The Irish Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Master Yoda said:
As I said Mito, wasn't comparing the two. Could give lots of examples of movements which used or use violence against innocents unfortunately.Nazis were just a lazy choice.

The most telling thing about the Easter Rising was that it wasn't initially supported by Dubliners precisely because of its violence against innocents. A different British reaction may have markedly altered history.

Regardless I think it's completely fair to judge terrorists (lets not play words that's what insurgents who target civilian structures in civilian areas are) by today's standards because their rhetoric and image is still persuasive. I know people who are named after IRA men... I see murals all the time for the IRA, UDA etc. People get their ideology tattooed or put their flags up every year. Children grow up in a culture of 'our violence was ok'. So we as reasonable people who detest violence should look back and say that these people can never represent us. I mean go to the GPO in Dublin or tour the jail... You'd think these men were saints. And this is dangerous.
Click to expand...


You do realise that terrorism was carried out by both sides AND the british military and government right?

In asymmetric war, the weaker side always has to resort to said tactics, and are called terrorists, to this very day. Iraq Afghanistan Palestine.. you name it.

You tell me how many wars Britain was in where they didn't massacre civilians by the shed load.? Show me that and I will concede the point, show me how that is not "terrorism".

"collateral damage" is not an answer or an excuse

Obviously I am not defending the IRA here, not one jot, just pointing out that the term "terrorism" appears to be relative to which side of the fence you are on.

In my opinion, both sides engaged in "terrorism".
 
Last edited:
...
Master Yoda said:
I mean go to the GPO in Dublin or tour the jail... You'd think these men were saints. And this is dangerous.
Click to expand...

So should the men and women that paved the way for what is now the Republic of Ireland not be recognised for the part they played in building the nation?

Connolly, Larkin, Pearse etc are rightly remembered just as in England the likes of Cromwell and Thatcher are remembered with statues and plaques in their honour.

The peace now on the Ireland of Ireland came about partly because of the people you obviously detest, the armed struggles north and south were a last resort after civil rights movements in both failed to have the desired effect.

As for Kilmainham, if you've been on the guided tour you'll know that the first thing explained by the guide is of the children that were locked up there, some as young as 7 along with women and their main crime was stealing bread because they were starving, of course the leaders of the rising take up a lot of the time spent on the tour, but that's only right due to their significance.

Should some quick drying cement be used to fill the bullet holes in the columns of the GPO?, nah, they're of historical national significance.

Enjoy the peace Yoda, many have fought and died for its existence.

You must log in or register to see images
 
  • Like
Reactions: terryerr
Master Yoda said:
As I said Mito, wasn't comparing the two. Could give lots of examples of movements which used or use violence against innocents unfortunately.Nazis were just a lazy choice.

The most telling thing about the Easter Rising was that it wasn't initially supported by Dubliners precisely because of its violence against innocents. A different British reaction may have markedly altered history.

Regardless I think it's completely fair to judge terrorists (lets not play words that's what insurgents who target civilian structures in civilian areas are) by today's standards because their rhetoric and image is still persuasive. I know people who are named after IRA men... I see murals all the time for the IRA, UDA etc. People get their ideology tattooed or put their flags up every year. Children grow up in a culture of 'our violence was ok'. So we as reasonable people who detest violence should look back and say that these people can never represent us. I mean go to the GPO in Dublin or tour the jail... You'd think these men were saints. And this is dangerous.
Click to expand...

that is true yet in 1919 there was then another war, one of independence ending in a treaty that lead to today so yes there was public outcry of the devastation of dublin in 1916 I'm sure but the root cause didn't get addressed

I have to say though the tactics of the day were yes public but the post office had the telegraph, the modern equivalent of taking over a tv station or the airport as the military of any invading country would do.

People who then 100 years later or indeed 300 years later bang drums and waves flags can be judged today as they are of today and they are all... as you might say (or not) gobshites of the highest orders.

1776 US independence... terrorists? 1916 terrorists? or as they built a better freer life are they our heros while today ISI or Taliban create oppression in our eyes so are the terrorists (or isreal just to say it for sisu)
 
We just like fighting ... Brits in 1916 and again in 1919 , then fighting ourselves in the 20's. We took a bit of a time out then until 1969 and started fighting Brits again.

If history shows us anything , it's that it repeats.
 
Hash said:
We just like fighting ... Brits in 1916 and again in 1919 , then fighting ourselves in the 20's. We took a bit of a time out then until 1969 and started fighting Brits again.

If history shows us anything , it's that it repeats.
Click to expand...

did you not fight the hun in wwii then? for shame.

what did you do for 30/40 years... surely you must have been doing more than letting christian brothers beat your kids?
 
Hash said:
Making all the kids , so the Christian brothers would have kids to beat <ok>
Click to expand...

**** 40 years of interbreeding. no wonder there's so many gingers

(I've see most fertile man in Ireland film)

typically you were riding right up the the free love era (1969 oyu said) then stopped when the best bit came and fight instead.
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
**** 40 years of interbreeding. no wonder there's so many gingers

(I've see most fertile man in Ireland film)

typically you were riding right up the the free love era (1969 oyu said) then stopped when the best bit came and fight instead.
Click to expand...

Basically ... once everyone else copped on to the ride all around ya business we decided to stop. It made us angry though so hence we took our frustrations out on John Bull
 
Page_Moss_Kopite said:
The huns have never ruled europe, Celtic have though.

[HASHTAG]#eurofact[/HASHTAG]
Click to expand...

are you calling glasgow rangers hun?

I'm calling hash out on wwii here. ehre must have been at least one irsih man in the french foreign legion or irish gaurds etc.

Blair Maine served in the SAS with distinction and played rugger for Ireland I believe for example. (though he was NI do they count)
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
are you calling glasgow rangers hun?

I'm calling hash out on wwii here. ehre must have been at least one irsih man in the french foreign legion or irish gaurds etc.

Blair Maine served in the SAS with distinction and played rugger for Ireland I believe for example. (though he was NI do they count)
Click to expand...

Eamon De Valera was asked by Churchill during the war to open Ireland's west coast ports to British warships and therefore Ireland officially joining the war, De Valera's response was to allow it the British would have to end partition and British rule in the 6 occupied counties.
Churchill agreed but had to put De Valera's proposition to parliament and it was rejected and with an added threat from
Loyalists that if Churchill went behind their backs and signed away the 6 counties they would have a civil war in the north to contend with.

[HASHTAG]#blackmailed[/HASHTAG]
 
Page_Moss_Kopite said:
Eamon De Valera was asked by Churchill during the war to open Ireland's west coast ports to British warships and therefore Ireland officially joining the war, De Valera's response was to allow it the British would have to end partition and British rule in the 6 occupied counties.
Churchill agreed but had to put De Valera's proposition to parliament and it was rejected and with an added threat from
Loyalists that if Churchill went behind their backs and signed away the 6 counties they would have a civil war in the north to contend with.

[HASHTAG]#blackmailed[/HASHTAG]
Click to expand...

shocking desperation.. like a brendan rodgers interview that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Page_Moss_Kopite
Sisu said:
You do realise that terrorism was carried out by both sides AND the british military and government right?

In asymmetric war, the weaker side always has to resort to said tactics, and are called terrorists, to this very day. Iraq Afghanistan Palestine.. you name it.

You tell me how many wars Britain was in where they didn't massacre civilians by the shed load.? Show me that and I will concede the point, show me how that is not "terrorism".

"collateral damage" is not an answer or an excuse

Obviously I am not defending the IRA here, not one jot, just pointing out that the term "terrorism" appears to be relative to which side of the fence you are on.

In my opinion, both sides engaged in "terrorism".
Click to expand...

I think any GCSE history pupil knows that haha...

Britain has a stained history which was apparent in Ireland also. No-one can argue otherwise.

'Terrorism' isn't however a relative term. To me - and this is my legal background - terrorism does and should refer only to acts of violence/destruction by non-state actors against civilian or non-combative military targets in furtherance of an ideological goal. This allows us to separate 'terrorism' from 'war crime' or more general abuse of state power - allowing both to retain normative value without dilution.

On Palestine despite their undeniably weak position, the resistance has long been political (they courted pretty much every powerful state during the war - Robert Fisk is very good on this) and their current path to freedom is through recognition as a state by the ICC + full member status in the UN.

Problem today is how do we define quasi-state terrorist movements like ISIS and Boko Haram who control territories but lack legal legitimacy...

moreinjuredthanowen said:
that is true yet in 1919 there was then another war, one of independence ending in a treaty that lead to today so yes there was public outcry of the devastation of dublin in 1916 I'm sure but the root cause didn't get addressed

I have to say though the tactics of the day were yes public but the post office had the telegraph, the modern equivalent of taking over a tv station or the airport as the military of any invading country would do.

People who then 100 years later or indeed 300 years later bang drums and waves flags can be judged today as they are of today and they are all... as you might say (or not) gobshites of the highest orders.

1776 US independence... terrorists? 1916 terrorists? or as they built a better freer life are they our heros while today ISI or Taliban create oppression in our eyes so are the terrorists (or isreal just to say it for sisu)
Click to expand...

I know haha we're all well versed in the home rule crisis and war of independence here in NI...

Think you have to take it case by case but violence is very very rarely the answer... WW2 for example is the exception to the general rule. Will always depend on the regime you're fighting and the likely result. ISIS for eg are as justifiable a target as the Nazis, but should we fight them? Probably not.

With Ireland (and the PSNI etc even today) people tend to forget the policemen and soldiers killed for protecting British and Irish civilians from their own.. people too crude or too callous to use the ballot box over the armalite.
 
Master Yoda ... from your legal point of view what would you call British forces killing unarmed children in Norn Iron ?

Would it be terrorism ? Surely terrorism or to be terrorised is to be put in fear of your safety and I bet lots of people feared for their own and their kids' safety.

Would it be a war crime ? Surely you need to be fighting a war to have a war crime though. According to Westminster there was no war and the troops were peacekeepers.

Or would it be cold blooded murder ? Making British troops no better than Ian Brady or Myra Hindley.

P.S. are you dirty frank ? <ok>
 
The British services have supported and perpetrated terrorism in India Africa Asia Middle East and Europe.
This is without getting into the actual murders and rapes commited by British military, even in recent times.

But do we label each other's nations with a broad stroke of a Brush because of Nationalism? Shall I hold MITO responsible for such atrocities or he hold me responsible for such IRA atrocities?

I am a firm believer in cause anf effect, if you stay the **** out of other nations and their business, it means they stay out of yours.
Something people still have not learned with all this anti Muslim cack, bomb the **** out of their countries and massacre their people and prop up murderous dictators and then get outraged when people have had enough? Committing terrorism abroad brings terrorism home. THAT IS A FACT

FFS

Any terrorism the UK has suffered has been and IS a direct result of the imperial masters (ruling elite) being proper murderous ****s in other people's countries.

I DO NOT EXTEND THOSE SENTIMENTS TO COVER THE BRITISH PEOPLE IN SOME STUPID IGNORANT GENERALISATION. **** NO.

Then there is Irony, banging on about the IRA whilst forgetting that the British Monarchy and Military stealing all of the food from Ireland caused the deaths of well over 1 million Irish.

<doh> Just saying, IRA killing people, civilians was wrong, but to overlook genocide whilst banging on about it.. <doh> Never mind the famine in india Churchill helped cause that killed many more than the Irish famine, British soldiers and citizens could order eggs and ham while Indians were dying in the street outside, in their own country like.

The IRA have a brief history of terrorism, and I never supported their actions when it came to bombs that killed civilians or the tit for tat sectarian nonsense that both sides took part in, but Britain's history of terrorism extends for centuries and involves millions of deaths. When was the last IRA atrocity, yet look at Iraq and Libya. All very recent

It's all history, and should be reflected on as such without anger or recrimination, there are ****ing lessons to be leaned from it after all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back