When is an army an 'Army' in History

Jawgap · 31-07-2014 2:54pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

The Soviet Union http://books.google.ie/books?id=aEzVNpVqENYC&pg=PA1575&lpg=PA1575&dq=%22irish+republic%22+%22soviet+union%22+diplomatic+relations&source=bl&ots=BKoH14bvUp&sig=iwA-pp_-oieN674PnDhyY6y4uUA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=w0XaU-nCKqmJ7AbI-YDYCg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22irish%20republic%22%20%22soviet%20union%22%20diplomatic%20relations&f=false

"”Both the new Irish Republic and the labour movement were sympathetic to the new soviet regime in Russia. The government of the Soviet Union recognised the Republic, and the Dáil authorised the establishment of diplomatic relations"

It was a coup by the Free State to overthrow the Irish Republic supported by the British government because they were terrified of having a socialist country right on their doorstep, there was also a lot of support in Britain between workers for the establishment of a British socialist Republic around the same time.

Yeah the rest of that post is nice & pretty lingo intended to distract from the subject matter at hand.

Most interesting.....thanks for posting that.....I stand corrected.......

.......except the Treaty of Creation for the USSR and the Declaration on the Creation of the USSR were not signed until the 30 December 1922????

.....and the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed over a year previously? I suppose countries that don't exist can perhaps recognise each other in some parallel dimension maybe?

Ooops!!

Jawgap · 31-07-2014 2:56pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

.....

Yeah the rest of that post is nice & pretty lingo intended to distract from the subject matter at hand.

Pretty lingo??

You advanced the idea of defensive war as being non-aggressive........maybe you could care to elaborate (perhaps without Wikipedia?)

pO1Neil · 31-07-2014 5:10pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Seen as your citing information from a site dedicate to Sean MacEoin.......

......do you think the man who seconded the Dail motion that the Anglo-Irish Treaty be adopted, and who served as CoS in the National Army would agree with the idea that the post-Treaty IRA were an army, never mind the army of the Irish Republic?

.....also the site says that MacEoin was in favour of the Treaty because it

If an army already existed, then why would one need to be formed....

The site also discusses MacEoin's role in getting the then Free State admitted to the League of Nations - if the Republic existed, why didn't it apply to join the League in 1919?

A most useful site, thanks for linking to it.......

MacEoin was a traitor. Just like Collins & his gang.

pO1Neil · 31-07-2014 5:12pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Pretty lingo??

You advanced the idea of defensive war as being non-aggressive........maybe you could care to elaborate (perhaps without Wikipedia?)

For example if I owned a piece of land & you came to attack me & my land I would use my AR-18 & Mark 15 mortar to defend myself against your attack. That would be me using defensive war to repeal you.

tac foley · 31-07-2014 5:15pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

MacEoin was a traitor. Just like Collins & his gang.

Ah, right.

NOW we see where you are coming from.

The legal government of the Irish Free State are now to be classed as traitors?

Riiiiiiiight.

At least it is now more than evident where YOUR sympathies lie. Perhaps you'd like to return to the days before the signing of the AIA?

tac

tac foley · 31-07-2014 5:17pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

For example if I owned a piece of land & you came to attack me & my land I would use my AR-18 & Mark 15 mortar to defend myself against your attack. That would be me using defensive war to repeal you.

Sir, you seem to be far too familiar with the favoured weapons of the PIRA for my liking, so you and your similarly minded pals have joined the other wannabe terrorists on my ignore list.

tac

Arsemageddon · 31-07-2014 5:19pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

MacEoin was a traitor. Just like Collins & his gang.

Your grasp of the principles of logic appear somewhat confused. You reference an action led by MacEoin against Crown Forces then call him a traitor?

Maybe you should plan out what you intend to post before posting.

Jawgap · 31-07-2014 7:38pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

MacEoin was a traitor. Just like Collins & his gang.

........and yet your are the one who brought him into this thread.....

pO1Neil wrote: »

Or at the Battle of Ballinalee when 300 members of the Army of the Irish Republic repealed a joint force of 900 Black & tans, Auxiliaries & regular British Army from burning & looting the town.

http://www.seanmaceoin.ie/#!battle-of-ballinalee/cxvz

pO1Neil wrote: »

For example if I owned a piece of land & you came to attack me & my land I would use my AR-18 & Mark 15 mortar to defend myself against your attack. That would be me using defensive war to repeal you.

You seem unable to distinguish between war and fighting.......

.......would that was the limit of your lack of comprehension in relation to issues raised on this thread;)

steddyeddy · 31-07-2014 7:47pm

Would Tac like to give his definition of an army or perhaps ignore people who disagree with him?

pO1Neil · 31-07-2014 8:27pm

tac foley wrote: »

Sir, you seem to be far too familiar with the favoured weapons of the PIRA for my liking, so you and your similarly minded pals have joined the other wannabe terrorists on my ignore list.

tac

Terrorists? More like soldiers uploading the dignity of the Irish Republic.

pO1Neil · 31-07-2014 8:29pm

tac foley wrote: »

Ah, right.

NOW we see where you are coming from.

The legal government of the Irish Free State are now to be classed as traitors?

Riiiiiiiight.

At least it is now more than evident where YOUR sympathies lie. Perhaps you'd like to return to the days before the signing of the AIA?

tac

When they joined the Free State coup they become traitors, there where plenty of others who upheld the Republic & then joined Fee State military junta & took their 30 pieces of silver.

And yeah I would go back to the pre AIA days. Not a hope would I sell my country men & women in the North to a bunch of savage Orange men.

Jawgap · 31-07-2014 8:30pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

Terrorists? More like soldiers uploading the dignity of the Irish Republic.

*Uploading*????

tac foley · 31-07-2014 8:42pm

This thread seems to have highjacked over by a bunch of wannabe terrorist apologists.

Or perhaps they want us to be worried that they are more than that.

However, I think it's time that this thread, that seems to be bringing this kind of person out from under their stones, was closed, to save us from making posts that might get us banned here.

tac

pO1Neil · 31-07-2014 8:42pm

"when the Irish people did vote for indepenence & unity they were drowned in blood" "God Bless Gerry Adams" - The great George Galloway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmgMB9FMC8

steddyeddy · 31-07-2014 8:43pm

A terrorist is someone from the weaker side using tactics sufficient to maximise damage to the larger side.

pO1Neil · 31-07-2014 8:44pm

tac foley wrote: »

This thread seems to have highjacked over by a bunch of wannabe terrorist apologists.

Or perhaps they want us to be worried that they are more than that.

However, I think it's time that this thread, that seems to be bringing this kind of person out from under their stones, was closed, to save us from making posts that might get us banned here.

tac

More like hijacked British imperialist war crime apologists like yourself.

Arsemageddon · 31-07-2014 8:45pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

When they joined the Free State coup they become traitors, there where plenty of others who upheld the Republic & then joined Fee State military junta & took their 30 pieces of silver.

And yeah I would go back to the pre AIA days. Not a hope would I sell my country men & women in the North to a bunch of savage Orange men.

Oh dear, oh dear!

The people you are accusing of being traitors were the democratically elected government of Ireland. Like it or not a majority of the second Dail voted to ratify the treaty.

How exactly you are going to go back to the pre Anglo Irish Treaty days is a mystery to me.

pO1Neil · 31-07-2014 8:45pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

A terrorist is someone from the weaker side using tactics sufficient to maximise damage to the larger side.

Exactly, the Nazi's called the Polish underground terrorists. God bless the Provisional IRA.

pO1Neil · 31-07-2014 8:47pm

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear!

The people you are accusing of being traitors were the democratically elected government of Ireland. Like it or not a majority of the second Dail voted to ratify the treaty.

How exactly you are going to go back to the pre Anglo Irish Treaty days is a mystery to me.

Only because of threats of war & interference from the British

I wasn't the one who brought that mystery up

Arsemageddon · 31-07-2014 8:52pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

And yeah I would go back to the pre AIA days.

pO1Neil wrote: »

I wasn't the one who brought that mystery up

Looks like you did.

Jawgap · 31-07-2014 8:53pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

A terrorist is someone from the weaker side using tactics sufficient to maximise damage to the larger side.

Actually, a terrorist is someone who is interested in the 'propaganda of the deed' to provoke a response so the entity being attacked reacts in a way to reveal it's true nature.....

......Insurgency 101, as the yanks would say

jonniebgood1 · 31-07-2014 10:33pm

You are getting carried away p01Neil. This type of post as quoted below (3 no. examples) are not welcome. The official term may be uncivil or off topic but I could think of a lot better descriptions. This type of clap trap divulging into pseudo republican nonsense is not welcome on this thread or on this forum.

In this case it earns you an immediate ban from the forum and I won't be offended if you take insult at this and don't return.

Moderator

pO1Neil wrote: »

For example if I owned a piece of land & you came to attack me & my land I would use my AR-18 & Mark 15 mortar to defend myself against your attack. That would be me using defensive war to repeal you.

pO1Neil wrote: »

When they joined the Free State coup they become traitors, there where plenty of others who upheld the Republic & then joined Fee State military junta & took their 30 pieces of silver.

And yeah I would go back to the pre AIA days. Not a hope would I sell my country men & women in the North to a bunch of savage Orange men.

pO1Neil wrote: »

"when the Irish people did vote for indepenence & unity they were drowned in blood" "God Bless Gerry Adams" - The great George Galloway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmgMB9FMC8

pedroeibar1 · 31-07-2014 10:35pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

For example if I owned a piece of land & you came to attack me & my land I would use my AR-18 & Mark 15 mortar to defend myself against your attack. That would be me using defensive war to repeal you.

pO1Neil wrote: »

When they joined the Free State coup they become traitors, there where plenty of others who upheld the Republic & then joined Fee State military junta & took their 30 pieces of silver.

And yeah I would go back to the pre AIA days. Not a hope would I sell my country men & women in the North to a bunch of savage Orange men.

pO1Neil wrote: »

Exactly, the Nazi's called the Polish underground terrorists. God bless the Provisional IRA.

Jawgap at least tried cogent argument with this idiot but failed.
How long more do we have to put up with this dross?

Edit - Thanks

jonniebgood1 · 31-07-2014 10:43pm

You too are getting carried away Tac. The type of post as quoted below (2 no. examples as I only went back 1 page) are not welcome. The official term may be uncivil or off topic but I could think of a lot better descriptions.

You spend so much time highlighting extremism on the republican posters side that you do not realise that you are the mirror image on the loyalism/ British apologist side. Irony.

In this case it earns you an immediate ban from the forum and equally with your compatriot offender p01neill, I won't be offended if you take insult at this and don't return.

Moderator

tac foley wrote: »

Sir, you seem to be far too familiar with the favoured weapons of the PIRA for my liking, so you and your similarly minded pals have joined the other wannabe terrorists on my ignore list.

tac

tac foley wrote: »

This thread seems to have highjacked over by a bunch of wannabe terrorist apologists.

Or perhaps they want us to be worried that they are more than that.

However, I think it's time that this thread, that seems to be bringing this kind of person out from under their stones, was closed, to save us from making posts that might get us banned here.

tac

Call it back seat modding, uncivil or trolling if you wish to have a stated reason (or 3).

pedroeibar1 · 31-07-2014 11:22pm

Personally I think to dish out the same ‘ban order’ is a bit tough on Tac. I agree he does push the envelope a bit at times but he was not back seat modding, never advocated terrorism and he wears his credentials on his sleeve because he has that T-shirt. The other poster made reference to taking his AR-15 and using a home-made mortar, way back. About 50 posts back both you and tac spoke about this thread going nowhere and rows. Pity it was not stopped then. Just my opinion, not looking for a debate or prolonging the thread which IMO would be better closed..

riffmongous · 01-08-2014 2:32am

Just my 2c, but publicly calling for threads to be closed isn't good for the forum, if you don't like something don't respond and either ignore it or report it if you think its flaming/trolling, otherwise the thread and then the forum will turn into a trainwreck.

Jawgap · 01-08-2014 8:34am

Banning Tac on the basis that his actions are the equivalent of @p01neill is poor form.

I also think this comment/observation is way out of line......

You spend so much time highlighting extremism on the republican posters side that you do not realise that you are the mirror image on the loyalism/ British apologist side.

I'd also suggest that the reference to loyalism/British apologism is out of order and betrays bias.

I've sparked off Tac more than once (here and elsewhere), and I'll admit that, on occasion, his writing style has irritated me but at least he stays on topic and engages in a discussion.

In banning @p01neill you did the forum a service, but in banning someone who, if I was researching the period, would be regarded as a first class primary source you did the posters genuinely interested in discussing history a significant disservice.

So, maybe I'll be banned, suspended or whatever from this forum for this post, but I'm not really that bothered because, frankly, I've opted out of posting in Politics because of the biased modding and I'm happy to do the same here - there are better modded history fora to post in.

jonniebgood1 · 01-08-2014 8:47am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Personally I think to dish out the same ‘ban order’ is a bit tough on Tac. I agree he does push the envelope a bit at times but he was not back seat modding, never advocated terrorism and he wears his credentials on his sleeve because he has that T-shirt. The other poster made reference to taking his AR-15 and using a home-made mortar, way back. About 50 posts back both you and tac spoke about this thread going nowhere and rows. Pity it was not stopped then. Just my opinion, not looking for a debate or prolonging the thread which IMO would be better closed..

riffmongous wrote: »

Just my 2c, but publicly calling for threads to be closed isn't good for the forum, if you don't like something don't respond and either ignore it or report it if you think its flaming/trolling, otherwise the thread and then the forum will turn into a trainwreck.

Jawgap wrote: »

Banning Tac on the basis that his actions are the equivalent of @p01neill is poor form.

I also think this comment/observation is way out of line......

I'd also suggest that the reference to loyalism/British apologism is out of order and betrays bias.

I've sparked off Tac more than once (here and elsewhere), and I'll admit that, on occasion, his writing style has irritated me but at least he stays on topic and engages in a discussion.

In banning @p01neill you did the forum a service, but in banning someone who, if I was researching the period, would be regarded as a first class primary source you did the posters genuinely interested in discussing history a significant disservice.

So, maybe I'll be banned, suspended or whatever from this forum for this post, but I'm not really that bothered because, frankly, I've opted out of posting in Politics because of the biased modding and I'm happy to do the same here - there are better modded history fora to post in.

The forum is moderated to try and keep it running smoothly and without bias in so much as this is possible. p01neill received a ban of 1 month for his repeated infractions & Tac received a ban of 2 weeks for his repeated infractions- the difference in time indicating which of the infractions was considered worse. Comments as above are no help and I consider them simply showing support to the people who have been on your 'side' in various discussions on the forum. Any further discussion on this should be by PM if it is necessary at all.

Moderator

kabakuyu · 02-08-2014 12:02am

agree with mod

jonniebgood1 · 02-08-2014 10:37am

THe conversation should not need to be entrenched in an irish context only. Linked article references isis in Iraq as being an army seeking to establish a separate territory of its own. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/24/ISIS-Terror-Group-Full-Blown-Army