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

Bobby Sands R.I.P. 5th May 1981

1…1112141617…21

Comments

  • #392
    getzls
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 806 ✭✭✭getzls


    R P McMurphy wrote: »
    Just out of interest, if you were forced to live as a second class citizen, not afforded any protection by the state and watched your family come under attack and be burned out of your house would you continue to bend over

    If you are talking about BS, he was not burned out,

    Not in Rathcoole anyway.


  • #393
    TOMASJ
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 656 ✭✭✭TOMASJ


    Wonder how many of our computer lawyers scribing here would have the guts to die for their beliefs,
    Only a few men of this caliber have lived in our country,
    condescending posts only belittle those posters.


  • #394
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscar, in response to OCorcrainn's post when he asked you the following:
    Are you implicitly saying that 'insurrection' is never justifiable?

    you responded with:
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm saying explicitly that insurrection isn't justifiable when it subverts an ongoing peace process.

    Logically the opposite answer to this must be that insurrection is justifiable if there is no ongoing peace process to subvert? Yes?


  • #395
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »



    Logically the opposite answer to this must be that insurrection is justifiable if there is no ongoing peace process to subvert? Yes?

    They are working on the Charter For Revolutionaries and Terrorists in the UN as we speak. Get your revolting done before they make a law against it! ;)


  • #396
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    TOMASJ wrote: »
    Wonder how many of our computer lawyers scribing here would have the guts to die for their beliefs,
    Only a few men of this caliber have lived in our country,
    condescending posts only belittle those posters.

    The fact that someone dies for their beliefs makes them right?

    You can be brave, you can be steadfast, you can be loyal, and you can still be totally wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    OCorcrainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 428 ✭✭OCorcrainn


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Don't you get it? It's a quasi-religious black-and-white form of thinking. Republican violence is illegitimate, evil, and deemed 'terrorism' (spit). State violence, on the other hand, is virtuous and deemed security. The hypocrisy and double standards are quite plain to see for anyone who's able to apply a moderate level of critical thought to their bullshit.

    Take 'the troubles'; the usual suspects will condemn, in no uncertain terms, the Republican backlash against state violence while completely ignoring the violence and dysfunction of the state. The usual suspects will conjure alternate realities (but, there was no need for a backlash) and cite childrens proverbs (two wrongs don't make a right) in flaccid attempts to underpin their dogma, double standards and hypocrisy. When their alternate realities are responded to in kind (if the British had nurtured the NICRA... If Unionists had not treated the minority as untermenschen...) they are ignored.

    Is this directed at me? Because being an republican myself who follows and firmly adheres to the original founding principles of Irish republicanism, I can assure you that I very much 'get it'.


  • #398
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    and you can still be totally wrong.

    You keep forgetting three little letters...'imo'.
    There is no universal law governing decisions to revolt.


  • #399
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You keep forgetting three little letters...'imo'.
    There is no universal law governing decisions to revolt.

    My God Stop Press !


  • #400
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    And your argument against is?
    ...contained in the questions about Chile and Australia which you've studiously avoided.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    They do operate according to different moral compasses, (ask any of the mothers and children bombed into the 'acceptance of their gifts') despite what I think of them morally.
    But you accept that it's possible for someone who does what they firmly believe to be the right thing to do something that's objectively wrong?
    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Logically the opposite answer to this must be that insurrection is justifiable if there is no ongoing peace process to subvert? Yes?
    A implies B, therefore (not A) implies (not B)? Logic fail.

    Was there a peace process to subvert in 1916?


  • #401
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    A implies B, therefore (not A) implies (not B)? Logic fail.

    Hiding behind yet another excuse eh oscar? So you won't even answer the question that insurrection is justified in the absence of an ongoing peace process to subvert, even though you originally answered in the contrary to OCorcrainn's question?

    Also that question was OCorcrainn's first in thread. I'm sure OCorcrainn can clarify it himself, but to me it seems clearly hypothetical, yet you answered it anyway. When pressed by him and me for further clarification, you suddenly retreated behind the excuses of that its "hypothetical", "rhetorical" or it wasn't "relevant to the discussion". For those excuses to have any credibility at all, shouldn't you said these in the first place in response to his question?


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yes. The army of the United Kingdom was in the United Kingdom. Film at 11.


    ...one acheived by main force and coercion. Which brings us back to square one.


  • #403
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    Hiding behind yet another excuse eh oscar?
    It could be worse, I could be ignoring the question completely. Is it morally wrong for Chile to be ruled by anyone except Mapuche, or Australia by anyone but Aborigines?
    Nodin wrote: »
    ...one acheived by main force and coercion. Which brings us back to square one.
    So your justification for the 1916 rising is that because Ireland was part of the UK by means that involved force and/or coercion, Irish republicans have a permanent and incontrovertible right to start a war whenever they feel like it in order to undo that union?

    I'm sure that's very comforting to the dissidents. Oh wait, that's different. It's never quite entirely clear how it's different, but it certainly couldn't be double standards. No sirree bob.


  • #404
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    So your justification for the 1916 rising is that because Ireland was part of the UK by means that involved force and/or coercion, Irish republicans have a permanent and incontrovertible right to start a war whenever they feel like it in order to undo that union?.

    Had, yes.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm sure that's very comforting to the dissidents. Oh wait, that's different. It's never quite entirely clear how it's different, but it certainly couldn't be double standards. No sirree bob.

    I don't see how that tone is going to get anyone anywhere.


  • #405
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Nodin wrote: »
    Had, yes.



    I don't see how that tone is going to get anyone anywhere.

    Why ''had'' and not ''has '' ?


  • #406
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    marienbad wrote: »
    Why ''had'' and not ''has '' ?


    The current Northern situation is different.


  • #407
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Nodin wrote: »
    The current Northern situation is different.

    I presume because of the GFA ? If so would accept that any dissidents may see that as changing nothing and how can we say they are wrong ?


  • #408
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It could be worse, I could be ignoring the question completely.

    I notice you haven't told me whether you believe OCorcrainns original question which you answered was hypothetical or not.
    Is it morally wrong for Chile to be ruled by anyone except Mapuche, or Australia by anyone but Aborigines?

    You haven't given any contextual background to these scenarios so a comparison can be made.
    So your justification for the 1916 rising is that because Ireland was part of the UK by means that involved force and/or coercion, Irish republicans have a permanent and incontrovertible right to start a war whenever they feel like it in order to undo that union?

    Hmmm. Now you've left out your own counterfactual argument that the above subverted an ongoing peace process. Care to answer your own question then in this scenario you have presented? Can you also ignore as well please your own little boobytrap you left in the question re the possibility that the dissidents can borrow this argument to justify their actions so you can then go on to conveniently condemn all "violence" used down the ages in an attempt to remove the British presence from this country. Thanks. ;).


  • #409
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Nodin wrote: »
    Had, yes.
    What - specifically - removed that right (and when), and has it been permanently removed?
    I don't see how that tone is going to get anyone anywhere.
    I apologise for the tone - genuinely.

    I genuinely believe that it was every bit as morally wrong to use violence in 1916 as it is today to undo the union. I've been repeatedly told that this belief of mine is grounded in naivety, ignorance and a failure to educate myself on Irish history. I ask for an explanation of why it was morally justifiable for an unelected minority to use violence in 1916 against the wishes of the people, and yet is not morally justifiable for an unelected minority to use violence in 2013 against the wishes of the people, and nobody will tell me.

    If this lack of understanding on my part is, as I'm repeatedly told, a product of ignorance, would it be too much to ask for some enlightenment?


  • #410
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    I notice you haven't told me whether you believe OCorcrainns original question which you answered was hypothetical or not.
    It wasn't hypothetical, no.
    Hmmm. Now you've left out your own counterfactual argument that the above subverted an ongoing peace process. Care to answer your own question then in this scenario you have presented? Can you also ignore as well please your own little boobytrap you left in the question re the possibility that the dissidents can borrow this argument to justify their actions so you can then go on to conveniently condemn all "violence" used down the ages in an attempt to remove the British presence from this country. Thanks. ;).
    I'll tell you what: I'll do us both a favour, and stop discussing this with you. All I want to know is why it was morally right for a tiny unelected minority to use violence in 1916, but why it's not morally right for a tiny unelected minority to use violence in 2013. If you don't want to answer the question, don't answer it - but spare me the rhetorical mystery tours.


  • #411
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ......

    If this lack of understanding on my part is, as I'm repeatedly told, a product of ignorance, would it be too much to ask for some enlightenment?


    Theres sufficient protection of the nationalist community, and a clear recognition that there is no longer a barrier to unification outside the wishes of the majority.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It wasn't hypothetical, no.

    So then neither was mine?
    I'll tell you what: I'll do us both a favour, and stop discussing this with you. All I want to know is why it was morally right for a tiny unelected minority to use violence in 1916, but why it's not morally right for a tiny unelected minority to use violence in 2013. If you don't want to answer the question, don't answer it - but spare me the rhetorical mystery tours.

    Sigh for the umpteenth time.

    You've been given plenty of reasons but continue to ignore them anyway. What I think you're really saying throughout this thread is that there was no justification at all for an insurrection in Ireland. It can be easily inferred from your answer to OCorcrainn's first question and your subsequent attempts to extricate yourself from the consequences of that answer.


  • #413
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    So then neither was mine?



    Sigh for the umpteenth time.

    You've been given plenty of reasons but continue to ignore them anyway. What I think you're really saying throughout this thread is that there was no justification at all for an insurrection in Ireland. It can be easily inferred from your answer to OCorcrainn's first question and your subsequent attempts to extricate yourself from the consequences of that answer.

    Why not just put an end to it and answer his question ?


  • #414
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    marienbad wrote: »
    Why not just put an end to it and answer his question ?

    I believe Ireland was under an illegal colonial occupation in 1916 and force was justified in attempt to remove that presence. The attempt to condemn 1916 because the dissidents use it as a justification for their campaign is a red herring. Tell me, can you be blamed for your actions in the present day because of what others might do many years into the future as a consequence of what you did now? Its ridiculous.


  • #415
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Nodin wrote: »
    Theres sufficient protection of the nationalist community...
    From what did the nationalist community need protection in 1916, and how did the rising provide it?
    ...and a clear recognition that there is no longer a barrier to unification outside the wishes of the majority.
    That's just a statement that violence is justified if you think you might need it to get what you want.


  • #416
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »
    I believe Ireland was under an illegal colonial occupation in 1916 and force was justified in attempt to remove that presence.
    But Northern Ireland is not under an illegal colonial occupation in 2013 and force is not justified in an attempt to remove that presence?
    The attempt to condemn 1916 because the dissidents use it as a justification for their campaign is a red herring.
    Actually, it's a straw man. I'm condemning 1916 because I think it was unjustified. You think I'd suddenly become supportive of it if the dissidents went away?


  • #417
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    It doesn't matter whether individuals think it's justified or not and that is brought into focus by the dissidents (who don't see themselves as 'dissidents' btw, that's just another perjorative term like 'terrorist') You constantly get people on here try to get others to say whether they 'support' this or that, it's nosense, as if saying you supported this or that made any difference, They have support, a growing support. They are in a direct line from Pearse and Tone in that they believe, 'Ireland Unfree Shall Never Be At Peace'.
    Ireland isn't 'at peace'.
    The question should be, are you going to give them what they seek and live with the unknown consequences, a United Ireland or if not, live with the known consequences, growing violence and chaos.
    Moral judgements don't come into it, the British had to put theirs away to do a deal with the IRA and SF, as did SF and the IRA. The same will have to be done with the 'dissidents' sooner or later.


  • #418
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    They are in a direct line from Pearse and Tone in that they believe, 'Ireland Unfree Shall Never Be At Peace'.
    That's a line that's often quoted as if it was axiomatic; as if there were some unbreakable causal link between Irish "freedom" (a concept that's pretty woolly in its own right) and violence; as if Pearse and Tone were helpless victims of a power beyond their control, that drove them against their will into a conflict that they were desperate to avoid; as if they had no free will in the decisions they made, but were mere actors in a Greek tragedy into whose script they have no input.

    But it's not an axiom; it's a threat. It's a bald assertion that until Irish republicans get what they want, they reserve the right to inflict violence on whomever they feel deserves it.

    The idea that it doesn't matter whether or not republican violence can be justified is a pretty bizarre abdication of a responsibility to exercise any moral judgement over the movement you profess to support.


  • #419
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You constantly get people on here try to get others to say whether they 'support' this or that,
    A man who won't openly admit what he supports is shady in the extreme.


  • #420
    TOMASJ
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 656 ✭✭✭TOMASJ


    RandomName2 wrote: »

    You can be brave, you can be steadfast, you can be loyal, and you can still be totally wrong.
    As i said before "how many people here or elsewhere would have the guts to fast to death"

    Would you? if you felt (your cause was totally right)


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    Mr Cumulonimbus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Mr Cumulonimbus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    But Northern Ireland is not under an illegal colonial occupation in 2013 and force is not justified in an attempt to remove that presence?

    Already agreed with you on that here in a previous thread on "Irish Unity", in that both jurisdictions on the island today have popularly elected legislatures (D.E. and N.I. Assembly) that most people appear to be happy with and give their consent to. What was agreed after 1916, 1921, the 1998 GFA etc is a compromise. I'm happy enough with it as it stands although ultimately I'd like to see a single Irish state come about through compromise and agreement among the people of the whole island.
    Actually, it's a straw man. I'm condemning 1916 because I think it was unjustified.

    Grand, whatever the correct term is to describe it.
    You think I'd suddenly become supportive of it if the dissidents went away?

    Thats a fair viewpoint too. Apologies if I'm only saying this now and I may have wasted your time, but I've actually intrinsically nothing against your observation that an alternative route may have existed towards Irish independence (Home Rule). It's logical to suggest that a problem may have more than one successful solution available to solve it.

    But as I've said previously we'll never know how that would have unfolded as it's a counterfactual argument. I think that 1916 was still justified even despite the alternative solution you believe may have been there.

    You did say here in a thread on the Falkland Islands that:
    Then negotiations can't happen, because the UN - the very body you keep invoking in this debate - has declared that the fundamental human right of self-determination cannot be overridden by sovereignty disputes.

    Did the majority of the Irish people not have a similar right pre 1921? Remember Britain went to war after peace negotiations failed in order to uphold the rights of the Falkland Islanders and ensuring that their wishes to be British citizens were upheld. Would you deny the Irish people the same right to use force, if say, negotiations had also failed to establish their rights to independence because they desired it?

    oscar, all I wish to find out is, when you said that:
    I'm saying explicitly that insurrection isn't justifiable when it subverts an ongoing peace process.

    is insurrection then justifiable if there there is no ongoing peace process to subvert?

    I'd genuinely like to know whats your position on this. That's it really. Thanks.


Advertisement