1916 Military parade to be reintroduced

FTA69

Nits. Picking.

cal29

Earthman wrote:

Correct,however It's not just logic,its a legal fact.
Occupation in this case is an opinion..

Well if we are going to be legalistic about it the Iraqi occupation has ended legally as well which I'm sure is of great comfort to the thousands of Iraqis murdered by the US/UK and its allies.I'm sure it must feel great when the people of the various Nationalist areas of the North see british Soldiers that they can say well legally they are not occupying army perhaps it is the same consolation the people of Iraq feel as they see the US/UK troops in their country

Earthman wrote:

As regards what I said to Cal,I thought it was clearly being directed at everybody,I dont care who starts personality bashing here.
It's not allowed so take direction from me please.

Well if you said it to me it is hardly clear that it is directed at everybody

And again let me repeat I never bashed the personality of any poster here so does your direction mean that the personality of non posters are also protected even if they are long dead or irrespective of the actions they undertook while alive. If that is the case then it is a very interesting direction shall we be allowed to refer to the german government of the 30/40s as Nazi considering that Nazi is now an Insult

murphaph

FTA69 wrote:

I know, bloody plebs

You just have a probem with authority, British or Irish.

cal29

murphaph wrote:

You just have a probem with authority, British or Irish.

FTA can speak for himself but I presumed he meant the people who made the gardai unwelcome were plebs

murphaph

cal29 wrote:

FTA can speak for himself but I presumed he meant the people who made the gardai unwelcome were plebs

Having read many of FTA69's posts about the authorities on both sides of the border I'd be inclined to think he was refering to the Gardai. I'm sure he or she will clarify.

Sand

Meanwhile, back at the ranch......

Cal 29

The Majority of voters in this country at the moment is representative of the majority of the people as we have universal sufferage

Nope, voters are a fraction of those who have the right to vote who either never bother to register or never bother to vote. Those who have the right are a fraction of the of people in the Republic. I cant believe Ive got to spell this out, its basic stuff. In the 1997 General Election there was a 65% turnout (pretty good by recent Irish standards), and 1.8 million votes cast from 2.7 million registered voters, and over 2.8 million people able to vote ( theres a 15-19 age bracket which isnt precise...) all from a total population of 3.9 million or so. The majority of 1.8 million voters, is not a majority of 3.9 million. Ever. We accept this even today.

There is no wordplay involved in stating a majority of voters supported home rule. A majority of voters supported Fianna Fail last time out but it doesnt stop me running into a million and one people who want to moan about them.

I am not summoning a silent majority the very loud majority who voted for the Republic in 1918 will do fine

And the very loud majority that voted against violent fanaticism in favour of Home Rule with partition for slow learners in the aftermatch of the Treaty?Even looking at the SF manifesto for 1918 nowhere does it explicitly state violence as an option, instead advocating withdrawal from Westminster, setting up of an Irish parliment and arguing at the Paris peace conference for Irelands right to self determination on legal grounds.

It references 1916 only to state that SF shared the rebels beliefs in "the inalienable right of the Irish Nation to sovereign independence, reaffirming the determination of the Irish people to achieve it, and guaranteeing within the independent Nation equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens". Theres nothing that states violence is the preferred or planned option in achieving a republic, nothing about founding an army to fight Britain. Indeed their plan as spelled out is to achieve the Republic by simply ignoring the British claim to rule, and instead forming their own government, in Ireland, for Ireland. Given that the next time the Irish people were asked they quickly underlined they were not in favour of violence but instead of compromise and a negotiated settlement as symbolised by the treaty, its again clear that the people of Ireland consistently supported constitutional politics over violent republicanism.

You on the other hand seem to believe that you can base how the vast majority of this country felt on the basis of how the middle class and landed males voted in a very restrictive and unrepresentative election and on the actions of some west brits and unionists in dublin

Actually, ordinary Dubliners whose lives had been torn apart by a bunch of crazed fanatics who took upon themselves the right to engaged in a doomed, pointless insurrection without the backing or support of anyone but their inner circle. Much like the RIRA and Omagh. You see, I knew you wanted to call them west brit traitors when you were talking about taking the queens shilling and lying down for the brits. Why beat around the bush? And I base my belief on what the majority of people thought on election results, and the fact that the immediate reaction to 1916 by ordinary people, like Omagh, was outrage and anger.

If you are trying to suggest that the 1918 election was just some flash in the pan brought on by the rising and that all Irish people really wanted was Home Rule then were are the Home Rulers now why did they not make a comeback once the fervour had died down

It was in a way ( consistent in its support for a non-violent solution, different in that it was for a Republic, rather than home rule) and secondly much of the Treaty that the people and their representitives supported involved compromises that were directly from Home Rule. The 1918 SF manifesto attacks the IPP for thinking about partitioning the island, well guess what, its partitioned. Oath to the Queen. British military bases in the Free State and so on and so forth. So all the parties participating in the Dail adopted and adapted to compromises the IPP considered. And as for the IPP, their reason to exist was to represent Irish voters in Westminster and to attempt to achieve an ever looser union by constitional means, with no further representation in Westminster, Irish politics got local, which the IPP was not.

Not to mention that it was sand who introduced the term west brit to the discussion

Just as shorthand for your stated views on myself today and the Dubliners who told the 1916 rebels what they thought of them. What was it you said

As for your point about the 1916 leaders being abused after the rising we all know there has always been people like yourself who would gladly take the queens shilling and lie down for the Brits.

Lets be honest, you think Im a West Brit, and you think those people were West Brits too. I imagine if they were really Irish theyd have been cheering them as they hobbled through the rubble of their city looking for missing family members they hadnt seen for a week and who might have been killed?

Yes odd that it is the term west brit that Bonkey finds insulting even though I did not introduce the term but he did not post to object to the term Provo fanboy

He might have objected to the fact that you were reffering to the suffering Dubliners of 1916 as West Brits (and perhaps by extension me seeing as you previously equated me and those people as taking the Queens shilling and lying down for the Brits - and you still havent told me where I can sign on for this grant youre talking about, Ill never say no to a bit of extra cash), whereas I on the other hand didnt call anyone a Provo fanboy. I just mentioned Provo fanboys wouldnt be surprised by my views - which is undeniably true Id have though(?), and if anyone chooses to come running to confirm Provo fanboys arent surprised thats their business.

Unfortunately the poppy does not just commerate those who died in WW1 or 2 it also commerates all Britains war dead including the occupying forces in Ireland and now Iraq

yeah, lets forget our history and our countries legacy because some people moan about it or it makes them uncomfortable.

Good man Flex, couldnt have put it better. Its odd that Irishmen serving in the British Army up to this day are moaned about because this legacy of our countries history makes people uncomftable.

And again let me repeat I never bashed the personality of any poster here

As for your point about the 1916 leaders being abused after the rising we all know there has always been people like yourself who would gladly take the queens shilling and lie down for the Brits.

Im still looking for the link to the Queens shilling grant you said I could be claiming! Is lying down for the Brits (Like on the ground? What if it just rained? Which Brits? All 60 million of them? Or will any Brit do? If thats the case I might just nip across the border to South Armagh) a condition of the grant? You seem to think I qualify already?

cal29

ok just to be clear Posters...
I dont care who you call a west Brit or a provo fan boy as long as you dont start using it on each other.
The rule is deal with the post and not the poster.

cal29 wrote:

Well if we are going to be legalistic about it the Iraqi occupation has ended legally as well which I'm sure is of great comfort to the thousands of Iraqis murdered by the US/UK and its allies.I'm sure it must feel great when the people of the various Nationalist areas of the North see british Soldiers that they can say well legally they are not occupying army perhaps it is the same consolation the people of Iraq feel as they see the US/UK troops in their country

Thats not a valid comparison as NI is legally a part of the UK.Iraq was never legally part of the UK, the U.S or any of the other coalition countries.

cal29

Sand wrote:

Meanwhile, back at the ranch......

Cal 29


Nope, voters are a fraction of those who have the right to vote who either never bother to register or never bother to vote. Those who have the right are a fraction of the of people in the Republic. I cant believe Ive got to spell this out, its basic stuff. In the 1997 General Election there was a 65% turnout (pretty good by recent Irish standards), and 1.8 million votes cast from 2.7 million registered voters, and over 2.8 million people able to vote ( theres a 15-19 age bracket which isnt precise...) all from a total population of 3.9 million or so. The majority of 1.8 million voters, is not a majority of 3.9 million. Ever. We accept this even today.

There is no wordplay involved in stating a majority of voters supported home rule. A majority of voters supported Fianna Fail last time out but it doesnt stop me running into a million and one people who want to moan about them.



And the very loud majority that voted against violent fanaticism in favour of Home Rule with partition for slow learners in the aftermatch of the Treaty?Even looking at the SF manifesto for 1918 nowhere does it explicitly state violence as an option, instead advocating withdrawal from Westminster, setting up of an Irish parliment and arguing at the Paris peace conference for Irelands right to self determination on legal grounds.

It references 1916 only to state that SF shared the rebels beliefs in "the inalienable right of the Irish Nation to sovereign independence, reaffirming the determination of the Irish people to achieve it, and guaranteeing within the independent Nation equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens". Theres nothing that states violence is the preferred or planned option in achieving a republic, nothing about founding an army to fight Britain. Indeed their plan as spelled out is to achieve the Republic by simply ignoring the British claim to rule, and instead forming their own government, in Ireland, for Ireland. Given that the next time the Irish people were asked they quickly underlined they were not in favour of violence but instead of compromise and a negotiated settlement as symbolised by the treaty, its again clear that the people of Ireland consistently supported constitutional politics over violent republicanism.



Actually, ordinary Dubliners whose lives had been torn apart by a bunch of crazed fanatics who took upon themselves the right to engaged in a doomed, pointless insurrection without the backing or support of anyone but their inner circle.


It was in a way ( consistent in its support for a non-violent solution, different in that it was for a Republic, rather than home rule) and secondly much of the Treaty that the people and their representitives supported involved compromises that were directly from Home Rule. The 1918 SF manifesto attacks the IPP for thinking about partitioning the island, well guess what, its partitioned. Oath to the Queen. British military bases in the Free State and so on and so forth. So all the parties participating in the Dail adopted and adapted to compromises the IPP considered. And as for the IPP, their reason to exist was to represent Irish voters in Westminster and to attempt to achieve an ever looser union by constitional means, with no further representation in Westminster, Irish politics got local, which the IPP was not.

Ok sand I will point out the obvious to you

Children cannot vote

At the moment in this country all adults are entitled to vote (except prisoners) some choose not to vote some are too ill not in the country etc etc but they are entitled to vote
Therefore the voters are representative of the people Unlike the situation that pertained before 1918 when only a small minority were entitled to vote any election before 1918 cannot be said to be representative of the people

The Proof of this is that the Party that won the majority of seats in Ireland for over 50 years were decimated at the Polls when the majority of people could vote and shortly thereafter disappeared never to appear again

The Facts speak for themselves



On the point about 1916 what would you suggest they do ask the British governemnt to hold a referendum on wether there should be a rising or take direction from the unrepresentative bunch of MPs who the Irish people quickly dispensed of once give the oppurtunity

In 1916 there was no fair and free elections as an alternative to a rising

Flex

Sand wrote:

And the very loud majority that voted against violent fanaticism in favour of Home Rule with partition for slow learners in the aftermatch of the Treaty?Even looking at the SF manifesto for 1918 nowhere does it explicitly state violence as an option, instead advocating withdrawal from Westminster, setting up of an Irish parliment and arguing at the Paris peace conference for Irelands right to self determination on legal grounds.

For slow learners, dominion status was a hell of alot more than 'home rule with partition'. we controlled our foreign affairs, finances, could raise an army, establish diplomatic relations with other countries, join the league of nations, etc.

also, SF did follow there manifesto, particualry the fact about establishing an irish parliament and free irish nation. so what does the government of a country do if their country is occupied by a foreign army? 1) sits on its ass and does nothing hoping things will sort themselves out, or just hope their groveling display will persuade their occupiers to allow them to have freedom when it suits them or 2) fight against the occupying forces. we chose to fight (which im proud of).

It references 1916 only to state that SF shared the rebels beliefs in "the inalienable right of the Irish Nation to sovereign independence, reaffirming the determination of the Irish people to achieve it, and guaranteeing within the independent Nation equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens". Theres nothing that states violence is the preferred or planned option in achieving a republic, nothing about founding an army to fight Britain. Indeed their plan as spelled out is to achieve the Republic by simply ignoring the British claim to rule, and instead forming their own government, in Ireland, for Ireland.

and they did establish a government, then let the british know that they wanted a complete withdrawal of british forces from ireland. after the british refused to comply, the government took necessary measures to end the occupation.

Given that the next time the Irish people were asked they quickly underlined they were not in favour of violence but instead of compromise and a negotiated settlement as symbolised by the treaty, its again clear that the people of Ireland consistently supported constitutional politics over violent republicanism.

is this the treaty that was signed after the people supported the IRA during the War of Independence? was it one of those 'ends justifies the means' types of situations? if the people of ireland were so against violence, then surely they wouldve completely rejected the treaty, since it only came about as a result of violence, right?

Actually, ordinary Dubliners whose lives had been torn apart by a bunch of crazed fanatics who took upon themselves the right to engaged in a doomed, pointless insurrection without the backing or support of anyone but their inner circle. Much like the RIRA and Omagh. You see, I knew you wanted to call them west brit traitors when you were talking about taking the queens shilling and lying down for the brits. Why beat around the bush? And I base my belief on what the majority of people thought on election results, and the fact that the immediate reaction to 1916 by ordinary people, like Omagh, was outrage and anger.

alot of people had relatives off fighting in europe, and the british had claimed that the rising was the beginning of a german invasion of ireland and that the rebels were in fact german collaborators. also, most people had been gulled into believing we could never enjoy more freedom in ireland than home rule and that this rising had damaged the chances of that meagre autonomy being granted.

It was in a way ( consistent in its support for a non-violent solution, different in that it was for a Republic, rather than home rule) and secondly much of the Treaty that the people and their representitives supported involved compromises that were directly from Home Rule. The 1918 SF manifesto attacks the IPP for thinking about partitioning the island, well guess what, its partitioned. Oath to the Queen. British military bases in the Free State and so on and so forth. So all the parties participating in the Dail adopted and adapted to compromises the IPP considered.

Irelandwas partitioned as a result of the Government of Ireland act, which was a Home Rule bill, so it was partitioned before the treaty. We also got a modified oath to the British monarch, and there were only 3 british bases in ireland if i recall rightly, and 3 is a hell of a lot better than having the country wide open to a foreign army to come tramping around whenever. SF only agreed to partition because we were offered a boundary commission which we were assured would transfer nationalist areas to the free state. unfortunately britain shafted us on that.

And as for the IPP, their reason to exist was to represent Irish voters in Westminster and to attempt to achieve an ever looser union by constitional means, with no further representation in Westminster, Irish politics got local, which the IPP was not.

The IPP was local, they were elected to county councils from 1898 onwards after the local government act if i recall correctly. the reason they ceased to be is because sinn fein hammered them in the elections.

Lets be honest, you think Im a West Brit, and you think those people were West Brits too. I imagine if they were really Irish theyd have been cheering them as they hobbled through the rubble of their city looking for missing family members they hadnt seen for a week and who might have been killed?

i dont care that you want to be a West Brit. i cant understand why anyone longs for the days of the grand aul union though, but nevertheless....

Good man Flex, couldnt have put it better. Its odd that Irishmen serving in the British Army up to this day are moaned about because this legacy of our countries history makes people uncomftable.

i was referring to people who moan about the fact our history is full of rebellions against foreign rule rather than us just accepting domination; and that alot of people are proud of our struggle for independence. pretty soon people will probably start objecting to historical events such as the Famine being taught in schools, because it might make britain uncomfortable or ,God forbid, could make people think life under british rule was actually bad:eek:

FTA69

FTA can speak for himself but I presumed he meant the people who made the gardai unwelcome were plebs

It was a glib comment in reference to murphaph's whinging about deprived areas not being particularly welcoming to a police force that does nothing to earn their respect.

You just have a probem with authority, British or Irish.

Untrue, I work in Sinn Féin daily and have no problem with accepting the authority of those in a higher position. I do however, have a problem with respecting the authority of those who have harrased me repeatedly since my early teens. If you had half the rubbish I had to put up with murphaph maybe you wouldn't be particularly endeared to the cops either. Instead of calling for automatic and absolute trust and respect of the police you should be calling for the reform of a clearly flawed organisation.

cal29

Earthman wrote:

Correct,however It's not just logic,its a legal fact.
Occupation in this case is an opinion.

.

So Earthman can I ask when did the occupation of Ireland end and this legal fact that you keep going on about legal according to what law

If Ireland was not an occupied country during the Black and tan war I presume you believe that Ireland ceased to be an Occupied country after the act of Union is that what you believe.?

Presuming it is what Authority did the Puppet parliament in dublin have to sign away Irelands Nationhood the authority given to it by the occupying power because it certainly was given No Authority by the Irish people to act on
behalf of the Irish people

If Israel set up a parliament that only Jewish settlers could sit in to run the west bank and then demanded that that Parliament signover the west bank to be a part of the State of Israel without any recourse to the majority palestinian population would the west Bank cease to be Occupied?


Was East timor not occupied once the Indonesian declared that by Law it was a part of Indonesia by your logic it was just a part of Indonesia the same as any other part "legally"


Please answer I would love to hear your answer to the fact that Britain had No Legal or Moral right to be in this country other than the legal right it gave itself

cal29

cal29 wrote:

So Earthman can I ask when did the occupation of Ireland end and this legal fact that you keep going on about legal according to what law

eh? The united Kingdom of Gt Britain and Northern Ireland that is recognised by the united nations.

If Ireland was not an occupied country during the Black and tan war I presume you believe that Ireland ceased to be an Occupied country after the act of Union is that what you believe.?

I never mentioned anything about that, nor did I refer to it.
I spoke of the here and now.
The legal fact of the matter in the here and now, is that the troops in NI are the troops of the United kingdom, a sovereign country, of which NI is legally part.

Presuming it is what Authority did the Puppet parliament in dublin have to sign away Irelands Nationhood the authority given to it by the occupying power because it certainly was given No Authority by the Irish people to act on
behalf of the Irish people

I've no desire to get into whatever issues you have with the decisions of the early part of the 20th century.I'm merely pointing out a fact to you.
Whether you like this fact or not is your own affair.

If Israel set up a parliament that only Jewish settlers could sit in to run the west bank and then demanded that that Parliament signover the west bank to be a part of the State of Israel without any recourse to the majority palestinian population would the west Bank cease to be Occupied?


Was East timor not occupied once the Indonesian declared that by Law it was a part of Indonesia by your logic it was just a part of Indonesia the same as any other part "legally"


Please answer I would love to hear your answer to the fact that Britain had No Legal or Moral right to be in this country other than the legal right it gave itself

Go start a thread on this issue if it concerns you that much.
You know my position and it's the legal position.It also happens to be the democratic choice of the people of the 26 counties too, given that they voted for to accept the GFA which explicitly removed our constitutional claim on the six counties.
Thats democracy for ya

cal29

Earthman wrote:

eh? The united Kingdom of Gt Britain and Northern Ireland that is recognised by the united nations.
I never mentioned anything about that, nor did I refer to it.
I spoke of the here and now.
The legal fact of the matter in the here and now, is that the troops in NI are the troops of the United kingdom, a sovereign country, of which NI is legally part.
I've no desire to get into whatever issues you have with the decisions of the early part of the 20th century.I'm merely pointing out a fact to you.
Whether you like this fact or not is your own affair.

Go start a thread on this issue if it concerns you that much.
You know my position and it's the legal position.It also happens to be the democratic choice of the people of the 26 counties too, given that they voted for to accept the GFA which explicitly removed our constitutional claim on the six counties.
Thats democracy for ya

Earthman I refer you to post 87 on this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50338140&postcount=87


are you now saying different to what you said in that post in reference to the Black and Tans and Auxies
IE that Ireland was not occupied during the Tan war

cal29

cal29 wrote:

Earthman I refer you to post 87 on this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50338140&postcount=87


are you now saying different to what you said in that post in reference to the Black and Tans and Auxies
IE that Ireland was not occupied during the Tan war

I never spoke of that period at all ergo I cant be saying something different about that period.
In fact I've offered no opinion.

just to add and to clarify,I was pointing out to FTA that my opinion on the legal status of NI would not change.
I was not offering an opinion on the black and tans.

cal29

Earthman wrote:

I never spoke of that period at all ergo I cant be saying something different about that period.
In fact I've offered no opinion.

just to add and to clarify,I was pointing out to FTA that my opinion on the legal status of NI would not change.
I was not offering an opinion on the black and tans.

Perhaps you should be more careful when replying to posts because you were specifically asked whether you tought the Black and Tans and Auxies were an occuppying force or a domestic Force

FTA69 wrote:

Earthman's argument will remain the same Cal, the Black and Tans and Auxillaries were British troops simply going to a different part of the United Kingdom by his logic.

Earthman wrote:

Correct,however It's not just logic,its a legal fact.
Occupation in this case is an opinion.

.

Here are the Two relevant Quotes


Now you are trying to change your mind and say you were only talking about the North when I have already said that comment about the poppies commerating Britains war dead included its war dead among the Occuppying forces in Ireland(note Ireland is the 32 counties not the 6 or the 26) and it includes the BLack and Tans and the Auxies

Now do you stand over your opinion as expressed in this post in reply to FTA and myself that there were no occupying forces in Ireland

cal29

cal29 wrote:

Perhaps you should be more careful when replying to posts because you were specifically asked whether you tought the Black and Tans and Auxies were an occuppying force or a domestic Force

No I wasnt.
I was Told what I think about the black and tans inside a statement pointing out why FTA thought my position on the legal status of NI wouldnt change.
There was no opinion there from me on the black and Tans.In actual fact its pretty clear what I said there-even though I needed to clarify it for you.I shouldnt have needed to tbh.
You cant go away from the factual and thats derived from whats legally the case.
But if it makes you feel all warm and squishy inside,I'll put it to you more sucinctly " It is a fact that some people believe that troops in certain areas amount to an occupation-however this is an opinion and not a fact in itself other than it is a fact that some people have this opinion-legally troops in NI are in barracks on their own sovereign teritory and ergo they are not occupiers"

Here are the Two relevant Quotes


Now you are trying to change your mind and say you were only talking about the North when I have already said that comment about the poppies commerating Britains war dead included its war dead among the Occuppying forces in Ireland(note Ireland is the 32 counties not the 6 or the 26) and it includes the BLack and Tans and the Auxies

Now do you stand over your opinion as expressed in this post in reply to FTA and myself that there were no occupying forces in Ireland

You seem to be totally confused between a statement as to the factual position which is what I gave and a statement of opinion.
I offered no opinion regarding the black and tans, NI or outer mongolia for that matter.


Now perhaps you could reflect on the difference between fact and opinion which was the reason for my intervention here in the first place.
You cannot present opinion as fact here on this board.
You can present opinions as opinions and back them up if you wish-explaining for example why you hold that opinion.

cal29

Earthman wrote:

No I wasnt.
I was Told what I think about the black and tans inside a statement pointing out why FTA thought my position on the legal status of NI wouldnt change.
There was no opinion there from me on the black and Tans.In actual fact its pretty clear what I said there-even though I needed to clarify it for you.I shouldnt have needed to tbh.
You cant go away from the factual and thats derived from whats legally the case..

BS FTA gave his opinion of what you would say in relation to the Tans and Auxies and you answered CORRECT and went on to say that it was not LOGIC it was LEGAL FACT
you went on to say Occupation in this case is an opinion

It is Clear for everyone to see what you said

Earthman wrote:

But if it makes you feel all warm and squishy inside,I'll put it to you more sucinctly " It is a fact that some people believe that troops in certain areas amount to an occupation-however this is an opinion and not a fact in itself other than it is a fact that some people have this opinion-legally troops in NI are in barracks on their own sovereign teritory and ergo they are not occupiers"
.

Which is basically giving me a description of an Oange when I asked you what is an apple

You and only you are talking about NI. Myself and FTA were speaking about Ireland


Now if you can get your mind past NI and talk about the whole Island perhaps you could answer this simple Question
Were the BLack and Tans and the AUxies who were sent here during the war of Independence occupying forces in your opinion?

Earthman wrote:

You seem to be totally confused between a statement as to the factual position which is what I gave and a statement of opinion.
I offered no opinion regarding the black and tans, NI or outer mongolia for that matter..

I am afraid you did offer just such an opinion

ANd you seem to be confused about what we were talking about or more specifically what you were talking about

Earthman wrote:

Now perhaps you could reflect on the difference between fact and opinion which was the reason for my intervention here in the first place.
You cannot present opinion as fact here on this board.
You can present opinions as opinions and back them up if you wish-explaining for example why you hold that opinion.

I would love to know why you intervened as you have been unable to answer the question asked of you so many times.
perhaps you would re read my post again


I will state a fact for you the British army in Ireland including the Black and Tans and Auxies were an occupying force Britain had no Right to be in Ireland moral or legal
Wearing a poppie also commerates Those occupying forces who committed atrocities in Ireland during the War of INdependence

Those are Facts not opinions Those were the Facts that I was talking about when you decided to intervene with your legal advise

cal29

cal29 wrote:

BS FTA gave his opinion of what you would say in relation to the Tans and Auxies and you answered CORRECT and went on to say that it was not LOGIC it was LEGAL FACT
you went on to say Occupation in this case is an opinion

It is Clear for everyone to see what you said

Incorrect.I've already stated why thats incorrect.
You seem disappointed that I'm offering you fact not opinion.
Don't be so hard on yourself.If I wanted to contribute to the thread rather than explain what it is an opinion and what is fact, I would have done so ages ago.

Which is basically giving me a description of an Oange when I asked you what is an apple

You and only you are talking about NI. Myself and FTA were speaking about Ireland


Now if you can get your mind past NI and talk about the whole Island perhaps you could answer this simple Question
Were the BLack and Tans and the AUxies who were sent here during the war of Independence occupying forces in your opinion?

I answered that ages ago,go back and read the answer.

I would love to know why you intervened as you have been unable to answer the question asked of you so many times.
perhaps you would re read my post again

Why should I do that when I've already read it and formed the opinion that contrary to the posting guidelines,you were offering opinion as fact.

I will state a fact for you the British army in Ireland including the Black and Tans and Auxies were an occupying force Britain had no Right to be in Ireland moral or legal

Thats not a fact thats an opinion.
Whether I agree or disagree with your opinion or have any opinion at all on the matter is irrelevant.

Wearing a poppie also commerates Those occupying forces who committed atrocities in Ireland during the War of INdependence

Those are Facts not opinions Those were the Facts that I was talking about when you decided to intervene with your legal advise

The bit about occupying isn't.
The legal army of a sovereign territory cant "occupy" that territory, they have every legal right to be there.

Now as I'm only here pointing out to you what is opinion and what is fact and furthermore pointing out to you that you are not allowed to post opinion as fact here.

Now that you have experienced step one of moderation on this thread ie the pointing out of what is not acceptable,I tell you that you most likely wont like step two either.
I suggest you go back now to the topic at hand with the people that were discussing it so I wont have to use moderation step two here.

cal29

Earthman wrote:

The bit about occupying isn't.
The legal army of a sovereign territory cant "occupy" that territory, they have every legal right to be there.

Now as I'm only here pointing out to you what is opinion and what is fact and furthermore pointing out to you that you are not allowed to post opinion as fact here.

Now that you have experienced step one of moderation on this thread ie the pointing out of what is not acceptable,I tell you that you most likely wont like step two either.
I suggest you go back now to the topic at hand with the people that were discussing it so I wont have to use moderation step two here.

This was never the sovereign territory of the UK if you can show me where the IRish people willingly accepted the union then what you say might be true

But the Irish people never consented to being in the UK therefore this was not sovereign territory just because the occupying power says it is their territory does not make it so. It did not make it so in Ireland or any of the rest of the British empire and it did not make it so in East Timor or the West BAnk or Kuwait when Iraq invaded it.


You seem to have a problem distinguishing between what you believe to be the case from fact and guess what just because you are a mod does not make your opinion fact



and threatening me does little to advance your cause

cal29

cal29 wrote:

and threatening me does little to advance your cause

ok Cal take a week off for ignoring the threads moderation.
All I simply pointed out was a fact and gave direction on opinions vs facts.

LordSutch

What I want to know is, can anybody here predict when will Northern Ireland leave the UK? I ask this in light of the fact that Sinn Fein is constantly going-on about a "United Ireland" by 2016, and on the other hand you have Bertie planning a 1916 Military Parady down O'Connell Street presumably with the consent of Unionists! (I just dont see it myself) but maybe in one hundred years time Nationalists will out number Unionists in the North? but then there are the "Impondrables" such as the fact that 15% of Catholics vote for the Union to continue, there is also the question of how immigrents will vote? would they favour (Free NHS Dental/GP care) over our health system? so many questions so little time ......................

Richard

ArthurF wrote:

What I want to know is, can anybody here predict when will Northern Ireland leave the UK?

People can make predictions, but it is very difficult to make a reasonable argument for what will happen. People's identity and people's perceived wellbeing in or out a UI will decide the issue. In 50 years, who knows how people, either Catholic or Protestant will view themselves? Who knows how the relative merits of a continued UK or United Ireland will stack up?

Diorraing

Its probably best that it initially takes the shape of a federal republic. That way the North will maintain some automatism and the Unionists won't be so excluded. A United Ireland won't happen overnight. The north will have to be gradually reunited. Anyhow, its best we stay on subject. I don't see why the Unionist community should object to a 1916 march - its not like it'll be going down the Shankill. Although really it should, then they might cop-on to themselves and stop marching into nationalist areas

jaqian

daveym wrote:

not it wasn't, it was our rising, they didn't exist at the time and are far from being able to claim direct lineage...

Well said daveym. The present IRA are NOT descended from the original IRA or Old IRA as they are known. The present lot use republicanism as a cover for drug dealing/bank robbing/ protection rackets etc etc etc etc

jaqian

FTA69 wrote:

Last time I was there the people of South Armagh by and large didn't welcome the Brit troops on their doorstep)

Its not what one group of ppl think that matters. Its the whole of Northern Irelands opinion that counts. You can't chop the north into different ghettos just cause one group wants to join the south. Process has to be democratic.

NI needs to vote whether or not they want to join us. Personnally I'd think they were nuts to want to join the south as they have many perks that we wouldn't have: health care is better, many prescriotions are free & housing is cheaper although it is rising.

The problem with the north is hate and intolerence, joining the south isn't gonna sort that out. Besides borders will be completely meaningless when Britain & NI eventually join the euro. That'll be a big leveller.

There are no more border guards and with one currency we'd be as good as united. Who cares about flags ppl just want to live in peace and be able to raise their families.

I can drive from Cork to Belfast without being stopped, I can get a job up there, buy a house, whatever. Seems to me that the only real borders are ppl's ignorance and intolerance.