800 years

brianthebard · 31-12-2006 6:17pm

Sand wrote:

What else would they be? Hailing from Hawai and being America isnt impossible, indeed you might say its the norm. And whilst I havent studied the culture of Hawai I might dare say theyre little more culturally Hawaian than Irish Americans are culturally Irish.

Well they would have been Hawai'ian until the 50s, but according to Vesp's statements once they start using the dollar they are American. I personally don't think that identity is that easily shrugged off. And if they are more culturally Hawai'ian than Irish Americans, does that not make their Hawai'ian identity more important than their American one?

vesp · 31-12-2006 8:33pm

brianthebard wrote:

Are you honestly telling me that a person born in the 20s or 30s in the Hawai'ian islands is American, merely because they live within American jurisdiction? Or does it only apply once a country is assimilated?

Again total rubbish. I am talking about peoples nationality, and what usually decides it is where they are born or where they live. Virtually all Hawaiians are proud to be Americans. When they travel abroad they usually use American passports. There is no looney independence movement in Hawaii, no Hawaii Republican Army !

vesp · 31-12-2006 8:36pm

brianthebard wrote:

Well they would have been Hawai'ian until the 50s, ....etc etc

lol You may as well say they were so anti-American in the early forties it was a mistake of the Japanese to bomb them ....

brianthebard · 31-12-2006 8:55pm

vesp wrote:

Again total rubbish. I am talking about peoples nationality, and what usually decides it is where they are born or where they live. Virtually all Hawaiians are proud to be Americans. When they travel abroad they usually use American passports. There is no looney independence movement in Hawaii, no Hawaii Republican Army !

So you are changing your argument? at first you said that because Hawai'ians use American passports and are part of the Union they are American, now you are saying nationality is decided by birthplace? That would make people born in Hawai'i Hawai'ian, since America refers to the continent and the USA is a union of states, not a state or nation in its own right? do you see where you are wrong yet? Lolz./

vesp wrote:

lol You may as well say they were so anti-American in the early forties it was a mistake of the Japanese to bomb them ....

There was no suggestion that they are anti-American in my posts, merely that they are not American. The Japanese bombed Americas military bases, not the whole islands. This is that last time I shall reply to your posts on this topic, but I will ask you for the third time to reply on the topic of Tibet, unless you are conceding the point. If you are conceding then your argument is invalid. Lolz and such.

dave2pvd · 31-12-2006 9:56pm

Sand wrote:

I might dare say theyre little more culturally Hawaian than Irish Americans are culturally Irish.

You might be surprised! Some of the NY boroughs and the likes of Southie in Boston are rabidly 'Irish'. In a time-warped, weepy eyed, 50's kind of way.

vesp · 01-01-2007 2:58am

brianthebard wrote:

So you are changing your argument? at first you said that because Hawai'ians use American passports and are part of the Union they are American, now you are saying nationality is decided by birthplace?
.

What I said was it was usually decided by where they are born or where they live. Virtually all Hawaiians are proud to be Americans.

brianthebard wrote:

There was no suggestion that they are anti-American in my posts, merely that they are not American..

Sorry to have to correct you yet again : they are very definitely American. Hawaiians are American. And proud of it.

brianthebard wrote:

The Japanese bombed Americas military bases, not the whole islands. .

Nobody ever said the Japanese bombed every building in Hawaii or all over each island.

brianthebard wrote:

This is that last time I shall reply to your posts on this topic, but I will ask you for the third time to reply on the topic of Tibet, unless you are conceding the point. If you are conceding then your argument is invalid. Lolz and such.

What has Tibet got to do with it ? My original point was " if people were born in Britain, pay their taxes to the British govt, receive benefits from the British govt, have a British passport, use British currency each and every day etc etc ...its kind of hard to see that they are also not British.
I suppose you get some people in California who would not consider themselves American. Some people from Bali who are not indonesians etc."

What has Tibet got to do with that ? They are certainly not British, I can tell you that. You can go off on a tangent talking about Tibet if you want, but I suggest you start another thread if you want to do so. As I clarified to you, " Bavarians are still Germans. Sicilians are still Italians. Tasmanians are still Australians. Corkonians are still Irish. New yorkers and Californians are stll American". Worry about Tibet if you must. There are no bird watching expeditions to that part of the world ! And the only powder the average poor revolutionary there knows about is different to that known by those in FARC etc. Maybe Charlie Bird should go there and buy clothes for the 3 jailed priosoners there, as he has done in central America ?

Hagar · 01-01-2007 12:28pm

Seeing as it's New Year's Day could a mod please change the thread title to
"801 Years" ? Thank you.

brianthebard · 01-01-2007 3:40pm

vesp wrote:

What has Tibet got to do with that ? They are certainly not British, I can tell you that. You can go off on a tangent talking about Tibet if you want, but I suggest you start another thread if you want to do so. As I clarified to you, " Bavarians are still Germans. Sicilians are still Italians. Tasmanians are still Australians. Corkonians are still Irish. New yorkers and Californians are stll American". Worry about Tibet if you must. There are no bird watching expeditions to that part of the world ! And the only powder the average poor revolutionary there knows about is different to that known by those in FARC etc. Maybe Charlie Bird should go there and buy clothes for the 3 jailed priosoners there, as he has done in central America ?

Your argument is if you use a countries money, have x passport, etc you are british/american/etc but Tibet is a country of itself but also it is occupied by China, and use chinese currency, passports etc, but Tibetans(generally) most definitely aren't chinese. Would you have told a polish person in the 1970's that they were Russian, because the USSR controls their state? There is more to national identity than administrative structure but obviously you can't grasp that simple fact.

LordSutch · 01-01-2007 8:06pm

Being British is a geographical fact if you come from (the island of Britain) or in the case of people from this island identifying with Britishness or (frame of mind) and the fact that you belong to this "Family of islands" forever connected by the Blood, Family & Cultural ties of Britain & Ireland.

Many Americans claim also to be Irish, even though their only connection with Ireland might be that a great grand Mother came from Enniskillen, in which case, they might claim British ancestry?

Scots are certainly British in one context as in (born on the island of Britain) & of course they are also Scottish ~ English people are British too, but no more than Scots, unless you are refering to England & Englishness (but thats another story altogether)!

As for people from this island, you try telling a McCartney, a Trimble or a Paisley that he is not British and see what reply you get, and I suspect the answer will be that he is most certainly British as well as being Irish!

Apart from what it says on your Passport "Britishness is a frame of mind" as well as being a geographical fact.

One question which eludes me is "Why some Scots may dismiss being British even though, they & all their ancesters were born in BRITAIN".

Sand · 01-01-2007 9:05pm

One question which eludes me is "Why some Scots may dismiss being British even though, they & all their ancesters were born in BRITAIN".

I think that Europeans especially are stuck in the nation-state mentality which arose after the Treaty of Westphalia. Prior to that, states would govern over various peoples which spoke different languages, had different cultures and which were only united by their central government.

The state of Britain [In fact all European states] has juristiction over many nations, the most crude breakdown being English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish with many, many sub cultures below that as well. At one point all of Ireland was included within the state of Britain, not the nation of England - which seems to be the defining concern of the "800 years" brigade. The Scots are probably concerned that being part of the state of Britain means they are by default culturally English. Somewhat insecure, but seeing as theyre still trying to be Scottish *and* British were not in a position to criticise.

Non nation-states like the US [no official language, no official religion, etc etc] are able to project a shared sense of identity that can unify Hawians and Bostonian Irish Americans [historically people who have nothing in common] under one flag and one constitution, which imo is pretty admirable even if it is mostly an accident of history [a host of european colonies on the east coast of America, conquered by Britain, united in revolt against Britain with a constitution written with the aim of keeping everyone onside despite the fact they were culturally Dutch, German, Norwegian, Scottish, English etc etc].

Nation states like Ireland are still stuck in the mentality of official languages, religions and official cultures which cant. Hopefully that will change as immigration continues.

You might be surprised! Some of the NY boroughs and the likes of Southie in Boston are rabidly 'Irish'. In a time-warped, weepy eyed, 50's kind of way.

Well, thats an example of Irish-American culture as opposed to Irish culture. Like you said, its a very time warped, stuck in the 70s style version of "the old country". From and Irish point of view it bears as much resemblance to Irish culture [or at least my chunk of Ireland] as Grease! does to US culture.

gurramok · 08-01-2007 12:32am

ArthurF wrote:

Being British is a geographical fact if you come from (the island of Britain) or in the case of people from this island identifying with Britishness or (frame of mind) and the fact that you belong to this "Family of islands" forever connected by the Blood, Family & Cultural ties of Britain & Ireland.

Yes true, many hundreds pf thousands of ethic Irish emigrated including some of my relatives to Britain in the last couple hundred odd years or so.
In the example of my relatives, they'd identify themselves as having Irish heritage first and being UK citizens second, not culturally British though.

ArthurF wrote:

Many Americans claim also to be Irish, even though their only connection with Ireland might be that a great grand Mother came from Enniskillen, in which case, they might claim British ancestry?

Same again with ancestry, they came from all over the country of Ireland, not just in Enniskillen

ArthurF wrote:

Scots are certainly British in one context as in (born on the island of Britain) & of course they are also Scottish ~ English people are British too, but no more than Scots, unless you are refering to England & Englishness (but thats another story altogether)!

Most Scots bar the pro-union fundamentalists would identify themselves as Scottish first and maybe British second if they bother!.

ArthurF wrote:

As for people from this island, you try telling a McCartney, a Trimble or a Paisley that he is not British and see what reply you get, and I suspect the answer will be that he is most certainly British as well as being Irish!

Try telling them that they are Irish and try run as fast as you can!

ArthurF wrote:

Apart from what it says on your Passport "Britishness is a frame of mind" as well as being a geographical fact.

Correct assuming for those that hold a British passport and are strong believers of it and its crown on the front rather than take one as 'its more convenient'.

ArthurF wrote:

One question which eludes me is "Why some Scots may dismiss being British even though, they & all their ancesters were born in BRITAIN".

Correct, they don't identify with the British state which is a whole world of difference from identifying with a geographical area called Britain which is quite reasonable.

discopantslisa · 23-01-2007 4:44pm

csk wrote:

Your whole argument is based on the false premise that knowing what we know now Home Rule was "absolutely unquestionable" coming.
As has been demonstrated that is wrong, Home Rule was not inevitable and it did not guarnatee that a) there would have been no violence or b) that Full Independence would have come.
Yet look to what we actually know, that Full Independence was achieved with the help of violence. That with that Independence, the one aim of the people of Ireland through all the long years of various struggles was finally realised and was enshrined in the Free State Constitution.This was popular sovereignty.
In your desperation to condenm what you see as a crazed cabal of extremist Republicans, you seem to exonerate the people of Ireland from all blame. To do so is foolish, it was the will of the people that allowed Sinn Féin to do what it did, the same as it was the will of the people that allowed the IPP to do what it did, it was the same will that erupted in 1798 and the same will that supported a Catholic King of England or an undersiege Protestant one. A crazed cabal of republican extremeists did not manipulate or "bully their way forward", the were carried on the tide of the people's desire to be free.
Now 1916 was not a manifestation of this will. Yet it turned peoples opinion towards those who were in a better position to achieve what it was the people wanted. Why is this wrong? In the end 1916 kickstarted the process(if I can be so crude), the process ended with the ultimate desire of every generation of Irishmen to ever have walked the earth: Popular Sovereignty.
Ultimately this goal was only ever symbolic but over the years as I have stated this desire was expressed in different ways, in 1690, they Looked to King James II, in the latter half of the 19th Century they looked to Home Rule and in the years after 1916 they looked to Sinn Féin and the Republic. Yet it didn't matter to the vast majority of people what form that freedom would take be it monarchy, Home Rule or Republic. All these organisations were entrusted by the people of Ireland to do, was their best to further the goal of Freedom.
Ultimately this symbolic goal was enshrined in the Free State Constitution that stated "the soveriegnty of the state is derived solely from the people of the State"(not a direct quotation but close enough). This was tremendously important, it negated the oath of fealty to the King and it allowed the eventual declaration of the Republic and finally escaping the evil clutches of the British Empire. No other Dominion had been granted the priviledge of this (AFAIK) at the time.
Now for you to turn around knowing all this and tell me that I should now look to 1916 and say "I condemn these men", simply because today Palestinians, Afhgani's and the Provisional IRA are branded Terrorist and these have some small things in commom with The founding Fathers of this State, as all the while you ignore the element of British fault, is in my opinion disgusting, deplorable, degrading and decrepit.

(after rereading this last point I see it is couched in overtly Nationalistic tones but I still stand by everything I said.)

maybe i should just let sleeping dofgs lie but none of what you said throughout this topic has actually justified 1916 really. these men did awful things killing innocent policmen why should we look to them now?

csk · 23-01-2007 6:05pm

discopantslisa wrote:

maybe i should just let sleeping dofgs lie but none of what you said throughout this topic has actually justified 1916 really. these men did awful things killing innocent policmen why should we look to them now?

Look you should just have left this thread to die. I never set out to attempt to justify 1916. The only reason I responded to the poster who started this Irish independence is "petty" thing, was to point out that what they were saying was wrong, looking back I realise that I gave that poster too much credit and should have just pointed out what was wrong more bluntly.

What I actually was responding to was the poster InFront's thesis (if such a word could describe such nonsense) that was built on three faulty premises of lies, falsehoods and a logical fallacy.

First off the acusation of terrorist that is a lie, pure and simple. The word terrorist has no place in an historical debate anyway, as it cannot escape its propagandist and subjective conotations (actually maybe falsehood is better or is lie and falsehood interchangeable? any way I don't care bottom line; wrong)

Secondly there was the falsehood, that Home Rule was "absolutely unquestionably coming". Home Rule had been postponed indefintinly because of Unionist threats and WWI. If anything 1916 actually sped up it's implementation. The second falsehood was that Home Rule would have been less bloody, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest such a thing. In fact I would argue that the opposite would have the case and it would have been far more bloody.

Thridly, the logical fallacy that knowing what we know now we should condemn those men. Now I don't know what world InFront inhabits but where I live is known as the Republic of Ireland and very proud too am I of this little republic and all it has achieved. Now if you were to put down what we know, it would be very simple, the Republic was proclaimed in 1916, ratified by the people in 1919, defended valiantly in arms until it was downsized to dominion status in 1921, and resurrected through Bunreacht na hÉireann and the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. Now that may read like a very cosy, simplistic non-historical way of looking at things but that is the lineage of this State and of my government, of Ireland's government today.

Obviosuly history is open to intrepretation but at the end of the day what we know is that Ireland won its Independence in 1921, simple really. Whether the British would have deigned to give us independence at a later stage is purely speculation and unfounded speculation at that, not to mention a tad ridiculous.

I think An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern put the whole "what we know thing" perfectly in a recent speech, when he said:

"We will commemorate inclusively the greatest generation we have ever produced. We want to celebrate the freedom we achieved. And we want more publicly to recognise all of those who gave us the opportunity to acquire and develop that freedom. This is our national inheritance and it is incumbent on all who value our democracy to join in suitably recognising the bravery, dignity and sacrifice of our forebearers. "

If you are going to start with the whole, they were bad men, angle then all I can say is so where the British Government(who are still bad men judging by the report about collusion). If you want me to attempt to justify 1916, then I will attempt to do so. However first you must answer one simple question

What right did the British Government have to subjugate the people of Ireland ?

walrusgumble · 23-01-2007 10:25pm

well said csk

one difference between 1916-1921 and the troubles, was the actions of the old ira were supported and directed by our government, dail eireann, whoose members were elected by the people. one must remember that other paries such as irish parliamentary party were invited to mansion house on 19th january 1919 (why no mention of its anniversary a few days ago?)

majority of people contributed to the cause be it providing food and shelter, information, shunning members of the ric. it was sad that such members were murdered as they were irishmen who simply wanted to be policemen. but remember these guys and the black and tans gave as good as they got to many an innocent victim. had the war of independence gone on any longer britain may have crippled us. incidently ric men were not purposely put on the hit list for the hell of it. the chief or sergeant was on the list if they had tortured/harmed any volunteer in their custody. a republic was claimed and they, the ric, were held for treason.so were all the people of rural ireland terriorist? (ie outside the lushy streets o south dublin)

the south's attitude towards ira and sinn fein changed dramactically when civil war occured, and has continued since.no government approved of their actions. but yes there was some sympathy towards the innocent victims of nationalist northern ireland, who were forced out of their homes and discriminated from employment oppurtunities, prevented from playing their gaa due to suspions of ire at work (crossmaglen, armagh until recently) did kevin meyers mention that or was the idea of nationalist's struggle for civil rights as seen in black america not sexy enough for him, whats his views on someone say, malcolm x? i mean this is the same tw^t how last year echoced a very interesting opinion on single mothers of today. look who lead the line for revionists history, conor cruise o'brien, not exactly a nationalist, was he, too many cheeries with his friends in the unionist parties.

as a nationalist i am not ashamed of how independence was won, it was a war and informers or protectors of the crown were the emeny. now despite this because i wish for an island to move forward and buid bridges with unionist community i wish that events of 81 years ago can be celebrated with dignity whilst not overhyped or glorified.

LordSutch · 25-01-2007 5:56pm

Not so sure about the use of the word 'Celebrate' in the context of 1916.

Blackjack · 25-01-2007 11:49pm

ArthurF wrote:

Not so sure about the use of the word 'Celebrate' in the context of 1916.

Ever heard of relativaty?. For a number of people, 1916 is Cognisant with the formation of an Independant Ireland.

For me, an Ireland Independant of the UK is worth Celebrating, and 1916 is the original catalyst for that.

LordSutch · 26-01-2007 12:57pm

I still say that to 'Celebrate' the events of 1916 in Dublin is wrong!
'Remember' by all means, and mourn the dead, but by all accounts the events of 1916 in Dublin 'helped' to divide this island to an even greater extent, and as a matter of interest, I also Remember 1916, but for another reason & on a much Greater scale altogether (WW1) & usually on or about the 11th/November, when approximately thirty thousand Irish men died in mainland Europe fighting the Hun.

Nothing to celebrate, but we will always remember.

csk · 26-01-2007 3:06pm

ArthurF wrote:

'Remember' by all means, and mourn the dead, but by all accounts the events of 1916 in Dublin 'helped' to divide this island to an even greater extent

This island was divided since 1691, 1916 did no more to 'help' that divide than the formation of the UVF.

Dyr · 26-01-2007 3:42pm

ArthurF wrote:

but by all accounts the events of 1916 in Dublin 'helped' to divide this island to an even greater extent,

by all accounts? oh dear :rolleyes:

vesp · 26-01-2007 9:54pm

ArthurF wrote:

I still say that to 'Celebrate' the events of 1916 in Dublin is wrong!
'Remember' by all means, and mourn the dead, but by all accounts the events of 1916 in Dublin 'helped' to divide this island to an even greater extent, and as a matter of interest, I also Remember 1916, but for another reason & on a much Greater scale altogether (WW1) & usually on or about the 11th/November, when approximately thirty thousand Irish men died in mainland Europe fighting the Hun.

Nothing to celebrate, but we will always remember.

good point well made.

walrusgumble · 26-01-2007 10:36pm

ArthurF wrote:

I still say that to 'Celebrate' the events of 1916 in Dublin is wrong!
'Remember' by all means, and mourn the dead, but by all accounts the events of 1916 in Dublin 'helped' to divide this island to an even greater extent, and as a matter of interest, I also Remember 1916, but for another reason & on a much Greater scale altogether (WW1) & usually on or about the 11th/November, when approximately thirty thousand Irish men died in mainland Europe fighting the Hun.

Nothing to celebrate, but we will always remember.

far enough. you honour the hero's of the somme, and rightly so. but peope like me, as a nationalist, (without the anti british guff/codology) shall honour people of my hometown who went to dublin on easter monday.

as for dividing the nation, eh ye kind of agree in a small way. but remember 1912 and the ulster covanent and 1913 the establishment of the uvf, they made it clear that they did not want home rule at all and even threaten to fight against it.even prepared to hit britain, now surely this could not be ignored in westminster.parnell had set out for a 32 county home rule. 1916 was just the ignition to independence. far point 1916 made unionist actions of 1912-13 as justifible in their eyes.

"we shall not serve king nor kaiser, but only ireland"

Dontico · 30-01-2007 1:26am

at no stage in the history of england, would i have considered them civilised.

Fratton Fred · 30-01-2007 3:09pm

Dontico wrote:

at no stage in the history of england, would i have considered them civilised.

thank you.:rolleyes:

brianthebard · 30-01-2007 5:05pm

eh, wtf?

Steyr · 31-01-2007 2:51am

Dontico wrote:

at no stage in the history of england, would i have considered them civilised.

:rolleyes:

Funny how many Anti British people there are around saying "British Scum f**k the Brits etc" yet i suppose they love an aul cuppa tea and sit down to watch "corrie" or "enders" or watch an aul soccer match and support the "pool" or whatever:rolleyes: These people dont know their arse from their elbow.

Im a proud Irish man and love my Country and everything we stand for and have no hatred whatsoever for the British, leave History where it belongs in the past, Forgive but never Forget.

LordSutch · 31-01-2007 12:58pm

Dontico wrote:

at no stage in the history of england, would i have considered them civilised.

Have you got the wrong thread?

Dontico · 31-01-2007 3:03pm

Steyr wrote:

:rolleyes:

Funny how many Anti British people there are around saying "British Scum f**k the Brits etc" yet i suppose they love an aul cuppa tea and sit down to watch "corrie" or "enders" or watch an aul soccer match and support the "pool" or whatever:rolleyes: These people dont know their arse from their elbow.

Im a proud Irish man and love my Country and everything we stand for and have no hatred whatsoever for the British, leave History where it belongs in the past, Forgive but never Forget.

i dislike waring nations. they've tried take over the world and they still are.

anyway i dont watch soaps. and tea is from india. which they got from them when they invaded.

Fratton Fred · 31-01-2007 3:37pm

Dontico wrote:

i dislike waring nations. they've tried take over the world and they still are.

anyway i dont watch soaps. and tea is from india. which they got from them when they invaded.

Wow, you dislike a lot of people. Can you actually name a European country which has not been a warring nation? Given the chance, there is every possibility that Ireland would have tried to conquer Wales (In fact, parts of Wales were under the control of Leinster) or even England. As it was, the various Kings of Ireland were at war with each other. The only reason Cromwell came to Ireland was because the Irish Confederaes were planning to invade England, a very uncivilised act.

War is an unfortunate fact of life on this planet.

Oh, tea came from India, the British grew it there because they couldn’t grow it in the UK, but they originally got it from China.

InFront · 31-01-2007 5:07pm

Dontico wrote:

anyway i dont watch soaps. and tea is from india.

But you don't like India either right? Being a warring nation with the third biggest army on the globe and refusal to sign up to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and an atrocious policing reputation...

I see what you're saying Dontico. I don't consider British War Policy, historic or present, particularly civilized either but you just have to realize Britain does not necessarily equal British Government.
While it does exist and has existed heavily there, inhumanity is a global policy that was not dreamed up at Westminster. They are good at perpetuating though.

Dontico · 03-02-2007 12:30am

Fratton Fred wrote:

Wow, you dislike a lot of people. Can you actually name a European country which has not been a warring nation? Given the chance, there is every possibility that Ireland would have tried to conquer Wales (In fact, parts of Wales were under the control of Leinster) or even England. As it was, the various Kings of Ireland were at war with each other. The only reason Cromwell came to Ireland was because the Irish Confederaes were planning to invade England, a very uncivilised act.

War is an unfortunate fact of life on this planet.

Oh, tea came from India, the British grew it there because they couldn’t grow it in the UK, but they originally got it from China.

ireland as a single nation has never invaded anyone. the worst thing we have ever done was persecute homosexuals.

england was still incontrol over ireland before cromwell.

most european nations are currently not at war. england is. germany hasnt invaded anyone in over 60 years. i consider them now to be civilised.

Brian Capture · 03-02-2007 5:24pm

Dontico:

Were you happy when London was bombed on 7 July 2005?

If you say no, you're a hypocrite.

vesp · 04-02-2007 7:27am

Dontico wrote:

most european nations are currently not at war.

"At war" Do you mean Iraq ? The UK is on friendly terms with the govt, and acting in support of, the govt of Iraq.
Among the coalition forces in the middle east during the liberation of Kuwait and Iraq, when the UK was at war, were soldiers from Denmark and Germany and Spain

Dontico wrote:

england is.

:rolleyes:

Dontico wrote:

germany hasnt invaded anyone in over 60 years. i consider them now to be civilised.

In terms of warfare, they consider the UK just as civilised. By invading someone, do you mean the liberation of Kuwait / war with Saddam Hussein who invaded Kuwait ? Do you think Saddam should have been allowed to get away with invading little Kuwait ?

Brian Capture · 04-02-2007 1:39pm

Dontico and you other England-haters will probably be jumping for joy when you read this.

One less English person on this earth.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

walrusgumble · 04-02-2007 1:45pm

i think the problem some people have with the US and UK going to war in Iraq was that they lied to their people about weapons of mass destruction in Saddams possession. (and of course some claiming its all about the oil) Would everyone, bar the people who oppose war outright, be more satisified that the situation was reasonably justified if it had been found the WOMD were actually there?

but hopefully with the help of hindsight in the future, people might see it was justified in the sense that they killed defeated a tyrant and his regime. It is now a matter of how the UK/US forces spend their time in Iraq,help to repair the country for the good of Iraqi people and not shoove western values down their throat and get out.

it is time for the UN to pull themselves together and send in peacekeepers or some indpendent group to observe what is really going on there and take a load of the US/UK work load. are there more than UK/US soldiers in allegiance side in Iraq?

Aedh Baclamh · 04-02-2007 2:02pm

Brian Capture wrote:

Dontico and you other England-haters will probably be jumping for joy when you read this.

One less English person on this earth.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

There's a lot of silly posts flying about, but that one beats them all.

Fratton Fred · 04-02-2007 5:36pm

Dontico wrote:

ireland as a single nation has never invaded anyone. the worst thing we have ever done was persecute homosexuals.

england was still incontrol over ireland before cromwell.

most european nations are currently not at war. england is. germany hasnt invaded anyone in over 60 years. i consider them now to be civilised.

way way off topic and miles away from reality.

csk · 04-02-2007 5:59pm

Brian Capture wrote:

Dontico and you other England-haters will probably be jumping for joy when you read this.

One less English person on this earth.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

England-haters? Who are these England haters you refer to ?
If you are painting everyone who argued against British policy in Ireland in this thread with the same brush, then retract that statement please.

One flawed and ignorant argument does not a group of "england-haters" make.

Hagar · 04-02-2007 6:35pm

Brian Capture wrote:

Dontico and you other England-haters will probably be jumping for joy when you read this.

One less English person on this earth.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

That post is a disgrace.

InFront · 04-02-2007 7:21pm

Hagar wrote:

That post is a disgrace.

I think you're missing his point, it doesn't make a difference to that pedestrian whether she was killed in the name of the IRA or by a drunken driver.

Would her death be validated if the IRA carried it out? No. Not now, not ever. The murder of civilians is always unquestionably wrong. Not just civilians now, but a hundred years ago as well. That woman is no more responsible for the plantations, for example, than your average British unionist or policeman.
If somebody argues in favour of militant republicanism, they might as well be arguining in favour of what happened to this woman. The two arguments are equally stupid

Hagar · 04-02-2007 8:05pm

No I don't think I'm missing his point at all.

Would it be credible to think that the Japanese read road accident statistics from the USA and rejoice because what happened between them in the past? No?

I think the poster is saying that there are people here who hate the English so much that they revel in the death of an English person however caused. How could anyone believe that? It can only be intended as an absolute insult to anyone who has expressed Nationalist sentiment so far in this thread.
A crass generalization at best, a disgraceful comment at worst.

vesp · 05-02-2007 1:38am

Hagar wrote:

I think the poster is saying that there are people here who hate the English so much ....

There are people in Ireland who do hate the English / British. You do not have to listen to a crowd of drunk Celtic supporters to know that. Thankfully they are a minority of the population. Given the republican propoganda machine ( I remember one teacher who used the phrase " burn everything British except their coal " etc ) what would you expect. Remember what the PIRA gunman said when he shot a pregnant UDR woman ; two for the price of one ( bullet ).

brianthebard · 05-02-2007 1:46am

vesp wrote:

There are people in Ireland who do hate the English / British. You do not have to listen to a crowd of drunk Celtic supporters to know that. Thankfully they are a minority of the population. Given the republican propoganda machine ( I remember one teacher who used the phrase " burn everything British except their coal " etc ) what would you expect. Remember what the PIRA gunman said when he shot a pregnant UDR woman ; two for the price of one ( bullet ).

I hope you mean he was quoting a well worn phrase used in the economic war....otherwise you may be tarring him with a republican brush which may be undeserved....

walrusgumble · 05-02-2007 8:26am

i swore it was someone like johnatan swift or daniel o'connell (doubt ti was him) that came up with the phrase burn everything british, except for the coal.

Fratton Fred · 05-02-2007 11:11am

A bloke was beaten to death near Liffy Valley shopping centre for being English only last year, Although thankfully the anti English feeling is generally not that violently shown. Yes there are those that cheer when England lose, but to be honest, most people I know just look at them as the pathetic people they are. I guess it is something to expect living in a foreign country.

The English haters that really annoy me, are the ones that live in their council flat in Surrey, living off welfare and claiming that they despise the queen and everything English, except our money obviously:rolleyes:

Dyr · 05-02-2007 11:11am

Steyr wrote:

:rolleyes:

Funny how many Anti British people there are around saying "British Scum f**k the Brits etc" yet i suppose they love an aul cuppa tea and sit down to watch "corrie" or "enders" or watch an aul soccer match and support the "pool" or whatever:rolleyes: These people dont know their arse from their elbow.

Im a proud Irish man and love my Country and everything we stand for and have no hatred whatsoever for the British, leave History where it belongs in the past, Forgive but never Forget.

thats a ridiculous supposition though, it would be a bit like someone saying that anyone in the Defence forces was an oul' free stater who had very good reason to want history left where it was, or something equally silly

A Dub in Glasgo · 05-02-2007 8:49pm

InFront wrote:

I think you're missing his point, it doesn't make a difference to that pedestrian whether she was killed in the name of the IRA or by a drunken driver.

Would her death be validated if the IRA carried it out? No. Not now, not ever. The murder of civilians is always unquestionably wrong. Not just civilians now, but a hundred years ago as well. That woman is no more responsible for the plantations, for example, than your average British unionist or policeman.
If somebody argues in favour of militant republicanism, they might as well be arguining in favour of what happened to this woman. The two arguments are equally stupid

Are you for real? I fear you think you are :rolleyes:

The other post was the height of stupidity, but your post wins hands down.

A Dub in Glasgo · 05-02-2007 8:51pm

Brian Capture wrote:

Dontico and you other England-haters will probably be jumping for joy when you read this.

One less English person on this earth.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

:rolleyes:

See the post above

A Dub in Glasgo · 05-02-2007 8:54pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

A bloke was beaten to death near Liffy Valley shopping centre for being English only last year, Although thankfully the anti English feeling is generally not that violently shown. Yes there are those that cheer when England lose, but to be honest, most people I know just look at them as the pathetic people they are. I guess it is something to expect living in a foreign country.

The English haters that really annoy me, are the ones that live in their council flat in Surrey, living off welfare and claiming that they despise the queen and everything English, except our money obviously:rolleyes:

our money??

I despise the queen, not for Englishness but as a monarchy

vesp · 05-02-2007 9:21pm

brianthebard wrote:

I hope you mean he was quoting a well worn phrase used in the economic war....otherwise you may be tarring him with a republican brush which may be undeserved....

I was not tarring him with a republican brush. I just wrote to point out " There are people in Ireland who do hate the English / British. You do not have to listen to a crowd of drunk Celtic supporters to know that. Thankfully they are a minority of the population. Given the republican propoganda machine ( I remember one teacher who used the phrase " burn everything British except their coal " etc ) what would you expect."

The phrase has nothing to do with any " economic war" with our neighbouring island. I remember it being used by a teacher when both countries were members of the EEC / EC, and when we were getting billions of pounds worth of handouts from Britain, and when thousands of our people were going to England to get work every month.

vesp · 05-02-2007 9:24pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

our money??

I despise the queen, not for Englishness but as a monarchy

Do you despise the other European monarchies as much - say the Catholic monarchies for example ?

800 years

Comments