Fight or not?

shqipshume

Ok because of the posts i have seen trying to spit on Irish rebels who fought for Ireland freedom and died.And yes killed in process of retrieving that freedom.Because they wouldn't back down and fought with every breath in their bodies,May they rest in peace

i wanted to know what those people and everyone else would do if it happened again?

i wanted to do a poll on it but there is none.


So come on ,all you against the fighting and killing in our war against British to expel them.
What would have been your approach or would you have stayed like that, and never had any freedom and been slaves rest of your lives?

Fight or no fight?

mike65

Are you expecting it to happen again?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Very little is ever achieved through violence. It's claimed that the 1916 rebellion led to the Free State, but Home Rule was on the cards anyway, so there's no reason exactly the same settlement couldn't have been arrived at through peaceful negotiation as was achieved after years of slaughter.

So, no: as long as there's any possibility of achieving my aims through negotiation, I won't fight. I can't think of a political ideal that's worth killing another human being for.

diverdriver

It's as oscarbravo says. There never was a need to fight. We had independence in the bag without fighting. Home Rule was due, that inevitably would have led to independence. None of the fighting was neccessary. All those people died for nothing.

It's the same in the North now, or was. 30 years of killing did nothing except cause bitterness. The peace process will eventually bring a United Ireland.

Why do you want to continue fighting the Brits?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ticktactoe

diverdriver wrote: »

It's the same in the North now, or was. 30 years of killing did nothing except cause bitterness. The peace process will eventually bring a United Ireland.

Why do you want to continue fighting the Brits?

Is that what the Brits think too would you say?

Pandcoa

oscarBravo wrote: »

Very little is ever achieved through violence

I think thats a very idealised and narrow view. While you mightn't agree with the use of violence you cannot deny that it is one the oldest tools in mankind of achieving and maintaining power. As Mao Tse Tung said "Power comes from the barrel of a gun", not a very nice thing to hear but his country and other totalitarian regimes are proof of it. There is debate on how legitimite this authority can be and if it can ever be maintained through violence, but none the less Empires around the world have ruled for centuries and changed the culture and people dramatically of many countries through their main use of an Iron fist

nuttz

oscarBravo wrote: »

Very little is ever achieved through violence. It's claimed that the 1916 rebellion led to the Free State, but Home Rule was on the cards anyway, so there's no reason exactly the same settlement couldn't have been arrived at through peaceful negotiation as was achieved after years of slaughter.

So, no: as long as there's any possibility of achieving my aims through negotiation, I won't fight. I can't think of a political ideal that's worth killing another human being for.

Home rule may have been on the cards, but by no means did that mean that Home rule was going to happen. From my understanding looking at that time and the British history it's hard to see that Home rule could have happened.

oscarBravo

Pandcoa wrote: »

I think thats a very idealised and narrow view. While you mightn't agree with the use of violence you cannot deny that it is one the oldest tools in mankind of achieving and maintaining power. As Mao Tse Tung said "Power comes from the barrel of a gun", not a very nice thing to hear but his country and other totalitarian regimes are proof of it. There is debate on how legitimite this authority can be and if it can ever be maintained through violence, but none the less Empires around the world have ruled for centuries and changed the culture and people dramatically of many countries through their main use of an Iron fist

Fair enough. I'll rephrase: very little that's worth being proud of is achieved through violence, and of that which is, the bulk of it could probably have been achieved through non-violent means with a better outcome for everyone concerned.

oscarBravo

nuttz wrote: »

Home rule may have been on the cards, but by no means did that mean that Home rule was going to happen. From my understanding looking at that time and the British history it's hard to see that Home rule could have happened.

No-one can ever say what would have happened, but there was a steady momentum towards Home Rule. Once the political impetus towards something becomes irresistible, it's pretty much going to happen.

nuttz

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think you'l find, if you read about the era that it was more than some nationalists. To call the people who fought at that time "obsessed with a cult of blood sacrifice" is disrespectful. They fought for their lives, have you heard of the Black and Tans or are you just referring to the civil war?

ionix5891

this guy here managed to get the British out without resorting to violence (killing civilians, police officers and/or army)


i am not sure what you are trying to achieve with this thread, but the recent killings and now this thread are making me very suspisous of certain elements trying to stir up **** and in the process "spit on Irish rebels who fought for Ireland freedom and died."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nuttz

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about the rest of my post, have you heard of the black and tans?

Don't bother answering, I'm bored of this.
If I was in the same situation as my grand father and his brother was when he was tied to gate to be shot, yes I think I would want to fight.

jank

but Home Rule was on the cards anyway, so there's no reason exactly the same settlement couldn't have been arrived at through peaceful negotiation as was achieved after years of slaughter.

True in some ways. The unionists in the north were dead set against Home Rule where a civil war was very much on the cards and some agrue that the war of independance was the lesser of 2 evils in that regard. But who knows.
Saying that full independance was around the corner is a bit short sighted IMO.

Anyway fighting now is useless in todays climate.

If you want to study this topic then you have to look back to the Act of union of 1800 (or further back) and how the british saw the Irish back then as a inferior race.

Sure Austraila, Canada and other "colonies" (dont forget that we were viewed as a colony of sorts to the british) had more voting rights then Ireland up until 1921. So in part if they listened to us then alot of this mess might never have happened.

It was a bit of a sham. They didnt want to give us our own parliament because it would proceed to destroy the empire but by denying a country that right it hardened opinion and made us a model where others followed (India etc), thus destroying the empire.

Full independance from the british was anything but on the cards until 1921.

segaBOY

shqipshume wrote: »

Ok because of the posts i have seen trying to spit on Irish rebels who fought for Ireland freedom and died.And yes killed in process of retrieving that freedom.Because they wouldn't back down and fought with every breath in their bodies,May they rest in peace

i wanted to know what those people and everyone else would do if it happened again?

i wanted to do a poll on it but there is none.


So come on ,all you against the fighting and killing in our war against British to expel them.
What would have been your approach or would you have stayed like that, and never had any freedom and been slaves rest of your lives?

Fight or no fight?

I'll answer the question,

Fight.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Home Rule had already been achieved without bloodshed. British rule around the era wasnt overly oppressive - the various Irish militant groups drilling around the country and making blood curdling pronouncements werent exactly a major secret but prior to the 1916 rising the British operated fairly hands off policy with regard to them, hoping to avoid any escalation.

The Irish Free State that was settled for after years of needless violence, blood and embitterment [ look at Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, even to this day] wasnt significantly much of an upgrade over the Home Rule that was already on the table. And like the Irish Free State was gradually built into the Irish Republic we currently have [ without anyone being killed] Irish home rule could and would have developed too.

But violence was probably inevitable - Irish republicanism has always been on a mission from God. What Irish people think is irrelevant. What Irish people suffer is irrelevant. Certain secret societies appoint themselves enjoy murder and killing and the sense of empowerment it gives them. Its very hard to stop them when they want to murder people for some cause or other.

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

If you want to study this topic then you have to look back to the Act of union of 1800 (or further back) and how the british saw the Irish back then as a inferior race.

I've studied this topic all the way back to the Normans and beyond. If you're going to talk about the British attitude to the Irish, you have to compare their attitude in 1800 to their attitude in 1916. If you accept that it had changed (and it had, and the pace of that change was accelerating), then you can only conclude that Home Rule was all but inevitable. Once Home Rule was in place, there was no major impediment to independence. Partition was always going to happen, and those who thought it could be avoided were delusional.

turgon

shqipshume wrote: »

Fight or no fight?

The usual attitude of Irish nationalists: your either with us or against us. Its ridiculous borderline sad.

The other posters said it all: Home rule was undoubtedly going to be introduced, in fact if I remember it kind of was in 1920 in the North? As in the act to partition Ireland has provisions for self-governance?

EDIT: I think Im right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1920

jank wrote: »

So in part if they listened to us then alot of this mess might never have happened.

If they listened to us there would have been no Famine and no war, if we were treated as equals theres a high probability we would see ourselves now as half British half Irish, instead of trying to position ourselves as something distinctly different to our neighbors.

And we never got "full independence" until 1949, I dont see how that has anything to do with 1921. The Republic of Ireland act of that year (came into force then, even though passed in 1948) repealed the external relations act of 1936 which was passed two days after the new constitution to and placed Ireland within the commonwealth, ie: under the king

junder

segaBOY wrote: »

I'll answer the question,

Fight.

Big words, easy said, in the cause of fighting your are going to have to kill people, so lets personlise this, i am a Brit, would you be prepared to kill me. Its easy to use words like fight when your enemy is a namelss faceless person you can, alot harder when you have to face up to them being a living breathing person

P. Breathnach

There seems to be an assumption, held by many in this and similar discussions in this forum, that a united Ireland is a good thing. But let us remember that there are almost a million people in Northern Ireland who are identified with a different point of view.

So long as they don't want to be part of a united Ireland, I don't want it forced on them. Not only is it a form of oppression, it is also very dangerous.

Liam Byrne

Bigger question - fight dirty or fight clean ?

Fighting people that are physically attacking you : fight.

Shooting people collecting a pizza, or in the back of the head, or blowing up people doing their shopping : that's not even "fighting"; it's picking on a soft target because you don't have the courage to fight.

It also, of course, depends on what you're fighting "for"; shooting a Garda while robbing people's money = "fighting" for cash that you're not entitled to = thug/common criminal.

So, OP, similar to the post above re "faceless, nameless people" and generalising, give us examples of actual individuals and I'd reckon that you'd get a huge variety of answers; noble people who fought when threatened would probably get at least some thumbs-up (even if people didn't quite agree with their tactics or decisions) whereas anyone involved in crime, unwanted violence, racism, sectarianism or intimidation would get a thumbs-down.

turgon

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So long as they don't want to be part of a united Ireland, I don't want it forced on them. Not only is it a form of oppression, it is also very dangerous.

But apparently oppression is only bad when the Brits are doing it to us.

Nodin

shqipshume wrote: »

Fight or no fight?

Fight, if nessecary.

wes

I would only ever fight in self defense. Otherwise the peaceful option is more desirable.

shqipshume

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Bigger question - fight dirty or fight clean ?

Fighting people that are physically attacking you : fight.

Shooting people collecting a pizza, or in the back of the head, or blowing up people doing their shopping : that's not even "fighting"; it's picking on a soft target because you don't have the courage to fight.

It also, of course, depends on what you're fighting "for"; shooting a Garda while robbing people's money = "fighting" for cash that you're not entitled to = thug/common criminal.

So, OP, similar to the post above re "faceless, nameless people" and generalising, give us examples of actual individuals and I'd reckon that you'd get a huge variety of answers; noble people who fought when threatened would probably get at least some thumbs-up (even if people didn't quite agree with their tactics or decisions) whereas anyone involved in crime, unwanted violence, racism, sectarianism or intimidation would get a thumbs-down.

Yeah that's what i mean,people just jump in and assume i am trying to say bomb people like omagh,i am against that.I meant like fighting for your country against any invasion from another force or having to fight them to get them out.
War is war tho and if you have to fight would you fight or would you hide and wait then call the people like who did fight before the 1916 rising terrorists and murderers,
I think i heard a saying once (with their pitch forks and shovels nothing more they fought them to regain their land and dignity)
Then we go to the logic so were the British soldiers and those so called innocent black and tans :rolleyes: who only collected the ten shillings that's all nothing more they did.:D

mike65

junder wrote: »

Big words, easy said, in the cause of fighting your are going to have to kill people, so lets personlise this, i am a Brit, would you be prepared to kill me. Its easy to use words like fight when your enemy is a namelss faceless person you can, alot harder when you have to face up to them being a living breathing person

Indeed will he shoot me as well?

shqipshume

mike65 wrote: »

Are you expecting it to happen again?

I am just asking a question,I hope not!

shqipshume

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Here you go quote
If a police barracks is burned or if the barracks already occupied is not suitable, then the best house in the locality is to be commandeered, the occupants thrown into the gutter. Let them die there – the more the merrier.

Should the order ("Hands Up") not be immediately obeyed, shoot and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching (a patrol) carry their hands in their pockets, or are in any way suspicious-looking, shoot them down. You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man." Lt. Col. Smyth, June 1920
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/black_and_tans.htm

segaBOY

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Most of them were NCOs

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

segaBOY

junder wrote: »

Big words, easy said, in the cause of fighting your are going to have to kill people, so lets personlise this, i am a Brit, would you be prepared to kill me. Its easy to use words like fight when your enemy is a namelss faceless person you can, alot harder when you have to face up to them being a living breathing person

Well my great grandfather fought and as far as I know blood was shed at the hands of my relatives who also fought in the Cork brigades, if you were a "Brit" in the circumstances of the War of Independence I'm sure I would have killed you or you would have killed me if the situation arose.

Having said that I don't have a problem with British people and am planning to work in the UK soon, and furthermore I don't have a problem with you being a brit either!!!

shqipshume

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh yeah so what,:rolleyes:
i have nothing further to say to you!

shqipshume

segaBOY wrote: »

Well my great grandfather fought and as far as I know blood was shed at the hands of my relatives who also fought in the Cork brigades, if you were a "Brit" in the circumstances of the War of Independence I'm sure I would have killed you or you would have killed me if the situation arose.

Having said that I don't have a problem with British people and am planning to work in the UK soon, and furthermore I don't have a problem with you being a brit either!!!

Thanks at least i have two who know what i mean

segaBOY

shqipshume wrote: »

Thanks at least i have two who know what i mean

No problem

To all the rest:

It's very easy to sit at your computer and condemn violent methods etc. but peaceful methods don't always work. Home rule was supposed to be granted but was withdrawn due to WWI and the only alternative was to fight. We basically had no real representation bar a few seats in West Minister and local councils. People wanted Home Rule, the Brits weren't prepared to grant it.

I admire all those who fought for our freedom (whatever form that may be). After all many men put their lives on the line and endured torture, putting their family at risk and severe economic hardship for the cause.

As I say it is very easy to sit at your computer and disagree with violence etc etc but without such a resistance by the Volunteers we'd arguebly be on boards.co.uk now.

gurramok

mike65 wrote: »

Indeed will he shoot me as well?

Scenario of you been in the British army in Ireland in 1916 or in the War of Independence - yes.
That's not personal, it's a part of an insurrection for my nations fight for freedom. My grandfather did partake and I would of too if i was around back then. It would be an act against an occupiers army which had been oppressing my nation for centuries.

oscarBravo wrote:

I've studied this topic all the way back to the Normans and beyond. If you're going to talk about the British attitude to the Irish, you have to compare their attitude in 1800 to their attitude in 1916. If you accept that it had changed (and it had, and the pace of that change was accelerating), then you can only conclude that Home Rule was all but inevitable. Once Home Rule was in place, there was no major impediment to independence. Partition was always going to happen, and those who thought it could be avoided were delusional.

Home Rule was not definite on the cards. It was taking already 45 years of first asking and then one asks why should the Irish people wait another 45 years for a parliament of their own?

Offy

shqipshume wrote: »

Ok because of the posts i have seen trying to spit on Irish rebels who fought for Ireland freedom and died.And yes killed in process of retrieving that freedom.Because they wouldn't back down and fought with every breath in their bodies,May they rest in peace

i wanted to know what those people and everyone else would do if it happened again?

i wanted to do a poll on it but there is none.


So come on ,all you against the fighting and killing in our war against British to expel them.
What would have been your approach or would you have stayed like that, and never had any freedom and been slaves rest of your lives?

Fight or no fight?

Firstly, I hate violence.
Secondly I condemn all military personnel and the army that their a part of that target civilians.
Thirdly I have lived in England and made some good friends there, I work with English people here in Ireland and I think they are no different to us.
Fourthly if it happened again as it did donkeys years ago (not bloody likely IMO) I would kill.
Finally OP the British people were never the problem, they were cannon fodder too. 2% of the British own 98% of the wealth. The 2% never fight. Thats why the IRA targeted Canary wharf and the Arndale, the cost of rebuilding them was colossal and who owns them? The 2% not the average Brit.

segaBOY

Offy wrote: »

Firstly, I hate violence.
Secondly I condemn all military personnel and the army that their a part of that target civilians.
Thirdly I have lived in England and made some good friends there, I work with English people here in Ireland and I think they are no different to us.
Fourthly if it happened again as it did donkeys years ago (not bloody likely IMO) I would kill.
Finally OP the British people were never the problem, they were cannon fodder too. 2% of the British own 98% of the wealth. The 2% never fight. Thats why the IRA targeted Canary wharf and the Arndale, the cost of rebuilding them was colossal and who owns them? The 2% not the average Brit.

Exactly, I am the same. I don't dislike British people or blame them for the problem it was British policy in Ireland and lack of liberties for Irish people. The war of independence was the only way to win relative freedom imo.

Offy

segaBOY wrote: »

Exactly, I am the same. I don't dislike British people or blame them for the problem it was British policy in Ireland and lack of liberties for Irish people. The war of independence was the only way to win relative freedom imo.

Heres my thoughts on that.

Why wasnt DeVelera killed by the British in 1916? What passport did he have? Who killed Collins? Were we ever free?

mike65

segaBOY wrote: »

we'd arguebly be on boards.co.uk now.

Close but no cigar www.boards.org.uk

Tableman

It is by no means certain that Home Rule would have been introduced after World War 1.

I would fight if the circumstances were like those in 1916 or 1919-1921 but they are not.

oscarBravo

segaBOY wrote: »

...peaceful methods don't always work. Home rule was supposed to be granted but was withdrawn due to WWI and the only alternative was to fight.

Nope. Another alternative was to continue to use diplomatic and political means.

People wanted Home Rule, the Brits weren't prepared to grant it.

And yet, the Home Rule bill had been passed. How do you interpret that as meaning that the Brits were not prepared to grant Home Rule?

gurramok wrote: »

Home Rule was not definite on the cards. It was taking already 45 years of first asking and then one asks why should the Irish people wait another 45 years for a parliament of their own?

Because it would have involved fewer people dying. Waiting a few years for a parliament of your own is, in my opinion, a small price to pay for not killing thousands of people.

Are you seriously saying the war of independence was a small price to pay for bringing forward the birth of the free state by a few years? Does anyone seriously believe that?

Stephen!

The majority of Irish people did not care about the ideals of the I.R.B. The rising was a complete and utter flop. Had the British not came down so ruthlessly on the rebels, people wouldn't have cared so much either. People blamed the I.R.B for destroying their city and disrupting their lives, but that opinion changed when the British started the executions. If the British had not of executed so many, the IRB could have really damaged any chance of Irish independance through peaceful means. Also, Pearse was an absolute two-faced dickhead, willing to promote bloodshed and sacrifice untill it's his wife in the cross-hairs.

It's amazing how many people these days say how their grandads fought tooth and nail with the British in the War of Independance, but never EVER mention which side they fought on in the Civil War, when they fought tooth and nail with their own people.

Also I sincerely doubt that Catholics in the North would be too quick to leave the union when they have such a good welfare system, and joining a united Ireland would CRUSH our economy... even more!

Since we got independance, all we've got was a bunch of money hungry, greedy politicians looking to help out their rich developer, land owner friends...

shqipshume

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. Another alternative was to continue to use diplomatic and political means. And yet, the Home Rule bill had been passed. How do you interpret that as meaning that the Brits were not prepared to grant Home Rule?

Because it would have involved fewer people dying. Waiting a few years for a parliament of your own is, in my opinion, a small price to pay for not killing thousands of people.

Are you seriously saying the war of independence was a small price to pay for bringing forward the birth of the free state by a few years? Does anyone seriously believe that?

How many thousands died under the British regime?
Give me a break.
God i am all for it under the bridge with English today.
But for the majority of you and your thoughts completly shock me.
I always found this interesting

The Assassins
[SIZE=+1]The fifteen men accused of shooting Collins
[/SIZE]

Despite 25 books, half a dozen TV documentaries or dramas, and over 200 newspaper articles on the subject, there is great confusion over the events of August 22, 1922, the course of the battle at Bealnablath and the identity of who killed Collins. Eoghan Corry lists some of the most famous of the dozens of suspects:

EMMET DALTON
A colleague of Collins wrongly accused of shooting Collins through drink, incompetence, or because he was a British agent, in fact during the ambush he left his Webley .45 revolver on a fence where it was retrieved the following day with all six chambers unfired.
ROBERT ''BOBS'' DOHERTY
Claimed to have been the man who shot Collins when he arrived in the USA in 1925, but in 1987 claimed just to have heard a gun go off and have seen Collins fall.
MIKE DONOGHUE
A Glenflesk man who joined the action as he was returning home from Cork, he claimed in 1985 he had not shot Collins but he had seen the man who did. According to research in Patrick J Twohig's book, ''The Dark Secret of Bealnablath,'' his colleagues might have included James Healy, Mick Murphy, John McGillycuddy, Con Quill, Mick Lynch, or Stephen McGrath, among others.
SEAN GALVIN
He had been patrolling the hill on horseback and galloped in to the action when the shooting started. He brought the word to the anti-Free State meeting in a nearby house that Collins had been shot, and later claimed to have shot Collins himself.
TOM HALES
Leader of the ambush party and brother of the Free State commander accompanying Collins, he appears to have been making his escape when Collins was shot.
JIM HURLEY
Fired a Mauser at the car in which Collins was travelling, shattering the windscreen and stopping the clock, and giving Emmet Dalton the impression they were under machine gun fire. Some maintain Collins was killed by a Mauser bullet, but Hurley is said to have left the ambush by the time Collins was hit.
PETE KEARNEY
With six colleagues he chanced on the action on his way back to Newcestown. He told a priest before he died that he thought he had shot Collins, and recalled firing a single shot at a man on the road during the ambush. He was positioned elsewhere by other witnesses, also firing the fatal shot. After the war he went to America and returned to business in Dublin where he died.
TOM KELLEHER
The man blamed by Garda Sergeant John Hickey in his official enquiry for the killing of Collins, he fired the warning shot when Collins' convoy approached and inadvertently started the battle before the road-block had been reached. He claimed he did not shoot at, only towards the enemy on the day, and instead blamed British agents for shooting Collins.
JOHN McPEAK
The machine gunner on the Slievenamon fought on Collins' side during the ambush, but became the object of suspicion when he later defected to the Republicans. After a short period his machine gun no longer worked and he had to fire off single shots like a rifle. He was arrested and spent six months in prison for the theft of the Slievenamon but was an unlikely assassin.
JOE MURPHY
A Lissarda man from another brigade was firing slantwise from a position at the next bend when Collins was killed. He brought the news of the killing to a local house, and said on the evening of the ambush that he thought he might have shot Collins.
DAN O'CONNOR
Limerick-man Maurice MacNamara recalled how, as an anti-treaty IRA arbitration court judge, he had presided over the court martial of a a man accused of shooting Michael Collins. Dan O'Connor from Glenflesk was dismissed from the anti-treaty forces, went to the USA in 1925, and returned two years later to live in Rathmore.
DENIS ''SONNY'' O'NEILL
The current favourite suspect in a 1988 television documentary and two of the last three books on Collins. An ex British army marksman, He told Jim Kearney the morning after the ambush that it was he had shot Collins, and ten years later told a female friend, Kitty Teehan, that he had shot Collins. The testimony was delivered to revolutionary and Irish Press journalist Maire Comerford, and featured in Colm Connolly's television documentary, although others claimed that he was not engaged at the time Collins was shot. He died in 1950.
JIMMY ORMOND
A Lismore man, he came in from the south-west with a Waterford group when he heard the firing ''in the hope of capturing a truck.'' He claimed in New York in 1926 that he fired directly at Collins with a Lee Enfield and saw him fall.
JAMES SHEEHAN
A clerical student who was with Bobs Doherty when Doherty heard the fatal shot, he disappeared after Bealnablath and went to live in the USA before returning to Knockatagil, Kilcummin, Kerry, where he died in 1985. MR X, BRITISH AGENT
Reinforcing a theory that first emerged within days of the shooting, evidence that British agents had killed Collins which will become available when an unnamed source has passed them on is mentioned in Tim Pat Coogan's 1990 biography of Collins. The results of the official investigation into the shooting were destroyed by the outgoing Free State government in 1932

http://www.iol.ie/~obrienc/assassins.htm

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

diverdriver

You know it's obvious that many of the posters here including the OP don't even know the history of their own country. I suspect a lot of them are simply regurgitating stuff they were told third hand by relatives with a bit of half remembered school history thrown in to be inflamed by stuff they read on the net.

I would suggest that shqipshume and others go and buy or borrow (or steal) a couple of books dealing with the era around 1916. There are plenty. It won't do you any harm to read about the reality of the situation around that time. You would do well to read any Irish history book. If you have any kind of open mind, you'll find that not everything is as black and white as you think. Maybe you won't be quite so shocked at people having opinions different to your own.

It won't make you love the British either but at least it might actually stop people being so bitter about something that happened centuries ago and actually has no impact on their lives today.

shqipshume

Thanks but i know all my history thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because it would have involved fewer people dying. Waiting a few years for a parliament of your own is, in my opinion, a small price to pay for not killing thousands of people.

Are you seriously saying the war of independence was a small price to pay for bringing forward the birth of the free state by a few years? Does anyone seriously believe that?

Why would there be trust after so many years? It took maybe best of a couple of centuries for the majority of the population to have the right to vote(blocked because of religion) until 1829 and then from about 1870 to 1912 to get home rule despite the overwhelming majority of the population wanting it.

Home rule was not guaranteed. Unionists who are British allies opposed it on militancy grounds so many did feel that the WW1 was a con to enlist Irishmen to die for Home Rule.

Picture the scene. Why was Home Rule not granted just before the 1918 election? The British could have softened any independence demands by doing so?
Thats one to think about!

shqipshume

diverdriver wrote: »

You know it's obvious that many of the posters here including the OP don't even know the history of their own country. I suspect a lot of them are simply regurgitating stuff they were told third hand by relatives with a bit of half remembered school history thrown in to be inflamed by stuff they read on the net.

I would suggest that shqipshume and others go and buy or borrow (or steal) a couple of books dealing with the era around 1916. There are plenty. It won't do you any harm to read about the reality of the situation around that time. You would do well to read any Irish history book. If you have any kind of open mind, you'll find that not everything is as black and white as you think. Maybe you won't be quite so shocked at people having opinions different to your own.

It won't make you love the British either but at least it might actually stop people being so bitter about something that happened centuries ago and actually has no impact on their lives today.

I have no problem with british people,i get on with any i know,again it is not about that either.
It was simple question getting answers and reading them and people having a talk about it.

This is not about 1916 it is about all of Ireland what the people would have done back then or if it happened again, no one is attacking them for giving their ideas or comments.