Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

The RIRAs legitimacy

1…34689…11

Comments

  • #152
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why?

    The large garrison was beefed up to supress an uprising. Surely even you are aware of that event?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Occupied by whom?

    The US led coalition.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That would be the Tibet that's not in China, on your map?

    So it is might is right with you. China controls Tibet by brute force. Most countries do not recognise that as legitimate as it happens, but it is an occupation.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not sure what "it" is that you're asking me to name. A country can't occupy itself. Ireland was part of the UK, as Scotland is now. Scotland isn't occupied now; Ireland wasn't then.

    So how would you describe it if it wasn't an occupation? You have been asked this too many times now to ignore it.


  • #153
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Ulster has 9 counties. In 1914, 5 of them had a nationalist majority - including Derry City, South Down & South Armagh on top of those. Who exactly are these "Ulster Men" that you speak of and what relevance does your statement have to the current discussion?
    The Ulster Scots. Its got a lot to do with this discussion. Some people seem to believe the RIRA can force these people into a United Ireland. Won't happen.


  • #154
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Define occupation.
    For starters, it requires another country to do it. A country can't occupy itself, by definition.


  • #155
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    The Ulster Scots. Its got a lot to do with this discussion. Some people seem to believe the RIRA can force these people into a United Ireland. Won't happen.

    Next time, for the sake of clarity - Say "Ulster Scots". Ulster is a diverse province, with varying political ideologies and mindsets.

    As for the RIRA - They couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, let alone end partition.


  • #156
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    For starters, it requires another country to do it. A country can't occupy itself, by definition.

    You're going to have to try harder than that. Define occupation.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #158
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not sure what "it" is that you're asking me to name. A country can't occupy itself. Ireland was part of the UK, as Scotland is now. Scotland isn't occupied now; Ireland wasn't then.
    Oh right, you mean the cartographers have the final say on what defines a country, rather than shared cultural identity, language, constant uprisings, and a persistent policy of "extermination" (in the words of the officials of the time, not my words, albeit more as a complaint than as a policy in and of itself) by one group of people towards another which are borne out by the population records then and now?

    What you're in effect saying is that there was no ethnic group seeking self determination which identified itself as "Irish" before 1916, just, what, socialists or something?

    Can you tell us what possible advantage it might present to the UK to pursue policies of depopulation towards one part of its territory?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Hilarious. What does it have to do with the topic?
    An illustration of the damage done by one ethnic group to another is hardly disconnected to the topic at hand, which is whether or not Ireland was "occupied". In pursuing these policies more characteristic of tribal warfare in Africa than the self proclaimed leading light of the industrial revolution and father of parliaments, the UK without a question saw a distinct difference between the people of Ireland and say those of the rest of its nearby territories.


  • #159
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Next time, for the sake of clarity - Say "Ulster Scots". Ulster is a diverse province, with varying political ideologies and mindsets.

    As for the RIRA - They couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, let alone end partition.
    lol. I should of perhaps said Ulster Scots. But im used to saying Ulster men.


  • #160
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    For starters, it requires another country to do it. A country can't occupy itself, by definition.

    So Ireland could never have been occupied by Britain after the act of union because Britian defined Ireland as part of the UK?

    Seriously? Is that it?


  • #161
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    With no industrial base, none of the advantages accrued by other nations in the preceding centuries, a massive beachhead established in the far more prosperous US (which got kicked off during the great famine), and a low population to start out with, its not hard to join the dots.

    Thats not to say I'm holding people in the UK today responsible for the events of those times, its water under the bridge. But those who forget the past and all that...


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    The large garrison was beefed up to supress an uprising. Surely even you are aware of that event?
    So if there was a rebellion in Cork, and the Irish army were sent in to suppress it, Cork would be occupied?
    The US led coalition.
    Ah, an army from another country or countries. Now that sounds more like an occupation to me.
    So it is might is right with you. China controls Tibet by brute force. Most countries do not recognise that as legitimate as it happens, but it is an occupation.
    Most countries don't recognise what as legitimate?
    So how would you describe it if it wasn't an occupation? You have been asked this too many times now to ignore it.
    A country can't occupy itself. I'm not sure what you want me to describe.


  • #163
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    I don't see why the RIRA have a problem with living in the UK. Its great. They should really just move into politics now, before the police do end up catching them all.


  • #164
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So if there was a rebellion in Cork, and the Irish army were sent in to suppress it, Cork would be occupied? .

    Yes.... If the army are there to supress the locals, for right or wrong, above normal garrison duties it is an occupation.

    .
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Most countries don't recognise what as legitimate?.

    The Chinese occupation of Tibet.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    A country can't occupy itself. I'm not sure what you want me to describe.

    But who defines what a 'country' is? Your argument is that country x steams into country y, renames country y, and it ceases to be an occupation.

    You are being silly now for the sake of it.


  • #165
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    A country can't occupy itself. I'm not sure what you want me to describe.

    Just so we're perfectly clear, this is pretty much your argument in a nutshell.

    occupation.png


  • #166
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Yes.... If the army are there to supress the locals, for right or wrong, above normal garrison duties it is an occupation.
    Ah, I see. A country is "occupied" if it uses its own army to prevent sedition.

    See, if you'd just explained up front that you were using custom definitions of words to suit your own arguments, then I'd have been able to dismiss those arguments a lot sooner.

    Because your argument is that a country has no right to use its own armed forces to uphold its own territorial integrity. Sorry, that dog don't hunt.
    The Chinese occupation of Tibet.
    Can you give me a list of countries that consider Tibet a sovereign country in its own right? How many countries have diplomatic relations with Tibet?
    But who defines what a 'country' is? Your argument is that country x steams into country y, renames country y, and it ceases to be an occupation.
    No, that's not my argument.

    Is Scotland occupied? Is Wales?


  • #167
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #168
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Just so we're perfectly clear, this is pretty much your argument in a nutshell.

    occupation.png
    OK, so Scotland and Wales are occupied. Glad we cleared that up.


  • #169
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    OK, so Scotland and Wales are occupied. Glad we cleared that up.

    Scotland & Wales both wish to remain in the Union as far as I understand it. If the Scottish people voted in 10 years for Independance, through a referendum and it wasn't granted to them - it would certainly be an occupation. Irish people repealed the act of the Union since day one, and never wished to be apart of the Union. Britain maintained control of Ireland, through a heavy military presence. The Irish people were never afforded the opportunity to decide whether or not it wished to be a part of the Union.

    So yes - Ireland was certainly occupied.


  • #170
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Ah, I see. A country is "occupied" if it uses its own army to prevent sedition.

    If Cork was independent, was invaded and colonised by Dublin and had a strong political and military independence tradition and is swamped with troops, yes, I would consider it an occupation.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    See, if you'd just explained up front that you were using custom definitions of words to suit your own arguments, then I'd have been able to dismiss those arguments a lot sooner.

    Because your argument is that a country has no right to use its own armed forces to uphold its own territorial integrity. Sorry, that dog don't hunt. Can you give me a list of countries that consider Tibet a sovereign country in its own right? How many countries have diplomatic relations with Tibet? No, that's not my argument.

    Be very clear. Do you consider that China currently occupies Tibet. Yes or no?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Is Scotland occupied? Is Wales?

    No and no because they have never pushed hard for independence and are voluntary members of the UK. If that situation changed and more than 80% of them voted for pro independence parties and more troops are moved in, that dynamic might shift.

    Can you please define occupation? Been asked and asked again


  • #171
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Naturally it did, but its not like there was a lot to work with from the start. The roots of the problems go deep, including the civil war wounds and the parties which emerged from that.

    One thing is for sure, libertarianism offers no straw to clutch.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Eh no, putting the blame for the latest round of mistakes on the UK would be insane. But equally insane would be to claim that Ireland came out of the 1920s bright and breezy, clicking its heels with a clean slate.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Mayo Exile
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭Mayo Exile


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Ireland wasn't under occupation in 1916.

    Hmmm. If Ireland wasn't occupied in 1916, can someone point out exactly when the majority of the Irish population agreed to join the UK. (Saying that the "Irish Parliament" voted for an Act of Union in 1800 gets zero points. That parliament represented about 5% tops of the population, or to be more exact, the post-Cromwellian planter aristocracy).


  • #173
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,069 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Irish people repealed the act of the Union since day one, and never wished to be apart of the Union. Britain maintained control of Ireland, through a heavy military presence. The Irish people were never afforded the opportunity to decide whether or not it wished to be a part of the Union.

    What all Irish people? I find that very hard to believe, my understanding would be that at the act of Union (some Irish people) didn't want to be part of the Union, & that Ireland did very well in many respects from architecture to Empire building. (Irland being part of the Empire machine).
    dlofnep wrote: »
    So yes - Ireland was certainly occupied.

    Ireland (the island of) has been occupied by the Vikings, the Normans, the Celts, the Scots, the English, the Anglo Irish, the Anglo Normans, plus many others, but so what ? The North is now mainly occupied by Unionists who originally came from Scotland & England, the South is now occupied by 98% of people who proclaim to be Celtic-Irish Nationalists . . . . . .


  • #174
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Mayo Exile wrote: »
    Hmmm. If Ireland wasn't occupied in 1916, can someone point out exactly when the majority of the Irish population agreed to join the UK. (Saying that the "Irish Parliament" voted for an Act of Union in 1800 gets zero points. That parliament represented about 5% tops of the population, or to be more exact, the post-Cromwellian planter aristocracy).

    He has yet to define what 'occupation' means. All those who have stated that Ireland was not occupied have yet to define what occupation actually means, despite my numerous requests for them to do so.

    It's quite clear Ireland was occupied.


  • #175
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Scotland & Wales both wish to remain in the Union as far as I understand it.
    So does Northern Ireland.
    If the Scottish people voted in 10 years for Independance, through a referendum and it wasn't granted to them - it would certainly be an occupation.
    If the people of Pollathomas voted for independence, and it wasn't granted, would they be occupied?
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    If Cork was independent, was invaded and colonised by Dublin and had a strong political and military independence tradition and is swamped with troops, yes, I would consider it an occupation.
    Wow, your definition of "occupied" is complicated, and astonishingly well-tailored to your point of view.

    Do you have an internationally-recognised definition of the term that fits?
    Be very clear. Do you consider that China currently occupies Tibet. Yes or no?
    I guess that's as close as I'm going to get to "no, I don't have a list of countries that have diplomatic relations with Tibet."
    No and no because they have never pushed hard for independence and are voluntary members of the UK. If that situation changed and more than 80% of them voted for pro independence parties and more troops are moved in, that dynamic might shift.

    Can you please define occupation? Been asked and asked again
    Why am I being asked to define the term? I'm happy to go along with the generally-accepted definition, that involves a country that is controlled by the armed forces of another country.
    Mayo Exile wrote: »
    Hmmm. If Ireland wasn't occupied in 1916, can someone point out exactly when the majority of the Irish population agreed to join the UK. (Saying that the "Irish Parliament" voted for an Act of Union in 1800 gets zero points. That parliament represented about 5% tops of the population, or to be more exact, the post-Cromwellian planter aristocracy).
    I don't recall Scotland having a referendum on their Act of Union either.


  • #176
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #177
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Wow, your definition of "occupied" is complicated, and astonishingly well-tailored to your point of view..

    Its actually not. If any area can only be controlled by a military force its under occupation.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Do you have an internationally-recognised definition of the term that fits? I guess that's as close as I'm going to get to "no, I don't have a list of countries that have diplomatic relations with Tibet."

    Is Tibet occupied, yes or no?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why am I being asked to define the term? I'm happy to go along with the generally-accepted definition, that involves a country that is controlled by the armed forces of another country..

    So how on earth was Ireland NOT occupied using your definition?


  • #178
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Its actually not. If any area can only be controlled by a military force its under occupation.
    So any area that causes enough trouble that the troops need to be called in is an occupied territory, and is, therefore, a sovereign nation?

    If the gangs in Limerick got out of hand again, and the troops went in, does that make Limerick a different country?
    Is Tibet occupied, yes or no?
    Do you still beat your wife?
    So how on earth was Ireland NOT occupied using your definition?
    Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. I'm pretty sure I've made that point already.

    I'm not staying on this merry-go-round. If you desperately need to believe that Ireland was occupied, and Northern Ireland is occupied, to validate your worldview, then go ahead. You seem to think it's a matter of opinion anyway, so you don't need to trouble yourself with pesky facts.


  • #179
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    So if Germany invaded Poland tomorrow, and declared it part of Germany, they would not be occupied?

    I must be missing something.


  • #180
    shampon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 580 ✭✭✭shampon


    round tower huntsman wrote: »
    i've no recollection of any ira member ever being arrested or convicted of a drugs offence. surely it would have been a wet dream for mi5 or special branch to catch a republican dealing drugs but its never happened. even the cleverist professional drug dealers get caught at least once,so why have republicans never been caught? i can only assume that they dont deal drugs.

    I can only assume that Unicorns exist. Get out on the street boy, the dogs could tell you who's moving what. If Republicans are controlling the doors of nightclubs/bars then they are controlling what comes in and what is dealt...there is know way a dealer can pedal his wares in a Republican controlled club without the knowledge of those on the door. It's basic drug dealing procedure.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Ah, I see. A country is "occupied" if it uses its own army to prevent sedition.

    See, if you'd just explained up front that you were using custom definitions of words to suit your own arguments, then I'd have been able to dismiss those arguments a lot sooner.

    Because your argument is that a country has no right to use its own armed forces to uphold its own territorial integrity. Sorry, that dog don't hunt.

    I think you are (deliberately?) missing the point here. The nature of the armies role in its territory is an important indicator of whether the citizens in that particlar territory consider it a defending army or an occupying army.

    International politics between imperial powers of the day defined opposition to imperial rule as sedition in all cases. Is this your position?

    Do you believe that an army that conquers another nation and holds it is an occupying army or merely an army preventing sedition of its own (fairly won) territory?

    In 1798 there were 200,000 British troops in Ireland. That is 70% of the British army. Army Levels were huge throughout Britains political involvement in Ireland.


    I would consider the local population as the arbiters of whether tehy are being occupied or not. And teh size of the army in Ireland, the racist attitude of its members towards Irish people, teh absolute distrust taht existed between army and population all are symtoms pointing to occupation.

    You disagree only becuase it suits your political world view to do so I fear.


Advertisement