

A implies B, therefore (not A) implies (not ? Logic fail.

Was there a peace process to subvert in 1916?

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

A implies B, therefore (not A) implies (not ? Logic fail.

Hiding behind yet another excuse eh oscar? So you won't even answer the question that insurrection is justified in the absence of an ongoing peace process to subvert, even though you originally answered in the contrary to OCorcrainn's question?

Also that question was OCorcrainn's first in thread. I'm sure OCorcrainn can clarify it himself, but to me it seems clearly hypothetical, yet you answered it anyway. When pressed by him and me for further clarification, you suddenly retreated behind the excuses of that its "hypothetical", "rhetorical" or it wasn't "relevant to the discussion". For those excuses to have any credibility at all, shouldn't you said these in the first place in response to his question?