do you wish you had died for ireland

K-9 · 30-08-2009 12:33AM

Wonder what Gerry McCabes widow thinks of the question?

Dudess · 30-08-2009 12:34AM

That person, thelastditch, has resorted to the "a few Irish people did xyz so let's blame all the Irish and condemn the entire country of Ireland". When people are reduced to using such an "intelligent" arguing "tactic" they tend not to be worth engaging with.

He also keeps making anti Irish jibes so he's definitely just trying to rile people - bless.

Anyhoo, the concentration camp is the brainwave of Earl Kitchener - he was from north Kerry! (But English).

Kalashnikov_Kid · 30-08-2009 12:39AM

I know its a windup but its still good fun to test their crap A* education system

PK2008 · 30-08-2009 12:55AM

The loyalists hate the republicans, the republicans hate the loyalists

Ok people, we get it already- its been done a thousand times, and each time it made less difference than the last

thomond2006 · 30-08-2009 01:01AM

For anyone that has not been to Northern Ireland, there are only a few differences:

1. Sterling instead of euro.
2. Miles instead of kilometres.
3. Red Royal Mails vans.
4. Red Post Boxes.
5. No Irish on Road Signs.
6. Alcohol is much cheaper.

There are no army checkpoints and no signs with "You are now entering Northern Ireland".

The troubles are over, anyone fighting on really needs to buy a few brain cells somewhere.

jingx3 · 30-08-2009 01:04AM

That's racist.

Kalashnikov_Kid · 30-08-2009 01:07AM

thomond2006 wrote: »

For anyone that has not been to Northern Ireland, there are only a few differences:

1. Sterling instead of euro.
2. Miles instead of kilometres.
3. Red Royal Mails vans.
4. Red Post Boxes.
5. No Irish on Road Signs.
6. Alcohol is much cheaper.

There are no army checkpoints and no signs with "You are now entering Northern Ireland".

The troubles are over, anyone fighting on really needs to buy a few brain cells somewhere.

You forgot Sainsburys and IKEA :rolleyes:

I agree with you with the troubles being over, but there's alot more differences than above!

thomond2006 · 30-08-2009 01:13AM

jingx3 wrote: »

That's racist.

Explain why, if you don't mind.

stovelid · 30-08-2009 01:20AM

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

But I have a distinct impression that you probably werent taught any of that when growing up.

I think it's possible to reject republican militarism as an Irishman or woman. Even to call them criminal in some respects. As citizens of this country, we have the right to criticize acts committed in our name. And to question orthodox interpretations of history without being labelled as unpatriotic.

That doesn't mean that we forget or excuse war-crimes committed by the British and their agents. Even if you grit your teeth and accept that lasting peace probably means accommodation of theiir views and aims.

Personally, I detest the IRA but I fucking loathe Loyalism and most of what passed for British 'policy' in the North, including murder.

punk_one82 · 30-08-2009 01:27AM

Would I have fought and died for the IRA of the Michael Collins era? Yes, more than likely. Would I have fought and died for the IRA of the past 30/40 years or whatever it's been? Probably not, but maybe my I would have felt differently if I had have lived in the North at the time. Foreign occupation and constant violence can quite clearly drive people to do things they would usually find unacceptable. Who really knows?

Kalashnikov_Kid · 30-08-2009 01:29AM

stovelid wrote: »

I think it's possible to reject republican militarism as an Irishman or woman. Even to call them criminal in some respects. As citizens of this country, we have the right to criticize acts committed in our name. And to question orthodox interpretations of history without being labelled as unpatriotic.

That doesn't mean that we forget or excuse war-crimes committed by the British and their agents. Even if you grit your teeth and accept that lasting peace probably means accommodation of theiir views and aims.

Absolutely - 'history in the eye of the beholder' I think they call it.

Dudess · 30-08-2009 01:32AM

stovelid wrote: »

Personally, I detest the IRA but I fucking loathe Loyalism and most of what passed for British 'policy' in the North, including murder.

Yeah, just because the UDR wore uniforms doesn't mean they weren't terrorists.

phelixoflaherty · 30-08-2009 01:33AM

I would have dined for Ireland

stovelid · 30-08-2009 01:44AM

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

Absolutely - 'history in the eye of the beholder' I think they call it.

What do you mean?

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah, just because the UDR wore uniforms doesn't mean they weren't terrorists.

I agree on both levels. State agencies commit acts that basically equate to terrorism. In the case of the UDR, although a nominal improvement on the B-men, their ranks were riddled with conventional terrorists and those that weren't terrorists, were often briefed by terrorists as you would expect a force made up nearly entirely of protestants to be in those times.

Very much the way Cartholics often set up colleagues for assassination. Sometimes justified; sometimes not.

Preaching to the converted re: the UDR tbh

K-9 · 30-08-2009 01:45AM

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah, just because the UDR wore uniforms doesn't mean they weren't terrorists.

But some assume if it's a British Army uniform they are terrorists. I admire the people, often not considered Irish, who put a stop to the UDR, RUC etc., often at great personal danger.

Unfortunately dying for Ireland is now a dirty term. Men who WWI died for Ireland are forgotten and Guards who died for Ireland protecting law and order are considered different to others.

It is sad that saying that is now tarnished.

dlofnep · 30-08-2009 01:47AM

phelixoflaherty wrote: »

I would have dined for Ireland

Would you not dine for Italy or something? Or for China? I can see potatoes getting boring after a while.

Kalashnikov_Kid · 30-08-2009 01:50AM

stovelid wrote: »

What do you mean?

There is 'official' history and 'unofficial' history. One can be argued to be more legitimate than the other, depending on one's personal background and views. Same goes wrt the definition of 'terrorism' - the lines between terrorism and state-sponsored/freedom-fighting/whatever you wanna call it have become very blurred IMO.

Jamey · 30-08-2009 01:53AM

I don't really want to get involved in this argument, but a quick question to the people saying they'd die 'for Collins' IRA but not for the modern day IRA', because they are truly baffling me.

What difference do you see in Collins' IRA killing numerous British agents on Bloody Sunday 1920, and in the Real IRA killing British soldiers this year in Massereene Barracks? Whether you were in the IRA in the 1910's and 1920's or in the IRA in the 1970's and 1980's, you were still a cold blooded killer fighting for the same cause.

stovelid · 30-08-2009 01:56AM

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

There is 'official' history and 'unofficial' history. One can be argued to be more legitimate than the other, depending on one's personal background and views. Same goes wrt the definition of 'terrorism' - the lines between terrorism and state-sponsored/freedom-fighting/whatever you wanna call it have become very blurred IMO.

True.

You could argue that plenty of unofficial/marginal narratives exist that don't take much detective work to find.

Part of the difficulty for the Brits was accountability. They had to fight a war (and a dirty war) under the eyes of a free media. Who didn't all jump to the tune. Nor did all politicians. There was also a watchdog of sorts in the shape of our own state.

Nothing that ultimately came to light - shoot to kill, the dirty war - was completely subdued even at the time. Not in the way you could supress dirty tricks and subterfuge in a 'foreign' war at the time.

Terry · 30-08-2009 01:57AM

thelastditch wrote: »

Oh you're such a laugh Dudess. Isn't it funny that the father's and grandfather's of BNP activists (and some members themselves) fought Nazi Germany, whilst Irish scum were helping The Fuhrer?

What's it like to be Irish eh? Some country...

:rolleyes:

Bye bye.

punk_one82 · 30-08-2009 01:57AM

The IRA of the Collins era didn't usually resort to blowing up civilians on the street ie. Omagh. Yes, killing is killing. Man to man with the British army seems a better fight to be in than planting bombs on busy shopping streets. I also have a hard time saying I'd fight for the IRA of today as there's no British occupation in the south. If there were soldiers around where I live I'm sure I'd feel quite different about the matter.

K-9 · 30-08-2009 01:59AM

Jamey wrote: »

I don't really want to get involved in this argument, but a quick question to the people saying they'd die 'for Collins' IRA but not for the modern day IRA', because they are truly baffling me.

What difference do you see in Collins' IRA killing numerous British agents on Bloody Sunday 1920, and in the Real IRA killing British soldiers this year in Massereene Barracks? Whether you were in the IRA in the 1910's and 1920's or in the IRA in the 1970's and 1980's, you were still a cold blooded killer fighting for the same cause.

That's an interesting question.

My answer is democratic legitimacy. Collins had it, though obviously not specifically for Bloody Sunday.

Jamey · 30-08-2009 02:03AM

punk_one82 wrote: »

The IRA of the Collins era didn't usually resort to blowing up civilians on the street ie. Omagh. Yes, killing is killing. Man to man with the British army seems a better fight to be in than planting bombs on busy shopping streets. I also have a hard time saying I'd fight for the IRA of today as there's no British occupation in the south. If there were soldiers around where I live I'm sure I'd feel quite different about the matter.

The Old IRA certainly did kill civilians on the street. Films like Michael Collins have put rose tinted glasses on most Irish men and women.

Kalashnikov_Kid · 30-08-2009 02:05AM

True. You could argue that plenty of unofficial/marginal narratives exist that don't take much detective work to find.

Thats what I was getting at - Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness (book not film) being a classic case in point - get an edited edition and read through the footnotes - a real eyeopener to the unseen side of colonialism in general.

punk_one82 · 30-08-2009 02:05AM

Jamey wrote: »

The Old IRA certainly did kill civilians on the street. Films like Michael Collins have put rose tinted glasses on most Irish men and women.

I know the old IRA killed civilians, but the troubles of recent times have had a much more devastating effect on civilians. Roadside/car bombs etc usually have a higher rate of civilian deaths than armed forces deaths. I certainly don't base my beliefs on films though, thats for sure.

Jamey · 30-08-2009 02:08AM

K-9 wrote: »

That's an interesting question.

My answer is democratic legitimacy. Collins had it, though obviously not specifically for Bloody Sunday.

That's true. I can't help thinking then though, that one of the main reasons the modern day IRA (PIRA I suppose) didn't have democratic legitimacy is because post 1921, the people of the 'Republic' were happy out with their freedom, not caring to democratically legitimize the fighters representing their Northern neighbours, because it wasn't affecting them directly. Hope I'm not talking drivel here, it's been a while since I've been in a history class!

Jamey · 30-08-2009 02:10AM

punk_one82 wrote: »

I know the old IRA killed civilians, but the troubles of recent times have had a much more devastating effect on civilians. Roadside/car bombs etc usually have a higher rate of civilian deaths than armed forces deaths. I certainly don't base my beliefs on films though, thats for sure.

You're right, but I think if it wasn't for Collins & co., these tactics wouldn't have been used/invented. The PIRA picked up where Collins had left off (they did arguably take it to another level though) with his style of urban guerilla warfare.

K-9 · 30-08-2009 02:10AM

punk_one82 wrote: »

I know the old IRA killed civilians, but the troubles of recent times have had a much more devastating effect on civilians. Roadside/car bombs etc usually have a higher rate of civilian deaths than armed forces deaths. I certainly don't base my beliefs on films though, thats for sure.

Bloody Sunday was seen as a reprisal for Croke Park which get back to the tit for tat point.

K4t · 30-08-2009 02:12AM

I'd die for my family. I wouldn't even have to think about it tbh.

But my country? Well, that depends on a lot of different factors........

K-9 · 30-08-2009 02:13AM

Jamey wrote: »

You're right, but I think if it wasn't for Collins & co., these tactics wouldn't have been used/invented. The PIRA picked up where Collins had left off (they did arguably take it to another level though) with his style of urban guerilla warfare.

Hardly his or their fault. Guerrilla warfare preceded the IRA and Collins. It was effective against the British Empire. 1916 Combat would have been madness.

do you wish you had died for ireland

Comments