Muppets

Jackie laughlin

For the umpteenth time, a criticism of an Irish person does NOT imply support for British thuggery.

I once bought the official line on Collins until I informed myself of the complex truth of Irish history.

Collins was not without redeeming features. Longford's account of the Treaty negotiations makes it plain that he wanted finally to turn away from bloodshed. Much like Adams, I guess. People unfortunately suffer while violent patriots struggle towards maturity.

I find respect for terrorism to be distinctly unIrish.

Erin Go Brath

Thats fine! I'm against violence myself too, only to be used as a necessity if all else fails. If the democratic wishes of the people aren't adhered to sometimes it is going to be inevitable that an armed conflict will occur. Nelson Mandela and the ANC tried everything possible by peaceful means to get equality and nobody wanted to know, so in their case I support their use of arms, like Collins and the IRA fighting for the freedom denied to them.

You are right though lots of innocents do suffer as a result and both sides need to take responsibility for their actions.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

For the umpteenth time, a criticism of an Irish person does NOT imply support for British thuggery.

I once bought the official line on Collins until I informed myself of the complex truth of Irish history.

Collins was not without redeeming features. Longford's account of the Treaty negotiations makes it plain that he wanted finally to turn away from bloodshed. Much like Adams, I guess. People unfortunately suffer while violent patriots struggle towards maturity.

I find respect for terrorism to be distinctly unIrish.

Such gracious praise Jackie!. The official position is that the First Dail had a democratic mandate and was therefore a government in its own right and that the IRA was the army of that government and therefore it too had a mandate to wage its war - which was seem as a war of defence. I'm not convinced how accurate it is but I'm pretty sure that what a FF or FG TD would say anyway. Of course it doesn't take several factors into account by thats a separate issue.

As for telling you get over it, he's right, please do get over it. Your thinking on this issue is pretty unimaginative. For instance, Collins was a government minister and an elected official. He was acting as he saw it to defend that government and establish its sole control over the island. He saw the rising of 1916 as an amateurish affair and along with other junior leaders of the rising was determined to wage a more effective struggle next time around. That he used methods of asymmetrical warfare is understandable. Its the only method by which a weaker opponent can wear down a stronger side. It has been used by many other people and countries, and was used by the British against the Nazi's in the guise of the SOE, the US in the for of the OSS and CIA and by Jewish fighters against the British in the later 1940's. Its also currently being used by modern powers all over the world. Call it terrorism if you like but what war doesn't involve terror. 'Its well that war should be so terrible otherwise we should grow to enjoy it' to paraphrase Robert E Lee. Also, the quote by Brendan Behan comes to mind - 'The US, UK an USSR all have the big bomb. Why can't the IRA have little bombs.' Something like that anyway. The point is all countries engage in war as a continuation of politics by other means. Collins did the same. He wasn't a terrorist any more that any other statesman for doing so.

I also believe that using the language of his opponents to criticise Collins is tacit support for British Thuggary (why not hop off the fence and say British Terrorism. What Lloyd George like to call 'gunning')

Jackie laughlin

Here we go again! Why does any criticism of an Irish figure or movement have to be accompanied by criticism of the British? It is preposterous to accuse me of fence sitting.

This is the history section of Boards and I'm told "to get over it" because I question official state history. Bizarre!

However, you seem to agree that there is little moral difference between Collins and Adams.

There has never been an electoral mandate for political violence in Ireland. The revolutionary first Dail has been - probably still is - used as a founding myth for a great deal of undemocratic authoritarianism and consequent political violence as it was the last all-Ireland poll.

I tend not to use the word "terrorist" as a label to condemn but rather as a useful designation for clandestine, non-state actors. It is wearying when debate is reduced to hurling the"terrorist" about as a catcall. I have strong views on the uglier side of British involvement in Ireland. OK, OK, there are those who will react by saying that that all British involvement in Ireland is ugly but you know what I mean.

eroo

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Such gracious praise Jackie!. The official position is that the First Dail had a democratic mandate and was therefore a government in its own right and that the IRA was the army of that government and therefore it too had a mandate to wage its war - which was seem as a war of defence. I'm not convinced how accurate it is but I'm pretty sure that what a FF or FG TD would say anyway. Of course it doesn't take several factors into account by thats a separate issue.

As for telling you get over it, he's right, please do get over it. Your thinking on this issue is pretty unimaginative. For instance, Collins was a government minister and an elected official. He was acting as he saw it to defend that government and establish its sole control over the island. He saw the rising of 1916 as an amateurish affair and along with other junior leaders of the rising was determined to wage a more effective struggle next time around. That he used methods of asymmetrical warfare is understandable. Its the only method by which a weaker opponent can wear down a stronger side. It has been used by many other people and countries, and was used by the British against the Nazi's in the guise of the SOE, the US in the for of the OSS and CIA and by Jewish fighters against the British in the later 1940's. Its also currently being used by modern powers all over the world. Call it terrorism if you like but what war doesn't involve terror. 'Its well that war should be so terrible otherwise we should grow to enjoy it' to paraphrase Robert E Lee. Also, the quote by Brendan Behan comes to mind - 'The US, UK an USSR all have the big bomb. Why can't the IRA have little bombs.' Something like that anyway. The point is all countries engage in war as a continuation of politics by other means. Collins did the same. He wasn't a terrorist any more that any other statesman for doing so.

I also believe that using the language of his opponents to criticise Collins is tacit support for British Thuggary (why not hop off the fence and say British Terrorism. What Lloyd George like to call 'gunning')

couldnt have put it better...

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Here we go again! Why does any criticism of an Irish figure or movement have to be accompanied by criticism of the British? It is preposterous to accuse me of fence sitting.

This is the history section of Boards and I'm told "to get over it" because I question official state history. Bizarre!

However, you seem to agree that there is little moral difference between Collins and Adams.

There has never been an electoral mandate for political violence in Ireland. The revolutionary first Dail has been - probably still is - used as a founding myth for a great deal of undemocratic authoritarianism and consequent political violence as it was the last all-Ireland poll.

I tend not to use the word "terrorist" as a label to condemn but rather as a useful designation for clandestine, non-state actors. It is wearying when debate is reduced to hurling the"terrorist" about as a catcall. I have strong views on the uglier side of British involvement in Ireland. OK, OK, there are those who will react by saying that that all British involvement in Ireland is ugly but you know what I mean.

I know, is gas, it seems that anyone could post a topic on anything and it will come back to the same old topic.

Well I didn't actually accuse you of fence sitting, just of using the language of British propaganda to condemn Collins. You actually called him a murderer which he clearly wasn't and sounds like the murder gangs quote of Lloyd George. You also didn't explain, and I've never come across an explanation by you of why you think he or anyone else involved in the war is a murderer so get over it is a fair response. Besides all that, using the word terrorist at all is giving an opinion. The word is so loaded that its impossible to use in a neutral way. Calling someone a good terrorist is an oxymoran. Its also from a neutral viewpoint a meaningless label since all states recognize the legitimacy of war and terror is the very nature of war. My guess is that if you are neutral then you would stay of of discussions like this. You mix it up with the rest of us so you are not and you are not on one side so its natural to assume you are on the other.

Regards your opinions on the First Dail, true, people were not voting for a war when they voted for Sinn Fein. They were voting for a separatist party whose goal from the beginning was to create our own functions of state which would usurp the functions of the British state in Ireland. Given that the Irish Volunteers threw their support behind SF my instinct is to credit people with a bit on intelligence and assume they knew that some sort of violent struggle would be the likely outcome.

Regards Adams and Collins, I personally like both of them so I definitely don't see much of a moral difference between them. I guess thats where i diverge from official history. They are very different from each other though. Like it or not Collins was an elected representative. He was a member of a government and enjoyed mass support and while in his role as DI of the IRA he may have moved in the shadows, the Dail attempted to remain overground and definitely out of the shadows until it was forced to stop meeting by the aggression of the British authorities. The Irish at the time had a bit of a mania for democracy. The GAA is an extremely democtratic organisation. Don't know much about the Gaelic league but I'm guessing the same. Internally, the IRA was too with units choosing officers and AGMs at which every unit was represented to discuss policy. The legitimate government of the day were the ones who subverted democtratic rule by letting themselves be swayed by the Army in the Curragh mutiny or the UVF in the north.

Jackie laughlin

I assure you I wasn't thinking about Llloyd George's choice of words, when I was writing. However, I'd have no problem describing them as "murder gangs". It seems accurate rather than British propaganda. "Assassination squads" would do as well. The point is that SF/IRA has a continuous history of assuming in an authoritarian way that it repesents the Irish people. I heard Ruairi O'Bradaigh in interview claim that they represented the Irish people living, dead and yet to come!

The problem with throwing the term "terrorist" about as an insult is that it leaves discussion short of a term to describe clandestine, non-state violence. In conversation I've had to say, "OK, let's call them X! Now get on with the discussion."

SF have been fortunate in their opponents as the British could be relied upon to be cruel and incompetent in the face of unpopular violence. The protracted executions in 1916 generated public sympathy and then they locked hundreds of rebels up in mutually supportive company.The British learned nothing, repeating the mistake over and over again for the greater part of a century, turning self-aggrandising, barbarians into folk heroes.

Incidentally, election doesn't make something moral or legitimate. This has arisen in many threads here concerning Haughey, Ferris, Cooper-Flynn, Lawlor etc. etc.

Tankman

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I assure you I wasn't thinking about Llloyd George's choice of words, when I was writing. However, I'd have no problem describing them as "murder gangs". It seems accurate rather than British propaganda. "Assassination squads" would do as well. The point is that SF/IRA has a continuous history of assuming in an authoritarian way that it repesents the Irish people. I heard Ruairi O'Bradaigh in interview claim that they represented the Irish people living, dead and yet to come!

The problem with throwing the term "terrorist" about as an insult is that it leaves discussion short of a term to describe clandestine, non-state violence. In conversation I've had to say, "OK, let's call them X! Now get on with the discussion."

SF have been fortunate in their opponents as the British could be relied upon to be cruel and incompetent in the face of unpopular violence. The protracted executions in 1916 generated public sympathy and then they locked hundreds of rebels up in mutually supportive company.The British learned nothing, repeating the mistake over and over again for the greater part of a century, turning self-aggrandising, barbarians into folk heroes.

Incidentally, election doesn't make something moral or legitimate. This has arisen in many threads here concerning Haughey, Ferris, Cooper-Flynn, Lawlor etc. etc.

well said but comparing haughey to the terrorists in the ira is wrong. it doesnt do you any good only makes you look stupid. in 1919 the british gov was the only governement of ireland. the sf/ira did not have the authority of anyone. the irish people were fooled into believing they deserved independence by a bunch of pschopaths.

eroo

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I assure you I wasn't thinking about Llloyd George's choice of words, when I was writing. However, I'd have no problem describing them as "murder gangs". It seems accurate rather than British propaganda. "Assassination squads" would do as well. The point is that SF/IRA has a continuous history of assuming in an authoritarian way that it repesents the Irish people. I heard Ruairi O'Bradaigh in interview claim that they represented the Irish people living, dead and yet to come!

The problem with throwing the term "terrorist" about as an insult is that it leaves discussion short of a term to describe clandestine, non-state violence. In conversation I've had to say, "OK, let's call them X! Now get on with the discussion."

SF have been fortunate in their opponents as the British could be relied upon to be cruel and incompetent in the face of unpopular violence. The protracted executions in 1916 generated public sympathy and then they locked hundreds of rebels up in mutually supportive company.The British learned nothing, repeating the mistake over and over again for the greater part of a century, turning self-aggrandising, barbarians into folk heroes.

Incidentally, election doesn't make something moral or legitimate. This has arisen in many threads here concerning Haughey, Ferris, Cooper-Flynn, Lawlor etc. etc.

barbarians.the way ye are speaking makes it sound like ye are revisionists who arent thinking of the time of which we are speaking.back then things were much different.we cant understand what it was like;to be under british rule,to have to emigrate for a good future,to be unemployed;and to be ruled by a Conservative Govt who were dire supporters of Unionists.remember Bonar Law's famous speech in which he said he'd support the Unionists resistance to Home Rule,no matter what form this resistance might take.fact is they believed that HR would never be achieved(after it being shelved because of outbreak of WW1) and that now physical force should be used again to try and get independence.sure they didnt have evryones support,but they(SF/IRA) wouldnt have succeeded if they had no support.you are looking at this issue in todays terms,back then political violence was commonplace whereas nowadays it is a rare thing(how many uprisings/rebellions have there been recently?).so by calling IRA/Leaders of Rising 'barbarians,you are also calling the founders of USA,France and many other countries(including Britain) barbarians

eroo

Jackie laughlin

I most certainly didn't liken CJH to the IRA. I listed a number of wrongdoers whose actions remain wrong and their election does not exonerate them.

I would embrace the term revisionist if it means rejecting official state lies and mythmaking.

Of course it is essential to look at the historical context in which events took place. However, it is now commonplace to justify crime by saying that it was acceptable at the time. (Indeed, this is the line taken by those who wish to whitewash child abuse.)

Your description of forced emigration and unemployment reminded me of independent Ireland up to, say, 1970 and again in the 80s.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I assure you I wasn't thinking about Llloyd George's choice of words, when I was writing. However, I'd have no problem describing them as "murder gangs". It seems accurate rather than British propaganda. "Assassination squads" would do as well. The point is that SF/IRA has a continuous history of assuming in an authoritarian way that it repesents the Irish people. I heard Ruairi O'Bradaigh in interview claim that they represented the Irish people living, dead and yet to come!

The problem with throwing the term "terrorist" about as an insult is that it leaves discussion short of a term to describe clandestine, non-state violence. In conversation I've had to say, "OK, let's call them X! Now get on with the discussion."

SF have been fortunate in their opponents as the British could be relied upon to be cruel and incompetent in the face of unpopular violence. The protracted executions in 1916 generated public sympathy and then they locked hundreds of rebels up in mutually supportive company.The British learned nothing, repeating the mistake over and over again for the greater part of a century, turning self-aggrandising, barbarians into folk heroes.

Incidentally, election doesn't make something moral or legitimate. This has arisen in many threads here concerning Haughey, Ferris, Cooper-Flynn, Lawlor etc. etc.

Barbarians eh! Harsh words there, and questionable considering the state the self aggrandizing barbarians were fighting against. (which calls itself 'Great', a pretty pompous act of self aggrandizement itself) But then they won their empire in a fit of absence of mind didn't they?

And why doesn't an election legitimize their actions? I find it ironic that you say elections don't make something moral or legitimate which was an argument used by the anti-treaty side in the civil war. Its strange also that you say this and then castigate SF for being authoritarian.

O'Bradigh and his group have minimal support and are not even in the habit of contesting elections. He is irrelevant and having to resort to mentioning his shows how convoluted and weak your case seems to be.

Jackie laughlin

Laura,
You don't seriously think that I would defend imperialism?

I'm much more concerned about the bahaviour of my fellow Irish.

O'Bradaigh is side-lined now but his was the dominant view for a long time and as far as I can see is still a view held by some. Moreover, for most of its history SF/IRA has boycotted elections.

It is very common to try to dismiss criticism by pointing to the fact of election. I accept that e.g. Beverly Cooper Flynn and Michael Lowry were elected. That indicates that some people approve of their actions but it does't mean that we all have to.

Tankman

imperialism in an irish context was a good thing though. it gave us a great railway system which succesuve and stupid governements destroyed. it also gave dublin impressive archtetecture, like georgian dublin for instance. it gave the land to people who could cultivate it and drove the savages off. it brought civilisation to ireland before that ireland was inhabited by primivite savages with silly superstitious rituals and no good culture. without imperialism we would still be little better than monkeys.

Erin Go Brath

Tankman wrote: »

imperialism in an irish context was a good thing though. it gave us a great railway system which succesuve and stupid governements destroyed. it also gave dublin impressive archtetecture, like georgian dublin for instance. it gave the land to people who could cultivate it and drove the savages off. it brought civilisation to ireland before that ireland was inhabited by primivite savages with silly superstitious rituals and no good culture. without imperialism we would still be little better than monkeys.

Well done on most idiotic post of the year. :rolleyes:

You obviously have little interest in Irelands heritage. Imperialism ruined a lot of our culture and identity. It has been restored somewhat by organisations like the Gaelic league, and Gaelic Athletic Association amongst others.

Why doesn't the whole world come together and become one big bland England! Would that make you happy?

PS. Why don't you go live in England if you think your countrymen are nothing more than monkeys. We don't want to hold you back, the bunch of primitive mucksavages that we are. :rolleyes:

McArmalite

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Well done on most idiotic post of the year. :rolleyes:

You obviously have little interest in Irelands heritage. Imperialism ruined a lot of our culture and identity. It has been restored somewhat by organisations like the Gaelic league, and Gaelic Athletic Association amongst others.

Why doesn't the whole world come together and become one big bland England! Would that make you happy?

PS. Why don't you go live in England if you think your countrymen are nothing more than monkeys. We don't want to hold you back, the bunch of primitive mucksavages that we are. :rolleyes:

I think he's only trying to be funny, just ignore it.

PHB

Tankman wrote: »

it brought civilisation to ireland before that ireland was inhabited by primivite savages with silly superstitious rituals and no good culture.

That post is just utterly lacking in any historical knowledge. If you actual look at the political culture at the time of the English invasion, Ireland compares favourably to most European nations in terms of advancement. That said, don't let facts get in the way

Jackie laughlin

For once I agree with McA. However, I want to make three brief points.

Irish culture - or perhaps more accurately advanced culture in Ireland - goes back millennia. There should be no question of an Irish person feeling anything but priviliged to identify with Ireland.

There was no English invasion.

Irish independence has been doing a pretty good job of re-producing England in Ireland. Take a look inside e.g. the Jervis St. Shopping Centre. Think of our Taoiseach "supporting" Man. U. apparently unaware of two Eircom League teams in his constituency.

conor2007

its better than people who have uda/uvf pics up


i dont use bebo , so dont say **** bout me

jackie lughlin - ''there was no english invasion''

so what were the plantations ?????????????

Erin Go Brath

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Irish culture - or perhaps more accurately advanced culture in Ireland - goes back millennia. There should be no question of an Irish person feeling anything but priviliged to identify with Ireland.

I agree with you, for a change.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

There was no English invasion.

More revisionism.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Irish independence has been doing a pretty good job of re-producing England in Ireland. Take a look inside e.g. the Jervis St. Shopping Centre. Think of our Taoiseach "supporting" Man. U. apparently unaware of two Eircom League teams in his constituency.

TG4, Gaelic Games, Irish music, Irish dancing, Irish films, Irish plays, Irish literature, Irish becoming official language of EU, Irish compulsory in schools. Irish culture is alive and well.

Man U, Liverpool etc have many supporters in Australia, Singapore, China, America just about every country in the world. Its hardly surprising they have supporters in the country next door where fans can travel over a number of times every year to see high profile players and teams.

Jackie laughlin

For the love of God, how could a plantation be confused with an invasion?

Now, you know how I love to be called a revisionist! Yep, I'm doing my bit to counteract the official state myth making and if that's revisionism, that's fine by me. It's long past time the truth were told.

OK, tell me: When did the ENGLISH invade Ireland?

I don't think you quite understand what it means to Support a team.

Shutuplaura

Out of interest what would you consider the alll the landings of armed men from England to have been if not invasions? True McMurrough invited the Normans over in 1169 but given it was the start of territorial claims by the Kings of England in Ireland I don't think its too harsh to characterize it as an invasion. Strongbow claimed the throne on McMurrough's death through his mariage to Aoife but this was illegal under gaelic brehon law which didn't use the Norman system of primogeneture.

In 1172 Henry II came over himself and was declared Lord of Ireland (by a Pope, the Irish were not consulted). This widened the scope of the initial intervention and could really be considered a second invasion.

So why can't these be considered invasions? true, they were Norman rather than English but they are the root of all later interventions by the English in Ireland and a Norman was King of England so while its not 100% correct, it aint that far from the truth.

Shutuplaura

And also, as I'm at it, the plantations didn't happen in a bubble and each was preceded by another war which could have been charateriszed as an invasion.

The Geraldine wars in the 16th century, the Nine Years War, the Cromwelliam conquest of ireland (now why wasn't this one in particular an invasion?) and the Williamite wars. Each could be considered an invasion becasue they all involved the forceable occupation of territory that was de facto independant from crown Rule.

Shutuplaura

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

O'Bradaigh is side-lined now but his was the dominant view for a long time and as far as I can see is still a view held by some. Moreover, for most of its history SF/IRA has boycotted elections.

Sinn Fein, they were a pretty marginal party for much of their existance but they expressed the feelings of the country in 1919 which is why they did so well. You can't criticise the First Dail becasue SF didn't have too much support 30 years later.

It also didn't boycott elections consistantly. It even had a number of abstentionist TD's in the 1950's.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

It is very common to try to dismiss criticism by pointing to the fact of election. I accept that e.g. Beverly Cooper Flynn and Michael Lowry were elected. That indicates that some people approve of their actions but it does't mean that we all have to.

They are individual TD's and not a national movement or party so what you are saying here is questionable. The fact is that revisionism which you espouse dogmatically tries to de-legitimise the first Dail. Up to a point they are correct becasue the actions of the first Dail were illegal in the UK. However, as a viewpoint it doesn't take the fact that people knew what they were voting for into account and as a viewpoint it rides roughshod over everyday peoples wants and desires. You don't have to approve of their actions but you can't claim their representatives were murderers when they were not by any streach of the immagination. They felt they were a government and they certainly had a mandate to act like one. Evidence is also there that people continued to treat them like the government of the country after the election. They also supported the IRA and probably more people supported it than didn't at any one time.

Erin Go Brath

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Now, you know how I love to be called a revisionist! Yep, I'm doing my bit to counteract the official state myth making and if that's revisionism, that's fine by me. It's long past time the truth were told.

Or your peculiar slant maybe.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

OK, tell me: When did the ENGLISH invade Ireland?

Shutuplaura explains this very well. Your contentious slant holds absolutely no water i'm afraid.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand what it means to Support a team.

I take your point about Bertie not supporting his local team. I know what it means to support a team don't worry. I used to travel into 'town' to support my local team Limerick Fc for years back when I was living at home. Two men a dog in Rathbane on a freezing January evening, Oh the memories. Don't get the chance to go much these days, being in Dublin. I mostly just go to hurling games and the odd Munster rugby when I get the chance. Fair play to you if you do go and support your local EL team regularly though.

Tankman

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Well done on most idiotic post of the year. :rolleyes:

You obviously have little interest in Irelands heritage. Imperialism ruined a lot of our culture and identity. It has been restored somewhat by organisations like the Gaelic league, and Gaelic Athletic Association amongst others.

Why doesn't the whole world come together and become one big bland England! Would that make you happy?

PS. Why don't you go live in England if you think your countrymen are nothing more than monkeys. We don't want to hold you back, the bunch of primitive mucksavages that we are. :rolleyes:

we alredy are english just look at the taioseach, he watches football for christ sake. imperialism in ireland was a beningn force for good. it brouhgt many technological advances.

it also brought the potato(which irish people couldn't even grow properly:rolleyes:)

as for the gaa, well the football is just the worst bits of soccer and rugby combined with a bit of boxing and hurling is just a few men beating each other with sticks. no skill there.

the gaelic irish language is a primitive thing with no modern vocabulary. look at the word for car just a makey up english word.

Tankman

PHB wrote:

That post is just utterly lacking in any historical knowledge. If you actual look at the political culture at the time of the English invasion, Ireland compares favourably to most European nations in terms of advancement. That said, don't let facts get in the way

show me the evidence then. yuo just a silly deluded nationalist who hates all things english. as i said primitive mucksavages.

Fratton Fred

Tankman wrote: »

show me the evidence then. yuo just a silly deluded nationalist who hates all things english. as i said primitive mucksavages.

Not another suicide troll:eek:

If you are going to rant, please at least improve your spelling and grammer. I'm not sure how you can call someone a primitive mucksavage when you don't appear to know where the shift key is:rolleyes:

Tankman

Fratton Fred wrote:

Not another suicide troll:eek:

If you are going to rant, please at least improve your spelling and grammer. I'm not sure how you can call someone a primitive mucksavage when you don't appear to know where the shift key is:rolleyes:

please accept my apologies you see my lack of typing is because i was miseducated in irelkand by christian brothers. they tried to beat into us a hatred of all things english and how to say the rosary. they never thought us about the shift key.

also it is a bit hypocritical of you to give out about my bad typing when yoiu cant even spell grammar.

Fratton Fred

Tankman wrote: »

please accept my apologies you see my lack of typing is because i was miseducated in irelkand by christian brothers. they tried to beat into us a hatred of all things english and how to say the rosary. they never thought us about the shift key.

also it is a bit hypocritical of you to give out about my bad typing when yoiu cant even spell grammar.

I agree, spell check would be nice:o

Jackie laughlin

Wow! Things have heated up here!

Tankman,
While -like me - you are a credit to the Christian Brothers, you fail to give the English credit for the introduction of the couch to Ireland.

Erin,
Please accept my apologies for saying that you did not understand the nature of support for a team. You, I think like me, support your local team/s but watch foreign teams. You may prefer to see one foreign team rather than another win - as I do - but you know that is not support. Bertie doesn't get this at all.

Laura,
You really are being pedantic. The assertion has now shifted firstly to an "invasion FROM England" and secondly to describe virtually all assaults in which the Gaels lost out as an English invasion. You even include English civil wars! You are going back to the 12th century; at this early stage you cannot even talk about the Irish as an integrated, self aware people - never mind the English.

"Dogmatic revisionist" is an oxymoron.

I don't think I said anything in particular about the 1st Dail. It has been used by some pseudo-republican nutters, however, in a bizarre argument to try to say that every subsequent election in Ireland was not legitimate.

Uh oh! "National movement"? Do you mean a political party or something else?

I take your point that there is some difference between voting for a criminal standing as an independent and voting for one standing for a party. However, what I'm against is acceptance of the argument that being elected justifies anything. Cooper Flynn and Lowry argue that they have been vindicated by the people. One Provo argues that the SF vote vindicates the violence. Another Provo argues that the SF vote vindicates the "peace process"*. Election doesn't effect the argument about wrongdoing.

* By the way, does anyone know what is the difference between a "peace process" and peace?