are Irish people actually calling the rising terrorism?

jack923

Disrespecting people who actually tried to do something about the oppression and being treated as 2nd class citizens in our own country, should we have just done nothing like cowards while we were being slapped in the face every single day and when not too long ago from the time the British basically committed genocide? Yes civilians died but civilians die when the british drop bombs on Syria now, is that terrorism? And our cause was much more worthy than the british cause

jack923

Lots of irish actually seem to think so, do you not think fighting back against oppressors who were treating us like 2nd class citizens in our own country is a just cause? Yes civilians died but civilians are dying all the time at the hands of the british and US and Russian etc. Way more civilians have died at the hands of these countries in the last 15 years than in the whole of irish history.

rsh118

Terrorism, a guerrilla campaign, armed uprising, civil strife, armed struggle. All used by different people with different agendas.

I wouldn't call it terrorism in the modern sense at all, but it no doubt terrorised people at the time.

Custardpi

jack923 wrote: »

Disrespecting people who actually tried to do something about the oppression and being treated as 2nd class citizens in our own country, should we have just done nothing like cowards while we were being slapped in the face every single day and when not too long ago from the time the British basically committed genocide? Yes civilians died but civilians die when the british drop bombs on Syria now, is that terrorism? And our cause was much more worthy than the british cause

Was it? The British, having previously quite sensibly voted not to enter the war on the side of the jihadists are now primarily bombing ISIS territory, a regime which forces women to cover themselves entirely (even a speck of flesh between one's black glove & black niqab can earn you a beating), throws homosexuals from rooftops, shoots people for minor transgressions of Islamic law & has plundered & destroyed the rich historical legacy of one of the birthplaces of civililisation. Even acknowledging the hypocrisy of the British position given their close relationship with Saudi Arabia the cause which they have aligned themselves (at least for now) is the right & noble one.

For me terrorism is an act of violence committed by a non-state actor for political ends without a clear democratic mandate. Although I have great respect for the legacy of 1916 I would be dishonest if I said that the Easter martyrs did not fall into that definition. Was the cause they fought for just? I'd argue yes, but at the same time also argue that the methods they used were terroristic in nature. For me in the long run the most important thing was what they were trying to achieve which was an independent Ireland, something which a few years later people with a more clearly defined mandate (however imperfect one might judge that to be) were able to accomplish, albeit incompletely.

The Randy Riverbeast

The definition of terrorism is "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

If there was unofficial/unauthorized violence used to pursue a political aim then it was terrorism.

Victor

jack923 wrote: »

are Irish people actually calling the rising terrorism?

Are you so blinkered that you can't see that people have qualms about violence?

jack923

Victor wrote: »

Are you so blinkered that you can't see that people have qualms about violence?

When people are oppressing you, commiting genocide on your people, invaded your country and then treat you like 2nd class citizens in your own country? No I can't see how people have "qualms"

jack923

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

The definition of terrorism is "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

If there was unofficial/unauthorized violence used to pursue a political aim then it was terrorism.

Unauthorised by the oppressors who invaded your country murdered many of your people and let millions starve to death because they stole all the food?

jack923

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

The definition of terrorism is "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

If there was unofficial/unauthorized violence used to pursue a political aim then it was terrorism.

In that case if your country is taken over anyone who fights back is a terrorist

jack923

Custardpi wrote: »

Was it? The British, having previously quite sensibly voted not to enter the war on the side of the jihadists are now primarily bombing ISIS territory, a regime which forces women to cover themselves entirely (even a speck of flesh between one's black glove & black niqab can earn you a beating), throws homosexuals from rooftops, shoots people for minor transgressions of Islamic law & has plundered & destroyed the rich historical legacy of one of the birthplaces of civililisation. Even acknowledging the hypocrisy of the British position given their close relationship with Saudi Arabia the cause which they have aligned themselves (at least for now) is the right & noble one.

For me terrorism is an act of violence committed by a non-state actor for political ends without a clear democratic mandate. Although I have great respect for the legacy of 1916 I would be dishonest if I said that the Easter martyrs did not fall into that definition. Was the cause they fought for just? I'd argue yes, but at the same time also argue that the methods they used were terroristic in nature. For me in the long run the most important thing was what they were trying to achieve which was an independent Ireland, something which a few years later people with a more clearly defined mandate (however imperfect one might judge that to be) were able to accomplish, albeit incompletely.

Well then I guess terrorism is good in a lot of cases although I just meant terrorism as irish people thought what they done was wrong and yes I would definitely call it more a just cause than that, the british have killed millions and millions of irish

jack923

Victor wrote: »

Are you so blinkered that you can't see that people have qualms about violence?

Qualms hahahaha get a grip, should have asked nicely to stop the oppression and for their country back? Brave men took part in the rising men that you wouldn't find in this day and age

Fr Tod Umptious

There is a lot of evidence to suggeste that Irish people were pretty OK with the state of the island in the run up to the events of Easter 1916, with the obvious exception of the Home Rule crisis in Ulster.

The Wyndham Acts from the turn of the century had allowed people to own their own land, and the local government act had allowed far better representation.
Life was far better under British rule than it had been in centuries.

Added to that the Home Rule bill.

So an armed insurrection in Dublin with the help of Germany would certainly be classed as terrorism.

Its no different to what dissidents are doing in NI right now.

Annasopra

jack923 wrote: »

When people are oppressing you, commiting genocide on your people, invaded your country and then treat you like 2nd class citizens in your own country? No I can't see how people have "qualms"

What do you mean by genocide?

Fr Tod Umptious

On a side note.

One of the places many of the 1916 leaders meet each other was in The Gaelic League, an organisation that wanted to preserve Irish culture.
They saw it fading away and the Irish people become more "anglicised".

I doubt this anglicisation whould have happened if people were not in some way happy with their situation.

I also woulder what would the 1916 leaders think of us shopping in Boots, getting excited about English football and spending our Saturday nights watching the X Factor.

whatever_

jack923 wrote: »

Unauthorised by the oppressors who invaded your country murdered many of your people and let millions starve to death because they stole all the food?

I think you will find Tesco, Aldi and Lidl have repaid that particular debt:

http://www.joe.ie/uncategorized/two-thirds-of-irish-people-are-fat/24784

BoJack Horseman

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I also woulder what would the 1916 leaders think of us shopping in Boots, getting excited about English football and spending our Saturday nights watching the X Factor.

If only people had the foresight to wind their bodies up in copper.


The free energy generated from all their 'spinning in the grave' would be impressive.

Phoebas

The rising didn't have a democratic legitimacy and there was a democratic option open and on going at the time, in the form of the 1914 Home Rule Act. The OPs idea that the choice was either a rising or doing nothing ('like cowards') is a fallacy.

But I don't know if I'd go so far to call it terrorism in the sense that we normally understand terrorism today. At least the 1916 combatants were prepared to face their 'oppressors' in a straight fight. It was more of a blood sacrifice than anything else (even if they were prepared to sacrifice innocent blood along with their own).

wnolan1992

jack923 wrote: »

When people are oppressing you, commiting genocide on your people, invaded your country and then treat you like 2nd class citizens in your own country? No I can't see how people have "qualms"

So Iraqi insurgents blowing up US soldiers wouldn't be classed as terrorists then?

All this stuff is subjective. If the Easter Rising had not had the ultimate desired effect (in that Ireland eventually gained independence), we'd look back on them as terrorists who jeopardised our relationship with our monarch.

As it is, their aim was ultimately achieved, and so with that prism on it, they're heroes.


IF ISIS win and achieve their aims, I can guarantee that a century later the people we call terrorists today would be classed as pioneering heroes standing up to the oppressive regimes of the West.

It's a cliche, but it's true. History is written by the winners.

Phoebas

You need two threads on the same question?

Edward Hopper

Phoebas wrote: »

You need two threads on the same question?

Didn't get the answer he wanted on the first one.

xz

The IRA in the 70's and 80's were trying to get the British out of the North, yet they are classed as terrorists. What's the difference between them and the Rebels of 1916?

pablomakaveli

The Rising wasnt terrorism. They captured positions, fortified them and fought in a pitched battle against the British. Calling it terrorism is just inaccurate. Creating a sense of terror wasnt even an objective.

Phoebas

xz wrote: »

The IRA in the 70's and 80's were trying to get the British out of the North, yet they are classed as terrorists. What's the difference between them and the Rebels of 1916?

The Real / Continuity / I can't believe its not the / IRA are doing the same today.

They all think they're legitimate.

BoJack Horseman

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Creating a sense of terror wasnt even an objective.

Is it known what was?

The escapade was one of such baffling incompetence, everything about it indicates that there was no military objective at all.

First Up

The rising wasn't terrorism per se and I've not seen anyone seriously claim it was. The rising was an insurrection; although it certainly cost innocent lives, that was not the sole purpose.

Terrorism is indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations a la Brussels, Paris, Warrington, Birmingham etc.

The PIRA were terrorists. The attempt to obscure that by pretending they can be likened to the 1916 activists is transparent and futile.

Fr Tod Umptious

xz wrote: »

The IRA in the 70's and 80's were trying to get the British out of the North, yet they are classed as terrorists. What's the difference between them and the Rebels of 1916?

As the other poster said history is written by the winners.

The original 1916 aim was a 32 county independent Irish republic.

By the time Dev entered the Dail in tje late 20s a partitioned island with a Free State still with links to the UK became acceptable.

By the late 30s the Free State became a republic and that became acceptable.

So by the late 60s, with many of the 1916 era people old or dead, the majority were happy with our partitioned republic, and the people of 1916 were seen as the early architects of it.

So IRA activity in NI was not looked on very favourably by most.

Fr Tod Umptious

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If only people had the foresight to wind their bodies up in copper.


The free energy generated from all their 'spinning in the grave' would be impressive.

Would they be OK with Lidl and Aldi seeing as their origin is with "our gallant allies in Europe"

Lavinia

I'd rather call it anti-terrorism if you ask me. :pac:

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

BoJack Horseman

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

revisionism is so hot right now.

May no thoughts ever be changed... ever again... ever.

wnolan1992

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's a huge difference between acknowledging that the methods used in 1916 were similar to terrorist actions of the current time, and not being immensely proud that those people carried out those actions which set us on the course we've followed over the past 100 years to lead us to the present day.

If you want to celebrate the Rising, at least acknowledge what it actually was. It was dudes butchering other dudes for a political aim. Just because I agree with their aim, and ultimately their aim was achieved, doesn't change that.

Anita Blow

I don't think it's fair to refer to it as terrorism. Ultimately the sole aim of terrorism in the modern sense is to incite terror/fear. Otherwise you classify the foundation of almost every modern state as terrorism which I don't think is entirely accurate.

noodler

It's all a matter of perspective.

If a couple of republicans attacked and shot a couple of policemen in NI today and the subsequent battle to out them down also caused civilian lives and massive property damage I'd say most would see them as terrorists.

History is written by the victors and all that but I don't think we should be so naive / precious about the rising that we can't have it scrutinised or even acknowledge how unpopular / illegitimate the act was at the time.

screamer

The borders of every country in the world have been drawn with blood. It may not be a nice history but that is the way it is and will continue to be unfortunately. One man's freedom fighter and all......

In 1916 I'm sure the british gunboats terrorised many more inhabitants of Dublin than the rebels and their paltry weaponry.

But I suppose the rebels of the 1916 rising were poor fools to give their lives up for this little country, should have just left it under UK control? I wonder how many people would be willing to do it in neutral little Ireland now, not many from what I read here. We better hope no modern terrorists come and try to take over, sure we'd just hand them the keys wouldn't we........

karma_

noodler wrote: »

It's all a matter of perspective.

If a couple of republicans attacked and shot a couple of policemen in NI today and the subsequent battle to out them down also caused civilian lives and massive property damage I'd say most would see them as terrorists.

Terrorism has never been used to describe insurrection or revolution when men in uniform take, hold and defend positions. Words are losing all meaning in these doublespeak times.

IamtheWalrus

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

The definition of terrorism is "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

If there was unofficial/unauthorized violence used to pursue a political aim then it was terrorism.

Was the war in Iraq terrorism then? It went against the UN's wishes.

fran17

jack923 wrote: »

Lots of irish actually seem to think so, do you not think fighting back against oppressors who were treating us like 2nd class citizens in our own country is a just cause? Yes civilians died but civilians are dying all the time at the hands of the british and US and Russian etc. Way more civilians have died at the hands of these countries in the last 15 years than in the whole of irish history.

Who are these "lots" that you speak of?

Mad_Dave

The Rising went ahead against orders and without a mandate from the Irish people. By definition it was a terrorist act.
Let's not forget it was only the British response, the execution of the leaders, that swung public opinion to support of the rebels.
Personally I don't feel the events of 1916 deserve such a huge commemoration event.

Great quote in a piece in one of todays papers, don't have the source,only caught it on the radio so may not be an exact quote
(directed to the 1916 leaders) "We are where we are because of you, but also in spite of you"

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

OP, please dont start multiple threads on the same topic.

Arkady

jack923 wrote: »

When people are oppressing you, commiting genocide on your people, invaded your country and then treat you like 2nd class citizens in your own country? No I can't see how people have "qualms"

Is that why the people of Dublin at the time made tea for the British troops during the fighting (many of whom were Irish), and jeered and spat on the rebels when they were arrested ?

briangriffin

Arkady wrote: »

Is that why the people of Dublin at the time made tea for the British troops during the fighting (many of whom were Irish), and jeered and spat on the rebels when they were arrested ?

All the people of Dublin spat on the rebels and cheered did they? They must have been drowning. Hardly needed to be shot. Their descendants are probably now posting on boards accusing the 1916 leaders of terrorism.

Fr Tod Umptious

briangriffin wrote: »

All the people of Dublin spat on the rebels and cheered did they? They must have been drowning. Hardly needed to be shot. Their descendants are probably now posting on boards accusing the 1916 leaders of terrorism.

Well the reality is the rising didn't have popular support, and many saw it as an insult to the men who were putting bread on the table back home by fighting in the war.

fergus1001

It was terrorism and just because it lead to the Irish Republic it was romanticised

480 civilians were killed because of their actions

If I went into the gpo today and took it over I would be branded a terrorist and an idiot and just like in 1916 I would have no mandate from the people to do such a thing

I am looking forward to someone try and get around the comparisons

baldbear

jack923 wrote: »

Qualms hahahaha get a grip, should have asked nicely to stop the oppression and for their country back? Brave men took part in the rising men that you wouldn't find in this day and age

We wern't declared a republic until 1949. I think we would have achieved independence by then anyway using peaceful democratic means.

All 1916 deaths were sad. Develera went on to hand control of this country over to the catholic church who oppressed the Irish much more than the Brits.

briangriffin

God forbid we would celebrate irish nationalism and take pride in our country and its origins.
If the leaders of 1916 were terrorists what does that make British occupation of Ireland?
Was that mandated? Penal laws? British governance of Ireland?
What about the elected Irish parlamentarians home rule bills which were vetoed by HOL?
What about De Valeras election wins post 1916?

jack923

briangriffin wrote: »

God forbid we would celebrate irish nationalism and take pride in our country and its origins.
If the leaders of 1916 were terrorists what does that make British occupation of Ireland?
Was that mandated? Penal laws? British governance of Ireland?
What about the elected Irish parlamentarians home rule bills which were vetoed by HOL?
What about De Valeras election wins post 1916?

Tbh we're all wimps nowadays all the money and the rights we have now have softened us up, if britain wanted to take the whole country back, I doubt anyone would fight back. Most of us would start going on about not condoning violence

jack923

baldbear wrote: »

We wern't declared a republic until 1949. I think we would have achieved independence by then anyway using peaceful democratic means.

All 1916 deaths were sad. Develera went on to hand control of this country over to the catholic church who oppressed the Irish much more than the Brits.

I doubt the catholic church would have stole all the food and let millions starve to death

wnolan1992

jack923 wrote: »

Tbh we're all wimps nowadays all the money and the rights we have now have softened us up, if britain wanted to take the whole country back, I doubt anyone would fight back. Most of us would start going on about not condoning violence

I agree! A good shot of oppression and poverty would harden this generation up dag nabbit!

These millenials with their "rights" and "money", pishaw!

Arkady

jack923 wrote: »

Tbh we're all wimps nowadays all the money and the rights we have now have softened us up, if britain wanted to take the whole country back, I doubt anyone would fight back. Most of us would start going on about not condoning violence

Funny it was only when the IMF took over recently that we managed to recover (for a brief while) from the cronyism and corruption. But don't worry it's back to business as usual now.

fran17

baldbear wrote: »

We wern't declared a republic until 1949. I think we would have achieved independence by then anyway using peaceful democratic means.

All 1916 deaths were sad. Develera went on to hand control of this country over to the catholic church who oppressed the Irish much more than the Brits.

Really,peaceful and democratic means.This being the same colonial power which brought to our shores the plantations,Cromwellian conquests and the famine.If history has taught us anything about the British Empire and its eventual retreat from its colonies its that peace and democracy is far far down their list of priorities.If we had engaged in peaceful and democratic means I fear our history books would include chapters similar to Boar war concentration camps,Amritsar massacres,Cyprus internment and Kenyan camps.Peace and democracy my eye.
And the Catholic church being responsible for worse oppression than the British,well that's just ill founded.Sure,its popular to say in 2016 but still grossly ill founded.

Phoebas

fran17 wrote: »

Really,peaceful and democratic means.This being the same colonial power which brought to our shores the plantations,Cromwellian conquests and the famine.If history has taught us anything about the British Empire and its eventual retreat from its colonies its that peace and democracy is far far down their list of priorities.If we had engaged in peaceful and democratic means I fear our history books would include chapters similar to Boar war concentration camps,Amritsar massacres,Cyprus internment and Kenyan camps.Peace and democracy my eye.

If people had waited for the promised implementation of the 1914 Home Rule Act we would have got concentration camps instead?

That's quite a stretch.