Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
should i be afraid?
Options
Comments
-
>>Britain declared war on Germany when Hitler attacked Poland.
Yep.
>>Hitler was a grat admirer of Britain, and had every intention of 'leaving Britain alone'.
Maybe.
>>Unlike Russia and the USA Britain etered the war voluntarily, not after being attacked.
Bollocks.
The only reason, the ONLY reason Britian entered the war was because they thought Germany attacked them was going to happen sooner or later so rather then stand by and let nation after nation fall they decided to kick in and take their chances. IF Britian KNEW that Hitler was going to leave them alone they would have NEVER entered the war.
I'm not saying this reflects badly on them, i'm just saying its a fact of life. Britian would be quite happy to leave the Jews, Austria-Hungary and anyone else to the Nazi's if they knew that they wouldn't become a target or knew they wouldn't end up sitting next door to a new superpower that could take them out.
To say Britian entered the war for any kind of selfish act of heroism or sense of duty and righteousness is absolute bollocks and anyone knows that.
No country fights a war for a cause, only rebels fight for a cause.
I have honestly never heard such outstanding rubbish before, Britian fought Germany to save Poland ? Its pathethic you even state that without laughing.0 -
>>I don't believe the fact that Sinn Fein has one Protestant councillor proves them to be non-sectarian.
How many Protestant councillors does it take ? :rolleyes:
tbh i'm under no impressions that Republicanism up north is not sectarian but i'd bet next weeks paycheck they are not as full of sectarianism as the loyalists.
Look at it this way. Republicanism was founded by a protestant and most of the great heroes of Republicanism were protestants. Republicanism at its foundation is not sectarian, Sinn Féin at its foundation (apart from bad Irish grammar) is not sectarian and the IRA at its foundation is not sectarian.
When i see the fighting in Belfast etc and the larger towns i don't see republicans vs Loyalists, i see gangs of thugs who would be fighting over the local soccer result if there was nothing else to fight about anyways.
Loyalism from its root core has always been sectarian. Republicanism has not.
Its foolish to say Republicans aren't sectarian because i know several who are (and no amount of talking will change their minds), but its even more foolish to say that all Republicans and Republicanism is sectarian.0 -
This is the type of argument that's used to justify the "armed struggle", and it frankly bugs the crap out of me.john_grimm wrote:Without the IRA even though i do not agree with a lot of what they have done, and completely disagree with a lot of their methods, NI would have changed much much slower if at all. Civil Rights marches was never going to get anywhere.
You've made an assertion: that peaceful protest would not have achieved anything in Northern Ireland. Now prove it.0 -
oscarBravo wrote:This is the type of argument that's used to justify the "armed struggle", and it frankly bugs the crap out of me.
You've made an assertion: that peaceful protest would not have achieved anything in Northern Ireland. Now prove it.
Has peaceful protest worked en masse up there before ?
The last big one was the anti-agreement protest by Paisley and his ilk in 80's, they did not get their own way against Thatcher.
But then again in the mid-90s the Orange Order had a mass protest over Garvaghy Road and they won concessions with threats of violence, it also helped them with alot of the police at the time on their side imho.0 -
>> This is the type of argument that's used to justify the "armed struggle", and it frankly bugs the crap out of me
Can i just ask you a question first ?
Was it, in your opinion necessary for an armed struggle in 1919. Was 1916 necessary ?
Something that "bugs the hell" out of me is the fact that a lot of people believe that anything can be solved through peaceful means. In a perfect world and one i would want then yes it would be but this is the real world and peaceful means can get you only so far.
Just look at the huge struggle that had to be undertaken just to get a bastardised version of Home rule on the books. And even when it was "official" the British decided to "delay" it.
I cannot prove to you that peaceful means would not have acheived anything no more then you can prove that it would have solved the Irish question.
You are clearly an intelligent person so i assume you know more then your fair share about the civil rights marches that took please before "the troubles". What did they achieve ? Marches were not only attacked by Loyalists but attacked by the Police. The police often led mobs against the marches and they achieved nothing.
They had great intentions and all respect to every one of them who could march like that and ignore the physical and mental abuse they got along the way but it was never going to get them anywhere. Speaking of the abuse that they unertook, you realise that it would be very unlikely that the Provisionals ever took off if it wasn't for the abuse that the marches took.
The "official" IRA more or less decided that there was no point in continuing the armed struggle until they could unite a majority of the people in the North, Catholic and Protestant. The Provisionals were founded in 69 and to anyone familiar with Irish History, the fact they choose "provisional" should ring a bell.
They were originally founded with the realistic purpose of trying to protect Catholic areas against the RUC and loyalists mobs. It was only after Bloody sunday that they actually became a large force that was capable of carrying out attacks against the British.
Internment, British torture of Catholics, you can't sit back when something thats going on and say "aw well sher we'll go to mass on sunday and have a march on tuesday and hopefully someone will take notice."
You seem to think that the IRA are gangsters, criminals. Well maybe today that could be largely true but for most of the troubles it was young men and women who could not and would not put up with what their families had to put up with.
The IRA did not come out of nowhere, people do not join such an organisation for no reason. The IRA was the only sole way that the people could fight back and it was the only way that the British actually began to listen to them.
Just look at South Armagh, the most fortified area in europe, the most sophisticated surveillance system i can think of in the world. For a part of the troubles it was such a dangerous place for the British Army they couldn't even use the roads for fear of been ambushed. It was the most dangerous posting for a British soldier to be stationed in for years.
Peaceful means would work well in a democratic state, NI was never a democratic state and when the very state uses force against a large portion of its own people the only responce is force in return.0 -
Advertisement
-
If the rep system was back in operation, the post above would get a large dollop of positive rep from me0
-
Necessary for whom? For Pearse and the rest of his starry-eyed republican idealists, or for the silent majority who were quite content to be subjects of the United Kingdom? Necessity is a very subjective thing.john_grimm wrote:Can i just ask you a question first ?
Was it, in your opinion necessary for an armed struggle in 1919. Was 1916 necessary ?
Here's a shocker for you: the vast bulk of what's achieved in the world on an ongoing basis is achieved by peaceful means. It's called negotiation. It works. Unfortunately it doesn't always deliver instant gratification, but it has the happy side effect of minimising bloodshed.john_grimm wrote:Something that "bugs the hell" out of me is the fact that a lot of people believe that anything can be solved through peaceful means. In a perfect world and one i would want then yes it would be but this is the real world and peaceful means can get you only so far.
Let's say I want to buy some land from my neighbour. He doesn't want to sell. At what point am I justified in dropping negotiations, shooting him and just stealing his land?
So "delayed" progress is "sufficient" to "justify" "violence"? I don't know what you're trying to indicate with all the quotes. The key factor that permanently scuppered Home Rule was the 1916 rising. We can't know what would have happened, but it's not unreasonable to speculate that Home Rule - however "delayed" - would have involved a lot less bloodshed than that which led to the formation of the Free State.john_grimm wrote:Just look at the huge struggle that had to be undertaken just to get a bastardised version of Home rule on the books. And even when it was "official" the British decided to "delay" it.
...as opposed to the neat, cut-and-dried solution to the Irish question that violence has provided, yeah?john_grimm wrote:I cannot prove to you that peaceful means would not have acheived anything no more then you can prove that it would have solved the Irish question.
From which you cheerfully draw the inference that they would never have achieved anything. That's a big leap of logic, and it's just too facile to use it to justify violence.john_grimm wrote:You are clearly an intelligent person so i assume you know more then your fair share about the civil rights marches that took please before "the troubles". What did they achieve ? Marches were not only attacked by Loyalists but attacked by the Police. The police often led mobs against the marches and they achieved nothing.
How can you possibly know that? It's precisely as valid for me to say that continued peaceful protest would have achieved its aims as it is for you to say that it would never have. Is that a difficult concept to grasp?john_grimm wrote:They had great intentions and all respect to every one of them who could march like that and ignore the physical and mental abuse they got along the way but it was never going to get them anywhere.
If my neighbour throws a stone through my window, he's a lowlife. If I throw one back through his window, how can I claim to be anything more?john_grimm wrote:The "official" IRA more or less decided that there was no point in continuing the armed struggle until they could unite a majority of the people in the North, Catholic and Protestant. The Provisionals were founded in 69 and to anyone familiar with Irish History, the fact they choose "provisional" should ring a bell.
They were originally founded with the realistic purpose of trying to protect Catholic areas against the RUC and loyalists mobs. It was only after Bloody sunday that they actually became a large force that was capable of carrying out attacks against the British.
Can't? Or won't? Again and again and again the argument is put forward that the only way to respond to violence is through violence. That's the kind of thinking that leads to areas of Limerick becoming no-go areas.john_grimm wrote:Internment, British torture of Catholics, you can't sit back when something thats going on and say "aw well sher we'll go to mass on sunday and have a march on tuesday and hopefully someone will take notice."
The biggest problem with the "violence is the only legitimate response to violence" worldview is that it's self-perpetuating. Once you justify violence as a response to someone else's violence, you've equally justified more violence in response to yours. After more than thirty years of apparently insatiable bloodthirst from all sides, it becomes essentially impossible to stop the cycle.
Who said they had to fight? There were those who believed change was possible without fighting.john_grimm wrote:You seem to think that the IRA are gangsters, criminals. Well maybe today that could be largely true but for most of the troubles it was young men and women who could not and would not put up with what their families had to put up with.
The IRA did not come out of nowhere, people do not join such an organisation for no reason. The IRA was the only sole way that the people could fight back
Why was this, do you suppose? Was it the British Army's response to civil rights marches? You blithely talk of how the provos "...became a large force that was capable of carrying out attacks against the British" and then wonder why the same British felt the need to dig in and create "the most fortified area in europe"?john_grimm wrote:...and it was the only way that the British actually began to listen to them.
Just look at South Armagh, the most fortified area in europe, the most sophisticated surveillance system i can think of in the world. For a part of the troubles it was such a dangerous place for the British Army they couldn't even use the roads for fear of been ambushed. It was the most dangerous posting for a British soldier to be stationed in for years.
When did Northern Ireland get universal suffrage, and what specific acts of violence led to its achievement?john_grimm wrote:Peaceful means would work well in a democratic state, NI was never a democratic state
The only response? There is no other possibility? There are other possibilities, but they can't possibly work? There are other possibilities, and they might work, but not quickly enough?john_grimm wrote:...and when the very state uses force against a large portion of its own people the only responce is force in return.
When you say "...the only response is..." you're making a dogmatic statement. It's that very dogma I'm disagreeing with. When you make the decision to hurt or kill someone, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that you should make sure you have no other option first.0 -
john_grimm wrote:>>Britain declared war on Germany when Hitler attacked Poland.>>Unlike Russia and the USA Britain etered the war voluntarily, not after being attacked.
Bollocks.
1 Watch your language.
2 This is what happened.
3 Therefore you are wrong.]IF Britian KNEW that Hitler was going to leave them alone they would have NEVER entered the war.
If Germany had plans to invade/attack Britain in 1939 or before could you provide evidence of this?
There was no reason, (apart from common decency), why Britain could not have allied itself with the Nazis, (as Hitler desperately wanted), as did Italy, Japan and of course the IRA.No country fights a war for a cause, only rebels fight for a cause.
Why not?
So what cause was Sean Russell fighting for when he was buried at sea from a U-boat wrapped in a swastika?I have honestly never heard such outstanding rubbish before, Britian fought Germany to save Poland ? Its pathethic you even state that without laughing.
I am not aware of having stated this.0 -
oscarBravo wrote:Necessary for whom? For Pearse and the rest of his starry-eyed republican idealists, or for the silent majority who were quite content to be subjects of the United Kingdom? .
where have you got this idea that there was a majority of people in ireland that wanted to remain in the united kingdom
the election results in 1918 dont support your contention
are you honestly trying to suggest that their was a silent majority of irish people that just kept quiet did not vote or in any way make their view knownoscarBravo wrote:Let's say I want to buy some land from my neighbour. He doesn't want to sell. At what point am I justified in dropping negotiations, shooting him and just stealing his land? So "delayed" progress is "sufficient" to "justify" "violence"?.
your analogy is all wrong we were not trying to buy or take our neighbours land the proper analogy would more be if your neighbour comes over takes over your land starts using it for his own benefit does not allow you the use of your land you make it known to your neighbour you would like him to leave he refuses repeatedly at what stage are you justified in using force to remove this unwanted tresspasser
this i agree with violence should be the last option not the first when the troubles started in the north nationalists did not decide to use violence they formed the civil rights association and made reasonable demands to end discrimination gerrymandering etc what they were met with was violence state violence banning of marches attacking peaceful marches, pogromsoscarBravo wrote:When you say "...the only response is..." you're making a dogmatic statement. It's that very dogma I'm disagreeing with. When you make the decision to hurt or kill someone, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that you should make sure you have no other option first.
what ignited the troubles was not the IRA or republicans it was the Unionist establishments violent reaction to what was a very reasonable request for civil rights
As to wether their was no other option available that is a matter of opinion you obviuosly have your opininion that other options were available the people who risked their lives and liberty obviously believed that violence was their only option at that time0 -
John Grimm:Without the IRA even though i do not agree with a lot of what they have done, and completely disagree with a lot of their methods, NI would have changed much much slower if at all. Civil Rights marches was never going to get anywhere.
Oscar Bravo:You've made an assertion: that peaceful protest would not have achieved anything in Northern Ireland. Now prove it.
John Grimm:I cannot prove to you that peaceful means would not have acheived anything no more then you can prove that it would have solved the Irish question.
So essentially you are accepting that you cant say the civil rights marchers were never going to get anywhere?
Thats good because I was looking at a chronology of events relating to discrimination against Catholics in northern ireland and I was struck by the pace of reforms before the PIRA stepped their campaign up a gear, and the pace of reforms after they did.
Looking at the dates the NICRA was formed in 1967.
By 1968 the Londonderry agrees to demands to introduce a points system in the allocation of housing and Terence O Neill announces a package of reforms to address many NICRa concerns.
By 1969 the UUP ( yeah those bunch of intransigents!!!) vote to introduce universal adult sufferage and bring about an an end to the property based voting system that catholics felt was designed to marginalise them. The British Government starts to meet the Stormont government regarding the civil unrest in Ulster and reform of local government. The Cameron report comes out which recognises discrimination against Catholics and describes the B specials as a partisan paramilitary force recruited only from Protestants. The Hunt Report comes out and calls for the RUC to be disarmed and the B specials disbanded. A new commissioner is set up to deal with complaints against local governments. The Electoral Law comes into force, meaning the local government elections now follow the same standards as those in Britain.
By 1970 the Macrory Report calls for widespread reform of local government in Northern Ireland. The Prevention of Incitement to Hate law comes into force.
By 1971 the Housing Executive Law comes into force, establishing a central body to administer the granting of housing. The Local Government Boundaries law comes into force.
In 1972 , London takes up direct rule of Ulster in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday. The Provos then kick off their campaign in style.
I know I might have bored you with a list of what the NICRA accomplished in 4 years of not killing anyone but if you look at the rest of the chronology youll notice that the pace of reforms withers despite the PIRAs supposedly more effective strategy of killing anyone and everyone. The NICRA was working, it was forcing reform. It wasnt all accomplished in a single week, but they accomplished more to end discrimination in 4 years than the IRA did in 25 years of murder, mayhem, chaos and terrorism. And after all that time where are we? Back to 1967 with the PIRA recognising the consent principle, working (supposedly) through purely democratic constitutional means, and calling for the reform of the RUC? Thanks for finally catching up with the mass of decent humanity fellahs. Real heroes so you are.Was it, in your opinion necessary for an armed struggle in 1919. Was 1916 necessary ?
No and no. 1916 wasnt required. 1919 wasnt required. All they brought about was the advancement of an Irish Republic by about 20 years, because Home Rule would simply have been a stepping stone as much as the Free State was. Oh I forget, provos cant get their heads around the creation of the republic and continue to insist that this is still the Free State, and that they live in fictional places like "Free Waterford" or some such. Well, thats their problem.
Now, I will allow that a defence of catholic areas from loyalist mobs was required and is justifiable when it is clear the police was either not assisting catholic areas or actively assisting the mobs. However, that is only on purely defensive terms. The decision to go onto the offensive and start a doomed, impossible and murderous terrorist campaign was not justifiable at all when you consider the success of the NICRAs pressure in comparison to the success (or lack) of the IRAs.
What the embrace of limitless senseless violence accomplished was desensitising an entire generations. Unlike the IRA of 1916-1922, where men launched a campaign, were wise enough to make peace, and then when the war was over laid aside weapons and entered government at varying pace, the PIRA is an organisation staffed by people who have only known violence, criminality, illegality and the rule of violence over the rule of democracy and law.
They are a sick organisation, with a sick idealogy and a sick influence over vast swathes of northern ireland. It is a sad indictment that an organisation that justifies itself as defending Catholics has killed 800 catholics, far more than any other organisation loyalist or British in the Troubles. As the Robert McCartney murder shows, Catholics have long since needed to be protected from their self appointed protectors. It truly is 1969 all over again, but now Catholics are being murdered and intimidated by the IRA as opposed to loyalist mobs. What progress the IRA campaign has brought!0 -
Advertisement
-
Great post Sand.0
-
>>Necessary for whom? For Pearse and the rest of his starry-eyed republican idealists, or for the silent majority who were quite content to be subjects of the United Kingdom? Necessity is a very subjective thing.
I've asked but never been answered. Are you Irish ?
The thing here is that i am a Republican. I'm probably not a Republican in the sense of Sinn Féin nor am i a republican in the sense of Fianna Fáil that joke of a government we have.
I'm a republican in that i believe that the connection with England has always been and will always be the bain of the Irish people. It has never caused anything but hardship and cruelty in Ireland and is responsible for the largely successful destruction of gaelic culture.
In my mind breaking that connection no matter what the cost has always been necessary and will always remain to be necessary.
If the "silent" majority as you call them had a choice what do you think they would have chosen ? After 700 years of trying a lot of people tend to loose heart and even then look at how many people supported Parnell.
No they were not content to be a citizen of the United Kingdom, they just didn't think they could ever get out of it.
I'm been serious here, are you Irish ? have you any nationalist or patriotic feelings at all ?
>>the vast bulk of what's achieved in the world on an ongoing basis is achieved by peaceful means. It's called negotiation.
The vast majority of which is between nations or within nations where a certain groups rights are not ignored nor trampled upon.
You can't change things peacefully when the government won't let you peacefully protest nevermind vote.
>>Let's say I want to buy some land from my neighbour. He doesn't want to sell. At what point am I justified in dropping negotiations, shooting him and just stealing his land?
Is that trying to be funny ? Because you and i both know that comparison cannot be used against the situation that was in the North.
>> So "delayed" progress is "sufficient" to "justify" "violence"?
Home Rule was a joke in the first place.
>>but it's not unreasonable to speculate that Home Rule - however "delayed" - would have involved a lot less bloodshed than that which led to the formation of the Free State.
I'm sure the Unionists would have been AOK with Home Rule for the whole country, why was the UVF formed again ?
>>It's precisely as valid for me to say that continued peaceful protest would have achieved its aims as it is for you to say that it would never have. Is that a difficult concept to grasp?
Prove it.
>>If my neighbour throws a stone through my window, he's a lowlife. If I throw one back through his window, how can I claim to be anything more?
Well personally i'd see that as a fair eye-for-an-eye situation but in the context of what we're speaking of, The IRA was protecting Catholic areas from the armed forces of the state who were collaberating with Loyalist mobs.
On one side you have Loyalists + the Police + The state + other armed government forces.
On the other you have Nationalists.
Do you know that when the British Army originally came to NI that the Catholics welcomed them because they THOUGHT they would protect them against the Loyalists etc ?
Can you imagine a nationalist been so defenceless that you would welcome the British Army onto your streets to protect you ?
Needless to say the British Army did not fulfill this role and the IRA became the protectors. (The PIRA was not "active" at this stage but they were soon after)
>>Can't? Or won't? Again and again and again the argument is put forward that the only way to respond to violence is through violence. That's the kind of thinking that leads to areas of Limerick becoming no-go areas.
How much are you willing to take before you'd fight back ?
Even a worm will turn on you if you keep at it long enough.
No the correct way to respond to violence is to report it to the police. If the RUC actually were a police force in NI and actually did their jobs the troubles might never have happened but you cannot respond peacefully to violence in a state where the very police are the ones causing the violence.
I am all for peaceful means to problems but there are situations where peaceful means will just not work. NI was one of them, hopefully peaceful means can solve whats left of the problem now but back then it would have never gotten anywhere.
For instance, what would peaceful protesting have done for the jews against the Nazi's ?
>>After more than thirty years of apparently insatiable bloodthirst from all sides, it becomes essentially impossible to stop the cycle.
I wish that violence wasn't necessary in the north and i disagree with the "violence for violence" to an extent as well but there is sometimes a necessity for it.
If someone were to say come into your house and murder your family in front of you, what would you do ? Would you protest ? Would you ask them to leave ?
There is a necessity for violence in the world and unfortunately there was a need for it in NI but thankfully the world is changing and peaceful means are beginning to solve more and more problems.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men are ready to do violence on our behalf" - That is a universal truth and no amount of peaceful protesting or otherwise is going to take away the need for that violence no matter what you want to believe.
>> Who said they had to fight? There were those who believed change was possible without fighting.
Maybe it was, maybe the troubles was for nothing.
The fact remains that if i were in 1970's Ireland, if i were on those civil rights marches, if i were treated like Nationalist Catholics were treated, if i seen what the RUC and the state and the Loyalist mobs did to us then i would have joined the IRA with no hesitation in my mind at all.
Maybe you are right and peaceful means would have settled the whole affair. The thing is i wouldn't have been able to put up with what was happening and i very much doubt the majority of people would be.
There comes a point when everyone fights back. The schoolyard bully came go around the schoolyard punching people all he likes and never thinks twice about it until someone gives him a bloody nose.
>>You blithely talk of how the provos "...became a large force that was capable of carrying out attacks against the British" and then wonder why the same British felt the need to dig in and create "the most fortified area in europe"?
I think you missed my point.
I was stating that the South Armagh area IRA was such a threat that these measures were necessary and to be that much of a threat to the British Army you have to be a large well trained group. I was pointing out that the IRA became the organisation it was because of the British Army and Loyalist treatment of Nationalists. They didn't just appear. Recruitment in the IRA went through the roof after bloody sunday.
If the IRA had enough guns after bloody sunday they could have had a real rebellion.
I was merely trying to point out that the IRA was not a gangster or criminal group but an organisation made up of individuals sickened at the treatment of their own people.
>> When did Northern Ireland get universal suffrage, and what specific acts of violence led to its achievement?
When i said democratic i was referring to fair voting. That did not exist in NI. In derry they elected a majority Protestant Unionist council yet the vast majority of Derry was Catholic.
>>I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that you should make sure you have no other option first.
And we seem to agree on that except you seem to think violence is not an option at all whereas i see it as the last option.0 -
I'm slightly curious as to what difference a "yea" or "nay" will make to your response. Preferably before we all hear a "yea" or "nay". Is this one of those red-blooded sweaty hanging out around the water fountain with an Uzi things? Or merely a flag-waving come on Roy Keane sort of thing?john_grimm wrote:I've asked but never been answered. Are you Irish ?0 -
>>2 This is what happened. 3 Therefore you are wrong.
Britian entered the war out of their own good will ? Just to "help" others out ?
Anyone who believes that obviously studied history while drunk watching hollywood movies about Churchill.
Thats possibly the most ignorant thing i have ever heard in my life.
>>If Germany had plans to invade/attack Britain in 1939 or before could you provide evidence of this?
Yes ( but that wasn't my point). Operation Sea Lion was been planned in 1939 and ideas of said plan was flying round well before.
I said BRITAIN couldn't be sure of whether or not she would be left alone nor did she want to be sitting next door to a new superpower.
Britain entered the war because she had to, not because of any selfish sense of duty to Poland. (thats honestly hilarious)
Extract from web page: "Hitler proved to be somewhat right in his assessment of the French and English. He was wrong in that they declared war on Germany. Hitler was shocked. But quickly Hitler came to realize that this was a mere formality. Neither England nor France showed any real interest in engaging Germany in battle. Thus Europe entered the phase of the Sitzkrieg, or "Sitting War."
Britain declared war for her own sake not for anyone else.
>>So what cause was Sean Russell fighting for when he was buried at sea from a U-boat wrapped in a swastika?
I said "Countries don't fight for causes, rebels do."
How does what you just said disprove what i said in any way ?0 -
If you haven't already read it, Robert Kee's book Green Flag is a very insightful history of Irish Nationalism.cdebru wrote:where have you got this idea that there was a majority of people in ireland that wanted to remain in the united kingdom
(Emphasis mine.)As to the goal of Home Rule itself, Griffith and Sinn Féin accepted it, not - as the [Nationalist] party and the majority of the country were prepared to do - as a final settlement of the national question, but as a stepping-stone to national independence under a Dual Monarchy of the 1782 pattern.
By 1918 the whole political landscape had already been irrevocably changed by the violent actions of a small group of extremists.cdebru wrote:the election results in 1918 dont support your contention
are you honestly trying to suggest that their was a silent majority of irish people that just kept quiet did not vote or in any way make their view known
I wasn't going for an exact analogy, and by the same token your analogy is imperfect. Even so, the answer to your question is simple: never! What you are perfectly justified in doing is using the full force of law. Only when all legal courses available to you have been fully explored and exhausted does there arise any justification for taking action yourself, and even then violence should not be the first consideration.cdebru wrote:your analogy is all wrong we were not trying to buy or take our neighbours land the proper analogy would more be if your neighbour comes over takes over your land starts using it for his own benefit does not allow you the use of your land you make it known to your neighbour you would like him to leave he refuses repeatedly at what stage are you justified in using force to remove this unwanted tresspasser
I don't disagree with this. I would postulate, however, that the situation for everyone in the North is considerably the worse for the readiness of some to resort to violence.cdebru wrote:what ignited the troubles was not the IRA or republicans it was the Unionist establishments violent reaction to what was a very reasonable request for civil rights
If I was a lone voice in the wilderness, it would be easy to discredit my views. But ask yourself this: if there was no other option than to resort to violence, why didn't John Hume (et al) take up arms?cdebru wrote:As to wether their was no other option available that is a matter of opinion you obviuosly have your opininion that other options were available the people who risked their lives and liberty obviously believed that violence was their only option at that time0 -
>>The NICRA was working, it was forcing reform.
I think you misunderstood me.
If the NI state was a happy joyous place for Nationalists and everyone was treated equal and everything was dandy fair enough. But thats not what i mean by achieving something.
A United Ireland would be an achievement and that was never going to happen by peaceful means.
>>1916 wasnt required. 1919 wasnt required. All they brought about was the advancement of an Irish Republic by about 20 years, because Home Rule would simply have been a stepping stone as much as the Free State was.
Ireland without a sense of Republicanism ? Of national identity ? Pride ?
I doubt Home Rule would have ever been passed in any real form that would have ever allowed us to get rid of Britian.
1916 was the most necessary rebellion to have ever taken place.0 -
>>'m slightly curious as to what difference a "yea" or "nay" will make to your response. Preferably before we all hear a "yea" or "nay". Is this one of those red-blooded sweaty hanging out around the water fountain with an Uzi things? Or merely a flag-waving come on Roy Keane sort of thing?
Doesn't make any real difference i suppose, i just want to know. I've never met an anti-Irish Irishman before.0 -
john_grimm wrote:
Britian entered the war out of their own good will ? Just to "help" others out ?
Anyone who believes that obviously studied history while drunk watching hollywood movies about Churchill.
Thats possibly the most ignorant thing i have ever heard in my life.
What you have written is extremely insulting.
You are also misquoting me and then saying what I've written is ignorant.
In reality as I didn't write what you are labelling as 'ignorant' you are calling yourself names, as you are merely reacting to what you yourself have written.>>If Germany had plans to invade/attack Britain in 1939 or before could you provide evidence of this?
Yes ( but that wasn't my point). Operation Sea Lion was been planned in 1939 and ideas of said plan was flying round well before.
OK so if Operation Sea Lion was planned before the invasion of Poland I'm sure you can find some reference to this.0 -
You didn't ask me that. I'll hold off on answering until you've answered Sceptre's question.john_grimm wrote:I've asked but never been answered. Are you Irish ?
Whee, a new definition for republican: an anti-Brit.john_grimm wrote:The thing here is that i am a Republican. I'm probably not a Republican in the sense of Sinn Féin nor am i a republican in the sense of Fianna Fáil that joke of a government we have.
I'm a republican in that i believe that the connection with England has always been and will always be the bain of the Irish people. It has never caused anything but hardship and cruelty in Ireland and is responsible for the largely successful destruction of gaelic culture.
It's funny, I've lived my whole life without feeling any of this hardship and cruelty England has imposed on us.
Phrases like "no matter what the cost" worry me deeply. Economic instability and high unemployment? Doesn't matter. A generation of children indoctrinated to hatred? Not important. Thousands of people needlessly slaughtered? A bagatelle: delenda est Albion.john_grimm wrote:In my mind breaking that connection no matter what the cost has always been necessary and will always remain to be necessary.
There are very, very few situations where "no matter what the cost" is a phrase that can be safely used.
Supported him in what? His quest for that joke of a goal, Home Rule. To quote Robert Kee again, "Not the least of Parnell's political merits was that he felt under no obligation towards any form of Irish national dogma." You could learn something from that.john_grimm wrote:If the "silent" majority as you call them had a choice what do you think they would have chosen ? After 700 years of trying a lot of people tend to loose heart and even then look at how many people supported Parnell.
What's your evidence for this assertion?john_grimm wrote:No they were not content to be a citizen of the United Kingdom, they just didn't think they could ever get out of it.
It's funny, I've been called a West Brit on this forum before. It seems to me the term is used to describe anyone who doesn't fall precisely into step with the nationalist/republican dogma du jour.john_grimm wrote:I'm been serious here, are you Irish ? have you any nationalist or patriotic feelings at all ?
Negotiation happens between nations, within nations, between commercial interests, between family members... it's a widely-accepted conflict resolution process.john_grimm wrote:The vast majority of which is between nations or within nations where a certain groups rights are not ignored nor trampled upon.
I'll wait patiently for your refutation of Sand's post.john_grimm wrote:You can't change things peacefully when the government won't let you peacefully protest nevermind vote.
As I said to cdebru, I wasn't going for an exact analogy. Way to avoid answering the question, btw.john_grimm wrote:Is that trying to be funny ? Because you and i both know that comparison cannot be used against the situation that was in the North.
The majority of the population didn't feel that way when they were voting for the Nationalist party. But, of course, you've already explained why they voted the way they did. Got a source for that, by any chance?john_grimm wrote:Home Rule was a joke in the first place.
And that would have been worse than a bloody war of independence, a bloody civil war, years of oppression of Catholics in the North and thirty years of terrorism from both sides, would it?john_grimm wrote:I'm sure the Unionists would have been AOK with Home Rule for the whole country, why was the UVF formed again ?
Prove what? That my historical conjecture is as valid or invalid as your historical conjecture? What are you on about?john_grimm wrote:Prove it.
The burning question is, how long is "long enough"? For John Hume it's a lot longer than for the Provos. What's your explanation for his refusal to respond to violence with violence?john_grimm wrote:How much are you willing to take before you'd fight back ?
Even a worm will turn on you if you keep at it long enough.
Can't? Or won't? John Hume could.john_grimm wrote:No the correct way to respond to violence is to report it to the police. If the RUC actually were a police force in NI and actually did their jobs the troubles might never have happened but you cannot respond peacefully to violence in a state where the very police are the ones causing the violence.
How do you know, if you won't try them?john_grimm wrote:I am all for peaceful means to problems but there are situations where peaceful means will just not work.
I don't know. The one thing I do know is that if I subsequently tracked them down and killed them, I'm every bit as guilty of murder as they are. Given the choice between working tirelessly to have them brought to justice and lashing out viciously in retaliation, I know which I'd do. How about you?john_grimm wrote:I wish that violence wasn't necessary in the north and i disagree with the "violence for violence" to an extent as well but there is sometimes a necessity for it.
If someone were to say come into your house and murder your family in front of you, what would you do ? Would you protest ? Would you ask them to leave ?
If it's all the same to you, I'd rather vote for the people who give the orders to those "rough men" so that I get some say in how much violence they're allowed to do on my behalf. I don't deny the need for a country to have armed forces. I do repudiate the right of self-appointed "freedom fighters" to commit murder in my name.john_grimm wrote:There is a necessity for violence in the world and unfortunately there was a need for it in NI but thankfully the world is changing and peaceful means are beginning to solve more and more problems.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men are ready to do violence on our behalf" - That is a universal truth and no amount of peaceful protesting or otherwise is going to take away the need for that violence no matter what you want to believe.
...or he's disciplined in a non-violent way.john_grimm wrote:There comes a point when everyone fights back. The schoolyard bully came go around the schoolyard punching people all he likes and never thinks twice about it until someone gives him a bloody nose.
On the contrary, I also see it as the last option. The actual difference between us is the number of possibilities we're prepared to explore before declaring that we've run out of options.john_grimm wrote:And we seem to agree on that except you seem to think violence is not an option at all whereas i see it as the last option.0 -
Oh look, the "refutation" arrived while I was replying.
So civil rights like being allowed to vote and have equal access to housing and employment were a distraction from the real issue?john_grimm wrote:>>The NICRA was working, it was forcing reform.
I think you misunderstood me.
If the NI state was a happy joyous place for Nationalists and everyone was treated equal and everything was dandy fair enough. But thats not what i mean by achieving something.
A United Ireland would be an achievement and that was never going to happen by peaceful means.
I'm sure that would have been a most welcome message in Derry in the sixties.
I live in a republic. I have no doubt as to my national identity. I'm very proud of my country (though not always all that proud of everything that's done in its name).john_grimm wrote:Ireland without a sense of Republicanism ? Of national identity ? Pride ?
Who, exactly, are you to decide what it is that the rest of us are allowed to be proud of? Keep your island-nation complex to yourself, thanks.
Doubtless you're simply brimming with irrefutable arguments to support that assertion.john_grimm wrote:I doubt Home Rule would have ever been passed in any real form that would have ever allowed us to get rid of Britian.
Necessary for whom? To what end?john_grimm wrote:1916 was the most necessary rebellion to have ever taken place.0 -
Advertisement
-
Lets face it OB, you are not going to change the fact that some Irishmen believed that the only course of action open to them, after the other avenues were closed, was to fight (as in physically fight) for Irish Independence. You may not have agreed with that option but you cannot change it. You can pontificate all night long about where the path of non-violence against an oppresser might take us but it ain't going to change the fact that fighting (as in physically fighting) got you Independence (as in the 26 county Repbublic). I know it is hard to accept this when you would have loved it if the Republic had never been created.
Quite frankly, if the people who are being oppressed choose to fight (as in physically fight) rather than take more violence on the chin, I ain't in any position to judge their choice.0 -
john_grimm wrote:
The only reason, the ONLY reason Britian entered the war was because they thought Germany attacked them was going to happen sooner or later so rather then stand by and let nation after nation fall they decided to kick in and take their chances. IF Britian KNEW that Hitler was going to leave them alone they would have NEVER entered the war.
OK, Mr Fair-minded Historian, lets see what Helmut Clissman, 'the best informed German about Ireland and the IRA during WW2' (the Irish Times) had to say about Hitler's attitudes to both Britain and Ireland. ....
(Clissman played a key role in the IRA/Nazi alliance)
http://www.clissman.com/family/he_it.htmHitler would have sold the Irish down the river. Iwould have told the Irish their freedom was coming. I would have been their Lawrence of Arabia .....
Northern Ireland would have been given to the British. (in the event of a German victory) Hitler did not want to harm the British Empire.0 -
oscarBravo wrote:If you haven't already read it, Robert Kee's book Green Flag is a very insightful history of Irish Nationalism.?
yes i have read it but i still dont understand what your reference to arthur griffiths has to do with anything
where do you get the idea that the majority of irish people wanted to remain in the UK or that a silent majority allowed themselves to be removed from the UK
so your suggesting that the Irish people changed their minds about staying in the UK after 1916 is that what your sayingoscarBravo wrote:(Emphasis mine.) By 1918 the whole political landscape had already been irrevocably changed by the violent actions of a small group of extremists.?oscarBravo wrote:I wasn't going for an exact analogy, and by the same token your analogy is imperfect. Even so, the answer to your question is simple: never! What you are perfectly justified in doing is using the full force of law. Only when all legal courses available to you have been fully explored and exhausted does there arise any justification for taking action yourself, and even then violence should not be the first consideration.?
"never"
occupied countries never have the right to use force to remove an occupying force
what full force of the law could IReland have called on to remove the occupier
what legal courses could have been exhaustedoscarBravo wrote:I don't disagree with this. I would postulate, however, that the situation for everyone in the North is considerably the worse for the readiness of some to resort to violence.?
do you mean when unionist government resorted to violence or when the republicans responded to that violenceoscarBravo wrote:If I was a lone voice in the wilderness, it would be easy to discredit my views. But ask yourself this: if there was no other option than to resort to violence, why didn't John Hume (et al) take up arms?
that would be a question for john Hume(et al) it is unlikely that there would ever be a situation in which everybody would agree that the time for violent
resistance had arrived different people come to that decision at different times some people believe violent resistance can never be justified
the situation is the same today were some people namely CIRA RIRA still believe that violence is the only way where the PIRA hsa come to the conclusion apparently that violence is not needed at this time why do 3 different groups that not that long ago agreed onan armed struggle now disagree on the need for that struggle0 -
A Dub in Glasgo wrote:
Quite frankly, if the people who are being oppressed choose to fight (as in physically fight) rather than take more violence on the chin, I ain't in any position to judge their choice.
Because a people perceive themselves to be oppressed, it doesn't necessarily follow that they are oppressed or need to take violent action to end their oppression.
A good case in point would be the German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia prior to WW2.
How would you judge Hitler's violent action in defense of these minorities and choice to fight?
A further example would be Serbian minorities in the former Yugoslavia, 'oppressed' by cut-throat Kosovans and Croats.
Presumably you would applaud Milosovic's brave decision to fight.
The question as to who are the 'oppressors' and 'oppressed' is extremely subjective.
For example in NI if the 'Brits' are the 'oppressors' and Nationalists their 'victims' why have the 'victims' killed six times more than their alleged 'oppressors'?0 -
>>You are also misquoting me and then saying what I've written is ignorant.
Are you saying that Britain entered the war SOLELY to help out others ? yes or no.
If your answer is yes then what you have written IS ignorant.
>>OK so if Operation Sea Lion was planned before the invasion of Poland I'm sure you can find some reference to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion
And again its not the point. Germany could have said to itself "we'll never invade england". Its what the Brits did hat matters, not what the germans thought.0 -
I don't believe the fact that Sinn Fein has one Protestant councillor proves them to be non-sectarian.
Maybe, but it blows your assertion that Republicans wouldn't tolerate a Protestant in their areas out of the water. So on one hand we wouldn't have them even living near us but then yet we have one councillor and many activists within our party? That is very, very inconsistent pogón.0 -
>> Whee, a new definition for republican: an anti-Brit.
I'm a Republican because i Want an Irish Republic and i want the connection with England gone. Not because i'm an anti-Brit.
>>It's funny, I've lived my whole life without feeling any of this hardship and cruelty England has imposed on us.
As have i but i can see the effects of the past hardship and cruelty that England did impose on us.
>>Phrases like "no matter what the cost" worry me deeply. Economic instability and high unemployment? Doesn't matter. A generation of children indoctrinated to hatred? Not important. Thousands of people needlessly slaughtered? A bagatelle: delenda est Albion
Notice that you put the economy first ?
There are more important things then Money, there are reasons for war and i don't like hatred.
>>There are very, very few situations where "no matter what the cost" is a phrase that can be safely used.
Agreed.
>> What's your evidence for this assertion?
In all fairness you are not going to honestly sit there and say that the Irish people were happy to remain under British rule ?
Padraic Pearse's first and only court case was defending an Irishman who wrote his name on his cart of business in Irish. Terrible terrible crime.
I'm sure he was happy to remain under British Rule.
>>It's funny, I've been called a West Brit on this forum before. It seems to me the term is used to describe anyone who doesn't fall precisely into step with the nationalist/republican dogma du jour.
Honestly i can't understand how anyone could say the Irish nation would be happy under British Rule.
>>Negotiation happens between nations, within nations, between commercial interests, between family members... it's a widely-accepted conflict resolution process.
How do you negotiate when you have nothing to negotiate with ? The nationalists had nothing so how could they negotiate for something ?
>> you've already explained why they voted the way they did. Got a source for that, by any chance?
Because they thought home rule was the best they were gonna get.
>>And that would have been worse than a bloody war of independence, a bloody civil war, years of oppression of Catholics in the North and thirty years of terrorism from both sides, would it?
So now your blaming the Loyalist oppression of Catholics and the troubles and the violence from both sides on 1916 ?
>> Prove what? That my historical conjecture is as valid or invalid as your historical conjecture? What are you on about?
You asked me to prove that peaceful means would not have worked. I'm asking you to prove it would have.
>>The burning question is, how long is "long enough"? For John Hume it's a lot longer than for the Provos. What's your explanation for his refusal to respond to violence with violence?
Hes a pacifist who knew violence would never solve the problem fully.
>> Can't? Or won't? John Hume could.
Could do WHAT ?
Get them civil rights they already deserved ? Sure he would have eventually achieved that. A united Ireland ? Not bloody likely.
>> How do you know, if you won't try them?
God its so simple now. Jesus Don't i wish that Britain, France and America didn't fight Hitler. They could have negotiated with him and his troops as they landed on their soil.
U try a "peaceful" solution to a serial killer in your house and see how far it gets you.
>>The one thing I do know is that if I subsequently tracked them down and killed them, I'm every bit as guilty of murder as they are.
Thats not the point!
He killed your family he deserves to die for that. So it makes you a murderer too so what ?
>>Given the choice between working tirelessly to have them brought to justice and lashing out viciously in retaliation, I know which I'd do. How about you?
To Justice ? Justice in this state ? in this day and age ?
Some of those bloody prisons are like long Vacations and some aren't even that bloody long! There is no justice in this country or any other for that matter.
>>I don't deny the need for a country to have armed forces. I do repudiate the right of self-appointed "freedom fighters" to commit murder in my name.
And i don't disagree!
>>The actual difference between us is the number of possibilities we're prepared to explore before declaring that we've run out of options.
Fair enough i suppose.0 -
john_grimm wrote:>>You are also misquoting me and then saying what I've written is ignorant.
Are you saying that Britain entered the war SOLELY to help out others ? yes or no.
If your answer is yes then what you have written IS ignorant.
On what grounds.
Beacause I disagree with you?
Probably Britain entered the war for a combination of reasons both altruistic and selfish.
Britain, however, itself was under no immediate danger of attack.OK so if Operation Sea Lion was planned before the invasion of Poland I'm sure you can find some reference to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion
November 1939, when Hitler ordered the planning to start, is after the
German invasion of Poland.
I would suggest you spent less of your time being insulting and more of your time on researching your facts.0 -
>> So civil rights like being allowed to vote and have equal access to housing and employment were a distraction from the real issue?
In my opinion yes.
>>I live in a republic. I have no doubt as to my national identity. I'm very proud of my country (though not always all that proud of everything that's done in its name).
I apologise for what i said earlier it wasn't fair but i really cannot understand how you think Ireland would be "alright" under British Rule.
>>Who, exactly, are you to decide what it is that the rest of us are allowed to be proud of? Keep your island-nation complex to yourself, thanks.
What are you proud of ? You say your Irish and where the government of this country is located doesn't matter so what are you proud of ?
Whats "Irish" to you ?
>> Necessary for whom? To what end?
For the Irish people to realise that they needed to fight, they needed to get rid of the British.
A Rebellion every generation.0 -
Advertisement
-
>>Britain, however, itself was under no immediate danger of attack.
No it wasn't but nor did it want to be planted next door to a new power.
>>November 1939, when Hitler ordered the planning to start, is after the
German invasion of Poland.
I stand corrected since i have no time nor interest to research it further.
But it still isn't the point. :cool:0
Advertisement