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

800 years

1246710

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    The way you said I recall I thought you werent from here.

    That does not make sense. Mind you, as you mention something about growing weed in your attic, it perhaps is hardly surprising much of the rest of your ramblings do not make much sense either. You mention "wiping the catholic population out of northern Ireland "....lol.....did you know 25% of the Roman Catholic population of N. Ireland want to stay part of the UK ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    csk wrote:
    :confused::confused::confused:

    I actually agreed and said so good were they, they were able to find which Loyalists were suitable for collaboration and collusion.

    No wonder you are confused. If you think "collaboration and collusion" was widespread and official policy, why do you think the success rate for jailing loyalist terrorists was higher than for republican terrorists? Why do you think more loyalist crimesx/ atrocities were solved compared to the % rate for republican crimes and atrocities....and the people found guilty put out of circulation ? If it was official govt. policy to kill catholics, why do you think the IRA killed more Catholics than anyone else in the conflict ?
    Do not forget the collusion between Republican terrorists and Irish security forces, which resulted in the deaths of more than a few people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭csk


    vesp wrote:
    If you think "collaboration and collusion" was widespread and official policy

    Where did I say that or even at a stretch infer it?
    vesp wrote:
    If it was official govt. policy to kill catholics,

    Did I ever say it was ?
    vesp wrote:
    Do not forget the collusion between Republican terrorists and Irish security forces, which resulted in the deaths of more than a few people.

    Evidence ???


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    csk wrote:
    Where did I say that or even at a stretch infer it?

    In your previous posts e.g. the one of 18.50 "so good were they, they were able to find which Loyalists were suitable for collaboration and collusion"

    Have you evidence to show that collusion in N. Ireland was worse than that in the Republic ? Or even equal to ? Do not forget the many people murdered just after crossing the border from the south eg Detective Breen, Justice Gibson and his wife etc ?


    As joebhoy1916 said only a few posts ago on this very thread - and I quote : "Haughey didn't think they were terrorists either did half the goverment.

    Oh and by the way did you ever hear of a .5 rifle?

    The irish army has some guess were where they got them?

    Oh and Athlone barrack's the one theat hold's all ammo for some barrack's smuggled radio's up to the IRA during battle of the bogside."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    PHB wrote:
    Furthermore, the Normans weren't the ones with the great administrative structure, it was the Anglo-Saxons, which the Normans just stole.

    That's just plain wrong. The Normans were the ones with the Domesday book and put order and structure to everything.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭csk


    "so good were they, they were able to find which Loyalists were suitable for collaboration and collusion"

    Where in that sentence do I say that collusion, to qoute you was " widespread and official" ?


    according to joebhoy1916:
    "Haughey didn't think they were terrorists either did half the goverment."

    What does Haughey or the Governments opinion (keep in mind the above statement is unsubstantiated) have to do with collusion in the Republic of Ireland?
    "Oh and by the way did you ever hear of a .5 rifle?"]

    Actually I have not. Again What has that to do with collusion in the Republic of Ireland?
    "The irish army has some guess were where they got them?"

    They? the Irish Army? The Provisional IRA ? Martians? the hillbilly gospel choir?
    this statement is unclear.
    So again I ask, what does it have to do with collusion in the Republic of Ireland?
    "Oh and Athlone barrack's the one theat hold's all ammo for some barrack's smuggled radio's up to the IRA during battle of the bogside."

    Once again this is unsubstantiated and a couple of transistor radios are hardly weapons of mass destruction.

    vesp wrote:
    Do not forget the many people murdered just after crossing the border from the south eg Detective Breen, Justice Gibson and his wife etc ?

    This pretty much is what your argument boils down to.
    Sh!t flinging i.e. throw enough sh!t in the hope that something will stick.
    the last perserve of someone who has lost an argument or maybe never had one to begin with.

    Have you actually made a post that is to do with the actual topic.
    More to the point, are you?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    You are the one who brought up collusion. I asked already and I will ask again : Have you evidence to show that collusion in N. Ireland was worse than that in the Republic ? Or even equal to ? ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭csk


    vesp wrote:
    You are the one who brought up collusion. I asked already and I will ask again : Have you evidence to show that collusion in N. Ireland was worse than that in the Republic ? Or even equal to ? ;)

    Pray tell, why would that be relevant to the point I was making?

    And since I never made any such claim why would I?

    Can you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB



    That's just plain wrong. The Normans were the ones with the Domesday book and put order and structure to everything.

    The Domesday book was an incredible feat, but the administrative structure which already existed made the making of that census incredibly easy. The major reason for this previous infrastructure was for a very simple reason, the King's ransom.

    When king's of olde had been captured, large large sums of money had to be raised by nationwide taxes, and these taxes led to the creation of the monetary system, which was the basis for the structure.

    As for the Irish system having little structure, it's not entirely true.

    In the eleventh and twelfth century Ireland had no administrative records, no estate lists, no stock inventories, no coinage, no Doomsday equivalent, all of which might help compare administrative development, but the lack of written records does not suggest that there was no administrative system. There is some evidence to support that a system similar to the shire system existed in Ireland as early as the 10th century. The term trícha cét occurs in Irish sources around that time, and is used in the Annals of Ulster in 1106 as a unit of assessment, when the clergy were levying ecclesiastical taxes on Munster. It has been suggested by O’Brien that this system may have served as a rent-roll for the purposes of taxation. Ruairdrí ua Conchobair in 1166 levied a tax of 4000 cows on the ‘men of Ireland’ in order to obtain the acknowledgment from the Hiberno-Scandinavians of Dublin of his high kingship. This was merely one example of high king’s attempting to increase secular taxation, and this development, may have mirrored the power of the kings of England and the Capetian kings in time.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭sligobhoy67


    vesp wrote:
    LOL. Is that the best you can do? Anyone can post whatever they want on "wikipedia"..... and they frequently do.

    yes, they can post what they like, however, if it is untrue or inaccurate it wouldnt last long before it is altered, reverted or deleted!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    csk wrote:
    Pray tell, why would that be relevant to the point I was making?

    Pray tell why did you bring up collusion so ? And while you are at it, perhaps have you evidence to show that collusion in N. Ireland was worse than that in the Republic ? Or even equal to ? ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    yes, they can post what they like, however, if it is untrue or inaccurate it wouldnt last long before it is altered, reverted or deleted!
    The point is quite often you see things on wikipedia which are often so untrue as to be laughable.....some people even claim to almost make a career out of propogating their bigoted views on wikipedia. No surprise it has no credibility as a reference source on political matters.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    vesp wrote:
    LOL. Is that the best you can do? Anyone can post whatever they want on "wikipedia"..... and they frequently do.
    OK, as you so eloquently argued for the B&Ts and demolished my case, what sites would you consider reliable?

    Heres a quote from www.historylearningsite.co.uk
    "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

    Or is that site just a pile of Fenian propaganda too?
    Maybe you could link to a source that is beyond question?


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Don't forget that back in the 20's the Brits were gassing the Iraqi's so it wasn't all sweetness and love.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    Don't forget that back in the 20's the Brits were gassing the Iraqi's so it wasn't all sweetness and love.

    Nobody ever claimed the world in the early decades of the 20th century was " all sweetness and love." Look closer to home, to the 26 counties, at how minorities were treated here. Look at the innocent protestant civilians shot and burnt out. Look at the Jews expelled from Limerick.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    vesp wrote:
    Look at the Jews expelled from Limerick.

    Really? I've never heard of this.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    ye that is true, arthur griffith got a lot of flack for his involvent/connection/association with that event. he was seen in some quarters as anti jewish


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Really? I've never heard of this.
    It's Limerick, what did you expect ? :D

    http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/8878/format/html/displaystory.html
    One of the more infamous anti-Semitic incidents was the Limerick "pogrom" in 1904. Though no one was seriously injured, rioting occurred. And the term "pogrom" has stuck.

    The incident began when a priest used the pulpit to attack Jews. He called Jewish peddlers and merchants "leeches" who were sucking the blood of the Irish by overcharging or tricking the poor. The priest called for a boycott of Jewish merchants, and the town complied.

    Within a few years, virtually all of Limerick's 25 Jewish families and the rabbi had left.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,698 ✭✭✭InFront


    It's great to see this get debated. I think that as our society matures (remember we are still a very new European state) this issue will continue to be examined on a deeper and broader level.

    The people who lived in Ireland at the beginning of the last century were at an economic disadvantage. But oppressed? Of course not. They lived in as free a society as the people of Manchester or Liverpool or London or Glasgow or Kent. They could vote, run for election, joijn the police and the army, indeed they could expect the protection of the police and the army. They could speak and live as they wished (that is, as freely as one could reasonably expect to be able to speak and live in Victorian society)
    They deserved Home Rule, and they deserved independance too. But did they have a right to grab it using violence, murder - terrorism - really? No.

    Today, if a Palestinian man decides to annhilate Jewish men in the name of Palestine, he is a terrorist. This was so for the Irish extremists of the early 20th century. I am very sympathetic to the Palesitinians, and believe that Palestine should be restored to them. But any Palestinians who use violence as an offensive weapon to progress their cause are foolish thugs. DeValera, Collins, MacBride, Plunkett, the Pearses, these were all foolish thugs or madmen - terrorists. They used violence and lazy opportunism to bully and jostle their ideals forward, quite successfully in the long run. And this is important: those ideas would absolutely unquestionably have been realised eventually. Independence, as it came toi India, then including Pakistan and Bangla Desh, would have come anyway, peacefully.

    There is a tendancy to overlook the terrorism of past republicans because it just escapes living memory, or because of whatever romantic notions we may have about the terrorists.
    The terrorism that killed frightened women and innocent civilians in 1916 is no less acceptable as a bullying tactic than a terrorism that slams planes into buildings in New York City, or explodes human bodies in a Catholic area of Belfast.

    If we here now, having the wonderful education we all have on philosophy and science and literature - and common sense - experienced 1912, what would we think? Would we think "This is a society which warrants a forced change using violence and murder"?

    We have the wonderful benefit of hindsight. As such, it would be terrible of us to ignore or to praise the actions of the militant (extremist) republicans in perpetuating their political ideas through terrorism. Building statues and busts and holding parades to do the same is not only saddening, angering, but also downright hypocritical.

    Somebody remarked this to me once - or maybe I read this in a book: There is a statue, in St Stephens Green, close to the large water fountain in the centre, of Countess Markiewicz for her role in republicanism. That woman shot a policeman, an Irishman, one evening as he walked through the park. Why do we commemorate this act so dreamily?

    I don't expect all people to agree with this opinion. But I do feel quite angry over the apparent hero-worship that exists, even in very moderate circles, on the issue of historic Irish republican terrorism.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 864 ✭✭✭Aedh Baclamh


    The terrorism that killed frightened women and innocent civilians in 1916 is no less acceptable as a bullying tactic than a terrorism that slams planes into buildings in New York City

    You may want to have a re-think on that one again, out of your entire foolish post, this was the funniest.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    InFront wrote:
    The terrorism that killed frightened women and innocent civilians in 1916 is no less acceptable as a bullying tactic than a terrorism that slams planes into buildings in New York City, or explodes human bodies in a Catholic area of Belfast.

    That is actually correct. Do not forget when the rebels of 1916 surrendered they were shouted at and even spat at by the people of Dublin. The majority of people were against the rising. A relatively small number of rebels and people were involved in the rising compared to the hundreds of thousands who volunteered to serve in British forces and administration.
    An unfortunate consequence of the new Irish state and the republican propoganda machine glorifying these rebels of 1916 were the events which polarised later 20th century Ireland and caused much suffering.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 864 ✭✭✭Aedh Baclamh


    Vesp so weak.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭vesp


    Vesp so weak.
    great argument that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,698 ✭✭✭InFront


    You may want to have a re-think on that one again, out of your entire foolish post, this was the funniest.

    Why? Women and innocent civilians were killed in 1916. Their murders were no more warranted than the murders of 9/11.
    Remember: 1916 happened about 70 years after the famine, and nearly 200 years after Catholic Emancipation. Irish Catholic MPs sat at Westminster, Irish policemen walked the streets, Irish families lived perfectly happily in a free society. The Landlord System had been, in practical terms, totally abolished. How can you say the terrorism was needed?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    vesp and in front have made two good argumentd there, i agree in theory, but, as a nationalist who is honestly not ashamed of the acts of 1913-1922, i disagree in some,

    you look at how the french, and americans won/sought there indepence. remember the mentality for this 100 years ago was via war. post ww2 war was a dirty thing, and rightly so. our mentality now is to do things constitutionally, and rightly so.

    but, war was the only way to seek or get the peoples attention that home rule was not the answer(yes in the end thats waht we got bar the treaty changing a small bit, infront made a fine point that about 800 years) but the only option ireland had to attempt to bring a country like britain to its knees was guerilla warfare, we could not match america and france, this was attempted in 1798, battle of boyne (yes we fought for a english catholic king, just making an example), and 1916. failed miserably warfare tactic wise. the enemy was the british army and the ric and informers. so guerlia warfare, which is dirty and sneaky was our option and it worked. collins prefected to a t, that it lead to futher freedom fighters/ terriosts to adopt it.

    if this country did not have the climate we have ie situation in the north, and the ghost of civil war and the stupid anti british feeling then 1916 and war of independence should be up there with america and france's wars of independence. should not be ashamed of. but as it is now, maybe for the sake of not exploding it is time to forget about the past and think to the futher(i am referring to vesp and in front.. you know the saying history is important but it is what is done today and tommorrowthat counts)

    what happens when all the talking has failed, from a human intict what happens, its a case of well f89k ya its war then, note what llyod george said at the treaty.
    as far as palestine is concered, how could they do business with isreal, sure america would not help them, like they did with the 1998 good friday agreement (america at heir best, george mitchell thank you) sure america need their jewish us citizens to bank roll them (please i know that was crude but intentionally not anti jewish )

    as far as the comment on the long time span of famine etc fair point, but look even today some how that resentment is still with us. but remeber ireland was a poor state, farmers on crap plots paying to a landlord who's loyality was to as the people saw it, a foreign head of state, the people paid annuities to the crown for their land which many upstarts/born again republicians saw as oppression "irish land for the irish". our culture ie gaa was banned, people took to the street in dublin 1913, so for a small group of people acting in the name of ireland took to the gun, vesp made a point about the attitude of Pale after the rising, but that was not the attitude of the rest of the country, mcneill's statement to the rest of the volunters to not to come to dublin on that easter monday reduce the force that would come and fight, ie the cork/west brigades. read tom barrys book on the attitude dublin volunteers had with the cork on for not comming to help


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    And this is important: those ideas would absolutely unquestionably have been realised eventually.

    It's easy to look back at history and see an inexorable trend towards independence, but the fact of the matter is, without the actions, in many case terrorist actions, this trend might not have materialised. Who's to say what might have happened had the Americans not rebelled and used violence to force their views on people?
    Obviously, the theoritical justifications is the same as the 9/11 bombers, in the sense that my idea is the correct one, and I will kill to get it done. That however does not justify not acting, infact it's just a cop out. Hiding behind relativism would justify inaction against say the Nazis. I realise this is an extreme example, but the point is that if you feel something is wrong, and it can only be solved by violence, you have only two choices really, and just because you have the same philosophical basis, shouldn't restrict you from acting.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭csk


    InFront wrote:
    The people who lived in Ireland at the beginning of the last century were at an economic disadvantage. But oppressed? Of course not.

    This depends on what you view as oppression.
    Were the Penal Laws oppressive? yes I would say.
    Were the plantations oppressive? again I have to say yes.

    Was the fact that the economic disadvantage, being the culmination of oppressive processes and policies such as these and that it was usually the directly or indirectly desired consequence, not oppression?
    Of course not, sure it wouldn't fit with your view of history.:rolleyes:
    infront wrote:
    They lived in as free a society as the people of Manchester or Liverpool or London or Glasgow or Kent.

    Of course you blithely ignore the big difference with those cities.
    The majority of Irish people wanted out of that "society" as per the 20 or so years of constantly democratically voting for Home Rule.
    Plus the fact that those same people had no say in the implentation of the Act of Union in the first place.
    They could vote,
    Yes they could and look how they did, for a parlaiment of their own which was denied constantly.
    run for election,
    Yes to a parlaiment they were in a sense voting against.
    joijn the police and the army, indeed they could expect the protection of the police and the army.

    I cannot believe you brought up the army especially with the historical context it has been viewed in.

    infront wrote:
    They deserved Home Rule, and they deserved independance too. But did they have a right to grab it using violence, murder - terrorism - really? No.

    okay here is where you start to descend into the land of ridiculous. the word terrorist has lost all meaning, everyone is now a terrorist, depending on what side of the fence, so to speak, you are on. the British, American and Israeli Govt as well as groups like the IRA, Hamas and ETA [EDIT] have all been labelled terrorists. [EDIT]Using it here does nothing but undermine your argument.
    infront wrote:
    Today, if a Palestinian man decides to annhilate Jewish men in the name of Palestine, he is a terrorist. This was so for the Irish extremists of the early 20th century. I am very sympathetic to the Palesitinians, and believe that Palestine should be restored to them. But any Palestinians who use violence as an offensive weapon to progress their cause are foolish thugs.

    Here you are, continuing into that land at a merry pace.

    By invoking today you are judging the past by todays standards. since the world has moved on drastically since 1945, it is facetious to try and compare like for like. now that doesn't meant that this somehow justifies the use of violence in the past, it just shows that you don't really seem have a grasp of the contexts involved.
    DeValera, Collins, MacBride, Plunkett, the Pearses, these were all foolish thugs or madmen - terrorists. They used violence and lazy opportunism to bully and jostle their ideals forward, quite successfully in the long run.
    Okay first lets take DeValera and Collins and their lazy opportunism. they ran in an election on a succesful platform, put their views forward and maybe exploited public issues for their benefit. how is that lazy opportunism?
    Is every politician so just exploiting lazy opportunism?
    Say FG run a successful elction next year by highlighting the many failures of FF/PD govt. and win a landslide victory. is this just lazy opportunism in order to bully and jostle their ideals forward?

    As for their use of violence, you don't say why it was not justified.
    except of course because like, you say so...and sure they were terrorists.
    And this is important: those ideas would absolutely unquestionably have been realised eventually. Independence, as it came toi India, then including Pakistan and Bangla Desh, would have come anyway, peacefully.
    Okay, now you are actually running headlong towards that land.

    How do you know this would have "absolutely unquestionably been realised eventually"?
    I could equally say that had not Ireland won its independence by violence, then it would "absolutely unquestionably" have been destroyed in a Nuclear holocaust.
    Now you can say, "but csk that is patently absurd. what evidence is there to suggest that such a thing would have happened?"
    Well, its the same evidence you have, none. Both assertions are patently ridiculous. Just because yours is shrouded in a thin veil of logic does not make it any less absurd. The fact remains that neither outcomes happened but both could have.

    Also to compare Ireland's situation with that of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, while ignoring the obvious difference in the contexts, is once again absurd.
    If we here now, having the wonderful education we all have on philosophy and science and literature - and common sense - experienced 1912, what would we think? Would we think "This is a society which warrants a forced change using violence and murder"?

    :eek: Ah, you have finally arrived in the land of the ridicolous.

    The fact is the people of 1912 did not have the "wonderfull education, philosophy, science or literature" we have. So how can we judge them by our standards when they did not make decisions with the benefit of them.
    We can only judge them by their standards.
    Now this is a hard thing to try but to not even bother trying is just plain wrong.
    We have the wonderful benefit of hindsight. As such, it would be terrible of us to ignore or to praise the actions of the militant (extremist) republicans in perpetuating their political ideas through terrorism. Building statues and busts and holding parades to do the same is not only saddening, angering, but also downright hypocritical.

    You know what is actualy terrible is for us to judge the past by todays standards. Yes we have hindsight that allows us to look at how things in the past might have turned out different or how things might have been improved but to completeley retrospectively appply todays values is wrong.
    I don't expect all people to agree with this opinion. But I do feel quite angry over the apparent hero-worship that exists, even in very moderate circles, on the issue of historic Irish republican terrorism.

    You know I get quite angry when I see people who hold 21st century pacifist ideals ( of which the ability to hold such ideals was ironically enough won by the "foolish thugs" and "terrorists") try to retrospectively apply those ideals to the past.
    I also get quite angry when I see people who have been conditioned by various "revisionists" (who have their own ulterior agenda) try to pervert history.
    After reading your post you seem to be an unholy almalgam of the two and all I can say is try to learn the contexts before embarking on grand scale denouncements of what you seem to have little understanding.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,698 ✭✭✭InFront


    csk wrote:
    This depends on what you view as oppression.
    Were the Penal Laws oppressive? yes I would say.
    Were the plantations oppressive? again I have to say yes.

    So would I. They were long since finsished with by the outbreak of WWI.
    Was the fact that the economic disadvantage, being the culmination of oppressive processes and policies such as these and that it was usually the directly or indirectly desired consequence, not oppression?
    Of course not, sure it wouldn't fit with your view of history.:rolleyes:

    You can't claim that the economic disadvantage that ireland was at in the early 20th century was a direct result of the penal laws. It was due to the fact that Ireland was, quite foolishly, being ruled by a foreign power with unfortunately little say in its own administration. Today, we see the same situation in Ulster.
    Of course you blithely ignore the big difference with those cities.
    The majority of Irish people wanted out of that "society" as per the 20 or so years of constantly democratically voting for Home Rule.
    Plus the fact that those same people had no say in the implentation of the Act of Union in the first place.

    The reason why I mentioned those places is to point out that the Irish were no worse off as citizens than those in England, Wales and Scotland. They had the very same rights.
    Now, yes the majority of Irish people probably wanted to break away from the UK administration i.e. wanted home rule. Who would dispute that? But republican terrorists like Padraig Pearse and his brother, and Thomas Clarke, McDonagh et al. were unelected (some failed to run, others were never voted in), fanatical individuals who walked into a post office in a democratic country, in a city where Irish people were free citizens, and shot innocent people so that their ancient romantic ideology could be realized in, as one historian called it, "a passion play with real blood". That, to me anyway, is terrorism.
    Much as the heroism that can go on with Muslim terrorists, these people were only later awarded respect and praise.
    Yes they could and look how they did, for a parlaiment of their own which was denied constantly.
    Yes, but the difference now was that this parliament was no longer being denied. They Home Rule Bill 1914 was passed into law and later delivered on. Even if this had not happened, there would still be no cause for terrorism. Look at Scotland and Wales and their respective nationalist histories.
    okay here is where you start to descend into the land of ridiculous. the word terrorist has lost all meaning, everyone is now a terrorist, depending on what side of the fence, so to speak, you are on, the British, American and Israeli Govt as well as groups like the IRA, Hamas and ETA. Using it here does nothing but undermine your argument.

    I would view a terrorist as an unelected political or philosophical activist who uses (often extreme levels of) violence towards society to further his cause. I wouldn't include governments as in their case, the line between furthering one's cause and doing one's duty for peace is so easily blurred. I am still of the opinion that most people who don't view these republicans ont eh early 20th century as terrorists, think so because the crimes they committed happened "ages ago".
    By invoking today you are judging the past by todays standards. since the world has moved on drastically since 1945, it is facetious to try and compare like for like.

    My whole point was about understanding the context. I mentioned why the violence was unjustified in that era before independence. Why don't you tell us why it was justified?
    By the way, you can't just leave the past in an untouchable bubble of perfection. Of course we have to judge it by today's standards, that doesn't mean we can't still appreciate the context that events like 1916 or 1798 occured in. That's a very basic point.

    Okay first lets take DeValera and Collins and their lazy opportunism. they ran in an election on a succesful platform, put their views forward and maybe exploited public issues for their benefit. how is that lazy opportunism?

    In some ways 1916 played such a small part in Dev's and Collins' respective careers. In more ways, it was instrumental to their careers. 1916 was a turning point, the executions that followed combined with things like the ongoing war in Europe and the threat of conscription polarised political opinion here. DeValera and Collins, and men like them, used that as a vehicle to perpetuate their own ideas (fine ideas in themselves) through militant action. Seeing how terrorism had worked, these men, who would not sit at Westminster, nor would they sit in Dublin, used violence as the lazy way of getting things done.
    What exactly was the sudden rush in pushing nationalism by force? They wanted to ride the post-1916 'easy' wave that surfers call a tube ride.
    Say FG run a successful elction next year by highlighting the many failures of FF/PD govt. and win a landslide victory. is this just lazy opportunism in order to bully and jostle their ideals forward?

    No. If they turned up at FF district offices with baseball bats knowing that people would react positively to their actions, that would be lazy opportunism. Going out and trying to win an election for yourself is much harder and requires effort. Terrorism is easy, any dumbass can fire a gun.
    As for their use of violence, you don't say why it was not justified.
    except of course because like, you say so...and sure they were terrorists.

    Yes, I did.

    Women and innocent civilians were killed in 1916. Their murders were no more warranted than the murders of 9/11.
    Remember: 1916 happened about 70 years after the famine, and nearly 200 years after Catholic Emancipation. Irish Catholic MPs sat at Westminster, Irish policemen walked the streets, Irish families lived perfectly happily in a free society. The Landlord System had been, in practical terms, totally abolished. How can you say the terrorism was needed?

    How do you know this would have "absolutely unquestionably been realised eventually"?

    My point here was knowing what we now know about events of the 20th century, Britain could never have kept a hold on Ireland after giving them home rule. Look at India: we may have had to have waited until after WWII, but the independence would also have come here. And many of the civilians, and indeed Collins himself, would probably have been around to enjoy it.

    Also to compare Ireland's situation with that of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, while ignoring the obvious difference in the contexts, is once again absurd.

    Ok what's "the obvious difference" in the context? I just don't agree it's absurd considering how many parallells there are between the countries. You know our problem? Mahatma Gandhi was from the Gujarát and not Gorey.


    The fact is the people of 1912 did not have the "wonderfull education, philosophy, science or literature" we have. So how can we judge them by our standards when they did not make decisions with the benefit of them.
    We can only judge them by their standards.

    My point there, if you had read it, was that it was one thing for the public at the time to adore the republican terrorists of 1916 and beyond, it is ridiculous for us to do so, with our education, to judge them as heroes or freedom fighters.
    You know what is actualy terrible is for us to judge the past by todays standards.

    That's a completely bizarre thing to say. While we always have to be mindful of the environment in which an event occured when judging past actions, to say that we should not using our knowledge and awareness to do so is completely backwards. This is how history moves forwards, and opinions on history change, otherwise, the whole thing, as well as politics, would remain completely static.
    You know I get quite angry when I see people who hold 21st century pacifist ideals ( of which the ability to hold such ideals was ironically enough won by the "foolish thugs" and "terrorists") try to retrospectively apply those ideals to the past.
    The republican terrorists didn't win freedom of speech or freedom of thinking for us, whata strange thing to suggest. Like I said, Britain was a free society. These men won us things like the ability to have a national soccer team at an earlier point in time than might otherwise have been expected, they won us a famously shoddy and unsuccessful domestic policy for the early years of the state that actually left a family dead of starvation in Cork, a civil war, they won us 'a quick state' of our own, ready with the last ping of a bullet of the war of Independence.
    After reading your post you seem to be an unholy almalgam of the two and all I can say is try to learn the contexts before embarking on grand scale denouncements of what you seem to have little understanding.

    I have an extensive understanding of this period and anything you say to the contrary doesn't really further your argument, whatever that is.
    You seem to be blindly accepting the actions of republican terrorists as "all good before 1922", that is an absolutely absurd political viewpoint in my opinion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,698 ✭✭✭InFront


    PHB wrote:
    It's easy to look back at history and see an inexorable trend towards independence, but the fact of the matter is, without the actions, in many case terrorist actions, this trend might not have materialised.

    Absolutely, that's a valuable point. Of course it is easier for us to see what was coming. But it is not unreasonable to question how necessary the use of violence by irish nationalists at various periods throughout history was. And I know it is not the direct topic of this thread, but 1916 and the War of Independence do seeem to be the most glarlingly obvious examples of that.

    Sinn Féin wouldn't sit at the Irish convention when it was established in 1917. They placed their trust in the achievment of complete independence with violence and illegal activities, not democracy nor peace. They are not a whole lot removed from the Sinn Féin we saw at the final one third of the same century.
    Obviously, the theoritical justifications is the same as the 9/11 bombers, in the sense that my idea is the correct one, and I will kill to get it done. That however does not justify not acting, infact it's just a cop out.

    I cannot think of a single situation where offensive terrorism is called for. Can anyone actually look at the War of Independence or 1916 and say that is was defensive terrorism or defensive militantism if if the latter makes you feel more comfortable? It was an offensive strategy, just the same in method and similar in philosophy as 9/11


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    You can't claim that the economic disadvantage that ireland was at in the early 20th century was a direct result of the penal laws. It was due to the fact that Ireland was, quite foolishly, being ruled by a foreign power with unfortunately little say in its own administration. Today, we see the same situation in Ulster. quote

    right?. so, you look at who ruled ireland when it had a government berfore the act of union. who feared the most if ireland was seperate from britain? the protestant ascendency. penal laws got rid of any chance catholics, who was the main religion in the land, from controlling government. hedge schools and death if found praticing, soundds like revenge for queen mary's work, surely this is oppression. so imagine daniel o connell comes and when the peoples rights back, surely you dont believe all of a sudden the catholics would have experience to run things. remember not many working class/tenant farmers knew what it was like to hold real power and land,

    liverpool, manchester, wales and scotland? well barr scotland, these places are pretty different to galway, cork and kerry. not everyone is from the pale "the empires second city"

    Now, yes the majority of Irish people probably wanted to break away from the UK administration i.e. wanted home rule. Who would dispute that? But republican terrorists like Padraig Pearse and his brother, and Thomas Clarke, McDonagh et al. were unelected (some failed to run, others were never voted in), fanatical individuals who walked into a post office in a democratic country, in a city where Irish people were free citizens, and shot innocent people so that their ancient romantic ideology could be realized in, as one historian called it, "a passion play with real blood". That, to me anyway, is terrorism. quote

    so was geogre washionton or malcom or ghandi terriorists? just remember you emphasised city ie dublin again opinion on the crown differed greatly outside the pale, famine and the land league war assured that, what makes you so sure that home rule which was shelved would actually come, a new conservative government may have repealed it, they were not too happy bout the concessions gving in the act of government 1920 or the treaty. how could you say this was a democratic government? ruled by westmnister? sure john redmond and cs parnell had fine estates who took rent from tenants, why would they rock the boat and ask britain from complete seperation. remeber, the fenians in 1848 and robert emmet had rose against britain for the same reasons with very good support, 1916 had not been a one off. plus even when ireland had a government, westminister could veto certain laws, ireland could not have a say in millitary/army, certain fiscal policies were at the hands of westminister.


    Yes, but the difference now was that this parliament was no longer being denied. They Home Rule Bill 1914 was passed into law and later delivered on. Even if this had not happened, there would still be no cause for terrorism. Look at Scotland and Wales and their respective nationalist histories. quote

    please, they lack nationalism and self respect, after all that has happened to them they just took it like little b7TCHES. just note we are physically separated from britain. i would not be surprised if the film braveheart somehow reawoken the scots sense of nationality lol sure shortly after they came sniffing for an independant government

    I would view a terrorist as an unelected political or philosophical activist who uses (often extreme levels of) violence towards society to further his cause. I wouldn't include governments as in their case, the line between furthering one's cause and doing one's duty for peace is so easily blurred. I am still of the opinion that most people who don't view these republicans ont eh early 20th century as terrorists, think so because the crimes they committed happened "ages ago". quote

    well compared to ira today eeh maybe true to be honest especially since omagh. but remember their deeds 80 years ago were not a crime, it was war, a war the british mps finally came to accept, britain had acepted people like terrance mcsweeny were prisoners of war,


    My whole point was about understanding the context. I mentioned why the violence was unjustified in that era before independence. Why don't you tell us why it was justified?
    By the way, you can't just leave the past in an untouchable bubble of perfection.

    Of course we have to judge it by today's standards, that doesn't mean we can't still appreciate the context that events like 1916 or 1798 occured in. That's a very basic point. quote

    that depends on anyone calling pearse or wolfe tone a terriorist, please note collins and co might have used the 1916 executions as propaganda and to their advantage to the rest of the world, but the people who joined old ira was voluntary. are all these people, over 50,000 or less and the people who sheltered and fed them are they terrorist?

    Seeing how terrorism had worked, these men, who would not sit at Westminster, nor would they sit in Dublin, used violence as the lazy way of getting things done.
    What exactly was the sudden rush in pushing nationalism by force? They wanted to ride the post-1916 'easy' wave that surfers call a tube ride.quote

    dail eireann 21st of january 1919 in mansion house dublin was the irish parliament. couldn't people have ignored and laughed at them the same way as they did to pearse at the gpo? couldn't they have continued to vote for irish parliamentary party? how come its was ok for us forces to aid certain african and middle east countries to over throw certain heads of state?

    No. If they turned up at FF district offices with baseball bats knowing that people would react positively to their actions, that would be lazy opportunism. Going out and trying to win an election for yourself is much harder and requires effort. Terrorism is easy, any dumbass can fire a gun. quote

    eh risk one's life, pearse was never keen on the lost of fellow irish people for his actions. it was hard for one to think, after all its history and conflict and bloodshed wit britain, our parliamentary men were handing over and suggesting to volunteers to fight with britain. pitty small belgium never thought about the people of he congo. true any dumbass can fire a gun its another thing to beat the opponents.

    dont get me wrong. creating war is no way of getting things solved in todays society. this was proved after vietnam

    My point here was knowing what we now know about events of the 20th century, Britain could never have kept a hold on Ireland after giving them home rule. Look at India: we may have had to have waited until after WWII, but the independence would also have come here. And many of the civilians, and indeed Collins himself, would probably have been around to enjoy it. quote

    maybe. but 1916 as you pointed out was a stepping stone of things to come. it re awoken republican sentiment, how do we not know that there would not have been a status quo after the granting of home rule? do you honestly believe collins would have kept his word on the treaty? what was sending guns to the north and paying civil servants to denounce ni government and recognise the dail all about then


    My point there, if you had read it, was that it was one thing for the public at the time to adore the republican terrorists of 1916 and beyond, it is ridiculous for us to do so, with our education, to judge them as heroes or freedom fighters. quote

    fair point. but should not be ashamed of what happened
    time to continue our good relationship with britain, even tony blair acknowledged the actions of britain against ireland in 1997 and on behalf of the country appoligesed.

    I have an extensive understanding of this period and anything you say to the contrary doesn't really further your argument, whatever that is.
    You seem to be blindly accepting the actions of republican terrorists as "all good before 1922", that is an absolutely absurd political viewpoint in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

    do you really? and no i aint from sinn fein old school of history. you know that history books and research dont paint the true picture all the time, sure if say america is so concerned with terrorism why did they not get involved and help countries like rwanda or become more involved in south afria during the aptraid (damn wrong spelling) years


Advertisement