Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[leo9]

"they also used banned weapons such as white phosphorus,"

White phosphorous isn't actually banned - there are restrictions on how and where you use it, as indeed there are for bullets and grenades. Incidentally, the US only signed that Protocol in 2009

Well, that make it OK, if you don't recognise the law then you're not breaking it. Same as the US won't sign up to the International Criminal Court.

III, from 2009 onwards for the US, bars their use as incendiary devices against civilian targets, as well as against combatants in close proximity to civilians, but specifically does not restrict their use for illumination or smoke production purposes, which is how the US troops were using them in Iraq anyway.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ns-515345.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111600374.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=30372

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/...ns-in-fallujah

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/24...g-Say-nothing-

http://ipsnews.net/text/news.asp?idnews=42762

There wasn't an "Operation Shock and Awe", either - the document titled Shock and Awe was from 1996, expanding upon a phrase dating right back to Sun Tzu;

It was persistently referred to as such in the news coverage at the time, but I'm quite ready to believe that this was a misnomer. It's actually more probable than that the military would have been so honest about their aims.

the actual implementation in Iraq was a rapid decapitation attack,

The city was basically levelled. "Decapitation" doesn't involve blowing someone's entire body to shreds.

intended to minimise both civilian and military deaths and very successful in that respect.

You presumably have casualty figures to back this up which contradict the known ones?

You acknowledge the Pentagon would be a legitimate military target in a war, why not accept that Hussein's equivalent compounds and bunkers - which were the targets in those "shock and awe" opening air strikes - were just as legitimate, rather than "terrorism"?

There's a very clear point at which "collateral damage" becomes intentional targetting of civilians. Taking out the Pentagon would be a military tactic. Firebombing all of Arlington in the process would be terror tactics.

[IAN 2411]

Northern Ireland Car Bombs 'Targeted Police'Sky News – Sat, Apr 28, 2012

Two potentially lethal car bombs found in Northern Ireland were aimed at killing police officers, a unionist minister has claimed.

The explosive devices were discovered after security alerts were triggered in a town near the Irish border and in Belfast.

Ulster Unionist Danny Kennedy, who is also a minister in the Stormont government, said the device found near the border town of Newry was believed to be part of a plot to kill police.

Mr Kennedy said the dissidents were "dangerous and dedicated terrorists, who are determined to cause serious harm, injury and death to members of the security forces regardless of the consequences to local communities".

The Stormont minister said he was very concerned at the increasing number of attacks planned and executed by republican dissidents around Newry.The bomb, containing 600lbs of homemade explosives, was found in an abandoned white Citroen Berlingo van in the Fathom Line area on Thursday evening.

Army bomb experts confirmed the bomb was a "viable device" and successfully disarmed it.

District Commander Chief Superintendent Alasdair Robinson said: "This was a very significant device. If this had exploded it would have caused devastation."

He said police could only "speculate" about a possible target for the huge bomb at this time.

"What there is no doubt about is that it was completely reckless to have this device anywhere near human life," he said.

The second bomb was found under a parked car in the Ballygomartin Road in north Belfast, causing the evacuation of homes in the area.

Chief Inspector Ian Campbell said: "Those responsible for this have shown callous disregard for members of the public.

"The operation resulted in the evacuation of up to 80 people, including families with young children and elderly residents, for several hours.

"The finger of suspicion points towards dissident republican terrorists and I appeal to anyone with information to come forward to police."

The explosives find came after another arms cache containing guns and ammunition was discovered by police in Belfast on Friday.

.................................................. .................................................. ..........

If you note, the prefix IRA is not used because the IRA are a spent force. The IRA is as extinct as the Dodo, and it is that the IRA hate about the Good Friday Agreement. They hate the peace it has brought to the province. There are no people waving the tricolour out the windows and rioting, there is no need. The IRA has no cause so they cannot be the freedom fighter they once were. Now, the IRA members are now no more, or less than filthy, murdering, cowardly terrorists. The Northern Ireland Government and police now refer to them as dissidents.

A dissident, broadly defined, is a person who actively challenges an established doctrine, policy, or institution.

Sounds about right

Be well IAN 2411

[denuseri]

One needs to also keep in mind that the idea of anthropological thinking along the lines of cultural and ethnic nationalism and nation state status didn't come into being again until the middle to late 19th century (prior to that the only thing close for most Europeans was the power of the Romans).

The very same thing where a particular lord held his people in less than perfect conditions occurred pretty much uniformly throughout the known world to one extent or another and greed often played the biggest part when it often crossed the so called territorial boundaries. It was quite common for one lord to attack another on a local level if he saw any advantage too it. Irish Lords would like anyone else during the time periods predating nationalism's rise be inclined to raid their closest neighbors as well as make incursions into the nearer islands. Just as it was common for the Irish and Welsh and Scots to raid the Saxons (the later had themselves invaded from Europe) who were all in turn invaded by the Danes, etc etc.

All of which doesn't change a thing about how one groups bad guy can be another's good guy etc.

One nationalized state's cultural perceptions and preconceptions concerning any particular group (as evidenced not only by very one sided takes on history by some of the participants in this thread but also by the relationship between Arab and Jew or Irish and English etc) can take much longer than one human lifespan to change if at all.

But to think that the British Empire (or its English forebears like the Normans and Saxons etc) went blithely tromping around peacefully (while they invaded all these different peoples lands) making everyone's lives they touched the better and should instead of resisting be thanking them for it imho is almost tantamount to saying that the Jews should thank the Nazis for the Holocaust (yes I am perhaps killing the thread by including the Nazis lol) or that the American Indians should be thanking Columbus, the Colonists and all their decedents who followed.

This still doesn't mean that intelligent people shouldn't be able to see the other sides point of view as seemingly valid at least in their respected perspectives imho.

For instance...do I think the Arab people did wrong by my mother's people when they basically started a war and all but kicked us out of Lebanon where our ancestors had lived pretty much since before the Roman's destroyed the Temple of Solomon?

Why yes I do see them as in the wrong.

But I also understand that they will see it quite differently.

[thir]

All of which doesn't change a thing about how one groups bad guy can be another's good guy etc.

That is pretty much it. There is no valid defintion of terrorism.

[MMI]

One needs to also keep in mind that the idea of anthropological thinking along the lines of cultural and ethnic nationalism and nation state status didn't come into being again until the middle to late 19th century (prior to that the only thing close for most Europeans was the power of the Romans).

...

Let me see if I understand you correctly: it was OK for the Hibernians to raid the tribes in Caledonia, Valentia, Maxima Caesariensis, Britannia Secunda and those of south-western Britannia, because that was the norm for the time, but not for Britain to build an empire in later periods, even though that, too was the norm - I refer you to Sweden, Russia, Holland, France, Austria, Spain and Portugal, for example. Do I see a double standard here?

The trouble with discussing Ireland is that it ALWAYS involves centuries of history that, in any other country, would long ago have been forgiven and forgotten, but, as I have suggested, the Irish need someone to blame for their own flawed character - and who better than England? Speak to any Irish patriot and he will claim that Ireland has been under the yoke of England for 800 years. That's his starting point, and there's not one good thing that England has done for that country ever since. To hear him, you'd think the English had nothing better to do than make the lives of Irishmen miserable.

Well, we had two empires to build and three world wars to win. We had to industrialise the world and we had to ensure free trade during the Pax Britannica.

What makes it worse is that so many of the claims are untrue, and many more are gross exaggerations.

For most of history, Britain's only interest in Ireland was to ensure that it would not be used by its enemies as a staging post for an invasion from the west. Its military adventures there were simply to expel French, Spanish or Jacobite forces that sought to use Ireland for that very purpose, or to put down violent uprisings by Irish rebels of one sort or another. Apart from that, Britain was happy to let the bogtrotters, as they called them, live out their miserable existence as they liked. There was nothing else in Ireland that interested them one little bit.

As I have said before, and no-one has yet refuted it, the trouble with the Irish is that they cannot get along with each other. It is they who oppressed their fellow countrymen, and rose up against each other: North v South, Catholic v Protestant, landowners v subsistence farmers ... and so on right up to the modern day.

So let's forget history and look at the position today. The IRA is now spent; all that remains is its political arm. It has been replaced by a smaller group, the Continuity IRA (and a small number of similar groupings) who continue to deal out death to other Irishmen. In reply, the UVF have carried out their own revenge attacks on Catholics (in between murdering other loyalists as part of an internal feud!) Do we still see one Irishman oppressing another? I think we do. Where are the British? I'll leave that open ...

Someone said I should get glasses after I suggested your previous summary of Irish history showed the Irish problems were created by Irishmen and not the British. To see the Irish as oppressed by the English in this day and age would require a very heavy rose-tint on the lenses. Even looking at the whole timeline, to believe that England has done nothing but harm to that country would be spectacular self-delusion.

Finally, my wife is an Irish Catholic. During the last half of the 20th Century, as she saw what the IRA and UVF were doing to each other, and, more importantly, to other innocent men women and children in Belfast, Londonderry and elsewhere, she and her family admitted to being ashamed to be Irish. I am descended from an orange Glaswegian who objected to my marriage for sectarian reasons, and I admit to being ashamed of what the Loyalists have done. Who could glory in what has happened there? Apart from Martin Sheen, perhaps.

[denuseri]

Let me see if I understand you correctly: it was OK for the Hibernians to raid the tribes in Caledonia, Valentia, Maxima Caesariensis, Britannia Secunda and those of south-western Britannia, because that was the norm for the time, but not for Britain to build an empire in later periods, even though that, too was the norm - I refer you to Sweden, Russia, Holland, France, Austria, Spain and Portugal, for example. Do I see a double standard here?

No. I didnt mention anything about any of it being ok. At least not from my modern perspective....I am sure the successful aggressors in each case perfectly justified their own actions in their own eyes however.

The trouble with discussing Ireland is that it ALWAYS involves centuries of history that, in any other country, would long ago have been forgiven and forgotten, but, as I have suggested, the Irish need someone to blame for their own flawed character - and who better than England?

That basically goes both ways...your saying in a way if you look at it the right way that the Irish "needed" all the strife of being dominated by England to become worth something to anyone and hence should basically thank you for it?

Speak to any Irish patriot and he will claim that Ireland has been under the yoke of England for 800 years. That's his starting point, and there's not one good thing that England has done for that country ever since. To hear him, you'd think the English had nothing better to do than make the lives of Irishmen miserable.

As I said perspective in these instances is everything.

The Irish modern day "nationalist" is going to say that very thing. His perspective is that of someone who has been filled with many generations of nationalism at work. Even if his ancestors only said "Dam Lord Fitzgerald he and his Normans to hell he and Lord O'Brien that traitor are bastards and will rue the day they invaded my lands. I will get the fyrd of the Earl of Northampton to attack Fritzgerald forces in Wales before they depart and then I can deal with O' Brien myself""

Obviously, historically they were looking at such conflicts much more locally in nature.

All I did was point out that both you and Ian appear to be biased on the side of the conquerors by much the same fashion...nationalist dogma having been propagated upon you your whole life perhaps.

Well, we had two empires to build and three world wars to win. We had to industrialise the world and we had to ensure free trade during the Pax Britannica.

Just like the Romans had to ironically instill Pax Romana huh? Nice guys they were hey? (depending upon one's perspective of course wink wink)

What makes it worse is that so many of the claims are untrue, and many more are gross exaggerations.

On both sides I am sure.

For most of history, Britain's only interest in Ireland was to ensure that it would not be used by its enemies as a staging post for an invasion from the west. Its military adventures there were simply to expel French, Spanish or Jacobite forces that sought to use Ireland for that very purpose, or to put down violent uprisings by Irish rebels of one sort or another. Apart from that, Britain was happy to let the bogtrotters, as they called them, live out their miserable existence as they liked. There was nothing else in Ireland that interested them one little bit.

That is certifiably "one" perspective...though you of all people should admit not necessarily the only one or the most truthful necessarily. lots of exploitation was involved on both sides I am almost positive. Just as war mongering Zionists infiltrated my place of birth and gave fuel to the anti-Jew fire burning in many an Arab heart.

As I have said before, and no-one has yet refuted it, the trouble with the Irish is that they cannot get along with each other. It is they who oppressed their fellow countrymen, and rose up against each other: North v South, Catholic v Protestant, landowners v subsistence farmers ... and so on right up to the modern day.

So...your saying that made it perfectly ok for the Big BG to intercede huh? <much like it must then be ok for the Americans to intercede in the middle east or any where else ?

So let's forget history and look at the position today.

Yes because arguments concerning the history of the situation wont help you when you have a historian to argue with. lol (keep in mind if I were on my knees before I couldn't talk back with your manhood in my mouth winks)

The IRA is now spent; all that remains is its political arm. It has been replaced by a smaller group, the Continuity IRA (and a small number of similar groupings) who continue to deal out death to other Irishmen. In reply, the UVF have carried out their own revenge attacks on Catholics (in between murdering other loyalists as part of an internal feud!) Do we still see one Irishman oppressing another? I think we do. Where are the British? I'll leave that open ...

Continuing to do what they have done? Hold Dominion in one way or another...which imho isn't anything terrible compared to what their ancestors have done, which is mainly protecting their own security (though sometimes not any more nicely than their American allies do in other areas etc). I do agree that the resistance if futile (in both cases...England's and America's...neither side has any real apparent hope of victory with either of their respected adversaries IRA cant win, Al-quiada cant win, and vice versa) IE both should give peace a chance and stop the fighting period!

Someone said I should get glasses after I suggested your previous summary of Irish history showed the Irish problems were created by Irishmen and not the British. To see the Irish as oppressed by the English in this day and age would require a very heavy rose-tint on the lenses. Even looking at the whole timeline, to believe that England has done nothing but harm to that country would be spectacular self-delusion.

Oh I agree...yet you have managed to continue prior to that statement make it sound as if Engalnd is the good guy and Ireland was the bad...just saying. Heck in a way your still doing it which makes my BS shields still go up. (as much as they do whilst arguing religion with Thorne btw)

Finally, my wife is an Irish Catholic. During the last half of the 20th Century, as she saw what the IRA and UVF were doing to each other, and, more importantly, to other innocent men women and children in Belfast, Londonderry and elsewhere, she and her family admitted to being ashamed to be Irish. I am descended from an orange Glaswegian who objected to my marriage for sectarian reasons, and I admit to being ashamed of what the Loyalists have done. Who could glory in what has happened there? Apart from Martin Sheen, perhaps.

lol Martian I will conceed is a complete idiot. Despite portraying the President we all wish we had on TV.

I also agree that it is beyound deployarable that some factions strike out at the very people they claim to represent in their resistance to tyranny. But it doesnt surprise me. Americans, like the Irish did it while resisting Brittan, The Jews did it while resisting Rome, The Russians did it while resisting Germany...the list goes on and on and on.

And I am quite certian...everyone on all sides in any of these deplorable engadgments...thought their side and their's alone was the right one.

[IAN 2411]

Nicely put MMI

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

Neither England nor Ireland was the bad Guys, because the IRA was the bad guys. The Irish Americans knew damn all about their countries politics, because most were too young to have been born there. They only knew the propaganda that the political wing of the IRA told them. However, it was enough to get a good proportion of Irish Americans, and that proportion I will call thick American Mick’s to part with their cash. People like Martin Sheen. So that the political beggars could fill the IRA coffers, and in turn they could kill more of the British Soldiers and even more of their kin.

Ask any British soldier that was like me in the province in the 60s and 70s and they will tell you what they thought of the American Irish and their miss-guided beliefs and money. It is our buddies that have now gone to the American wars to die at the side of the American soldiers at the America’s request. I, sure as hell, don’t know why, because some American Irish are still hell bent in trying to justify the IRAs blood thirsty quest in killing their own people. A person has to have been there during and after the troubles to know anything about the politics of Northern Ireland.

One other thing that the Americans always seem to forget, whether it is on purpose or not I have no idea. There are no English in Northern Ireland except the soldiers, the people that live there are all Irish. They have the right to chose by a majority vote whether to stay in the United Kingdom or be part of Southern Ireland. There is no part of the Good Friday Agreement that was signed by all parties that states the IRA have a final vote, because that is what their political arm is for.

If they voted out of the UK tomorrow I doubt very much that the UK would do anything to stop it taking place. The province has been a thorn in our side for hundreds of years, and our troops would leave at the drop of a hat. However, don’t think for one minute that if the UK had a security alert like the Cuba/Russian problem that the Americans had. Then you can bet your ass that the British Soldier would be back with the dropping of another hat.

Be well IAN 2411

[MMI]

Originally Posted by MMI
Let me see if I understand you correctly: it was OK for the Hibernians to raid the tribes in Caledonia, Valentia, Maxima Caesariensis, Britannia Secunda and those of south-western Britannia, because that was the norm for the time, but not for Britain to build an empire in later periods, even though that, too was the norm - I refer you to Sweden, Russia, Holland, France, Austria, Spain and Portugal, for example. Do I see a double standard here?

No. I didnt mention anything about any of it being ok. At least not from my modern perspective....I am sure the successful aggressors in each case perfectly justified their own actions in their own eyes however.

Then you must have meant, in your previous post, that people behaved in a way they considered appropriate at the time. That is probably a truism. The Hibernians did as Hibernians were wont to, the British did so too.

So, if, today, Irish terrorists behave in the way they are expected to, no-one needs to comment?

Originally Posted by MMI
The trouble with discussing Ireland is that it ALWAYS involves centuries of history that, in any other country, would long ago have been forgiven and forgotten, but, as I have suggested, the Irish need someone to blame for their own flawed character - and who better than England?

That basically goes both ways...your saying in a way if you look at it the right way that the Irish "needed" all the strife of being dominated by England to become worth something to anyone and hence should basically thank you for it?

I don’t really understand that comment, but I’m sure I’m not trying to say what you suggest. What I am saying is that the Irish have never, at any time in history (so far as I can see) been at peace with each other: there has always been some division between them which has justified one side or other taking violent action against the other. They have justified their actions by saying the English are to blame.

From England’s point of view, Ireland has never had much value, but it has posed a threat. During the Troubles, the majority of English would have been happy to see Ireland sink under the sea. Nevertheless, we sent in our young men to die trying to stop them from killing each other, while the Republic gave succour to the IRA and its government contemplated military action in Ulster. In other words, Eire considered going to war with Britain in support of a rebellious minority, no doubt, with the ultimate aim of incorporating British territory into its own – against the majority will of the people living there.

Originally Posted by MMI
Speak to any Irish patriot and he will claim that Ireland has been under the yoke of England for 800 years. That's his starting point, and there's not one good thing that England has done for that country ever since. To hear him, you'd think the English had nothing better to do than make the lives of Irishmen miserable.

As I said perspective in these instances is everything.

The Irish modern day "nationalist" is going to say that very thing. His perspective is that of someone who has been filled with many generations of nationalism at work. Even if his ancestors only said "Dam Lord Fitzgerald he and his Normans to hell he and Lord O'Brien that traitor are bastards and will rue the day they invaded my lands. I will get the fyrd of the Earl of Northampton to attack Fritzgerald forces in Wales before they depart and then I can deal with O' Brien myself""

Obviously, historically they were looking at such conflicts much more locally in nature.

All I did was point out that both you and Ian appear to be biased on the side of the conquerors by much the same fashion...nationalist dogma having been propagated upon you your whole life perhaps.

But the Irish patriot is wrong by saying it: he is perpetuating an untruth that everyone seems to be more than willing to believe, simply because he says it with a touraluralay in his voice.

In your scenario, you appear to be describing a feud between a two Irish lords, where one of them invites an English ally to help him in his attempts to subdue the other. One Irishman oppressing another again. And quite normal behaviour at the time. Why should the Irish patriot comment?

More to the point, why the fuck is he still blaming us for something that happened hundreds of years ago? I’ll tell you why: to justify the terrorism that continues to this day.

Originally Posted by MMI
Well, we had two empires to build and three world wars to win. We had to industrialise the world and we had to ensure free trade during the Pax Britannica.

Just like the Romans had to ironically instill Pax Romana huh? Nice guys they were hey? (depending upon one's perspective of course wink wink)

I’m not saying we were ever “nice”. We just had better things to do than trying to think of things that would make Paddy cross.

Originally Posted by MMI
What makes it worse is that so many of the claims are untrue, and many more are gross exaggerations.

On both sides I am sure.

As the only version of Irish history that is generally noised around the world is the nationalist version, I don’t see how you can accuse England of lies and exaggerations.

Even I have only to quoted documented facts, not simply things that I would like to have happened.

As you have mentioned out twice now, it is important not to have a closed mind on this subject. Keeping an open mind does not mean disregarding any arguments that support the British cause.

Originally Posted by MMI
For most of history, Britain's only interest in Ireland was to ensure that it would not be used by its enemies as a staging post for an invasion from the west. Its military adventures there were simply to expel French, Spanish or Jacobite forces that sought to use Ireland for that very purpose, or to put down violent uprisings by Irish rebels of one sort or another. Apart from that, Britain was happy to let the bogtrotters, as they called them, live out their miserable existence as they liked. There was nothing else in Ireland that interested them one little bit.

That is certifiably "one" perspective...though you of all people should admit not necessarily the only one or the most truthful necessarily. lots of exploitation was involved on both sides I am almost positive. Just as war mongering Zionists infiltrated my place of birth and gave fuel to the anti-Jew fire burning in many an Arab heart.

I think my “perspective” is closer to the truth than that the notion that all Irish rebels were noble heroes struggling against England as an infinitely evil oppressor. Why should I admit otherwise?The exploitation was by one Irishman against another. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by MMI
As I have said before, and no-one has yet refuted it, the trouble with the Irish is that they cannot get along with each other. It is they who oppressed their fellow countrymen, and rose up against each other: North v South, Catholic v Protestant, landowners v subsistence farmers ... and so on right up to the modern day.

So...your saying that made it perfectly ok for the Big BG to intercede huh? <much like it must then be ok for the Americans to intercede in the middle east or any where else ?

Is it justifiable in any way to allow the people in any part of one’s dominions to rise up against each other, and to kill them – men, women and children – without trying to restore law and order? The alternative is chaos, civil strife and foreign interference.

Originally Posted by MMI
So let's forget history and look at the position today.

Yes because arguments concerning the history of the situation wont help you when you have a historian to argue with. lol (keep in mind if I were on my knees before I couldn't talk back with your manhood in my mouth winks)

Do some history, then. Tell me when England invaded Ireland for the sole reason of oppressing the people and bringing them under her heel. Cromwell is probably a good start. Set that number against the times British troops were sent to quell civil disorder or to eject foreign invaders and Pretenders to the Crown.

At least we’ll be having a debate with facts on both sides then.

(And it’s cruel of you to even hint you’d blow me when you know you never would!)

Originally Posted by MMI
The IRA is now spent; all that remains is its political arm. It has been replaced by a smaller group, the Continuity IRA (and a small number of similar groupings) who continue to deal out death to other Irishmen. In reply, the UVF have carried out their own revenge attacks on Catholics (in between murdering other loyalists as part of an internal feud!) Do we still see one Irishman oppressing another? I think we do. Where are the British? I'll leave that open ...

Continuing to do what they have done? Hold Dominion in one way or another...which imho isn't anything terrible compared to what their ancestors have done, which is mainly protecting their own security (though sometimes not any more nicely than their American allies do in other areas etc). I do agree that the resistance if futile (in both cases...England's and America's...neither side has any real apparent hope of victory with either of their respected adversaries IRA cant win, Al-quiada cant win, and vice versa) IE both should give peace a chance and stop the fighting period!

Continuing to hold dominion ... In other words, trying to maintain the Queen’s Peace in a British province. No different than keeping law and order on the streets of London, Liverpool or Glasgow.

IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DISRUPTING LAW AND ORDER WHO ARE IN THE WRONG, NOT THE LAWFUL AUTHORITIES THAT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM. England cannot be blamed if Ireland is stuffed full of blind bigots whose only method of protest is to murder innocent bystanders and call themselves patriots.

Originally Posted by MMI
Someone said I should get glasses after I suggested your previous summary of Irish history showed the Irish problems were created by Irishmen and not the British. To see the Irish as oppressed by the English in this day and age would require a very heavy rose-tint on the lenses. Even looking at the whole timeline, to believe that England has done nothing but harm to that country would be spectacular self-delusion.

Oh I agree...yet you have managed to continue prior to that statement make it sound as if Engalnd is the good guy and Ireland was the bad...just saying. Heck in a way your still doing it which makes my BS shields still go up. (as much as they do whilst arguing religion with Thorne btw)

It is high time that responsibility for the Irish situation was shared properly. England has acted harshly with regard to the Irish at times, but no harsher than it has acted towards others at different times. It was acting in accordance with the normal standards of behaviour of the day. Every rebellion in Ireland has been by Irishmen, and has been focused on other Irishmen or property. Peace has had to be restored by English troops. To that extent, England IS the good guy.

Every invasion by foreign powers has had to be defeated by England to avoid Ireland being conquered or used as a jumping-off point for an attack on Britain. The attempts by the Stuarts to seize the Irish Crown, and then the English Crown, had to be put down for the same reason. If that doesn’t make England the good guy, it certainly justifies the English actions.

Originally Posted by MMI
Finally, my wife is an Irish Catholic. During the last half of the 20th Century, as she saw what the IRA and UVF were doing to each other, and, more importantly, to other innocent men women and children in Belfast, Londonderry and elsewhere, she and her family admitted to being ashamed to be Irish. I am descended from an orange Glaswegian who objected to my marriage for sectarian reasons, and I admit to being ashamed of what the Loyalists have done. Who could glory in what has happened there? Apart from Martin Sheen, perhaps.

lol Martian I will conceed is a complete idiot. Despite portraying the President we all wish we had on TV.

I also agree that it is beyound deployarable that some factions strike out at the very people they claim to represent in their resistance to tyranny. But it doesnt surprise me. Americans, like the Irish did it while resisting Brittan, The Jews did it while resisting Rome, The Russians did it while resisting Germany...the list goes on and on and on.

As you know, I consider the American Rebellion was just as illegal as the Irish rebellions. That, too was led by criminals and exploiters for their own enrichment rather than for the good of America in general. And just like the Irish, America paints its act of arch-treachery as a noble strike for freedom!

There is a difference, however between acts of treachery and acts of resistance against a foreign invader.

I don’t think this discussion can go much further unless and until people shake off the idea that the IRA was fine body of fresh young men who marched nobly towards Dublin in the Green, where the bayonets flashed, and rifles crashed, to the echoes of a Thompson gun. Not everything the Irish did was justified by England’s existence. IF they ever were that noble, those days are long gone. What we have now is a gang of psychopathic bigots, drug dealers, pimps and extortionists.

[denuseri]

Then you must have meant, in your previous post, that people behaved in a way they considered appropriate at the time. That is probably a truism. The Hibernians did as Hibernians were wont to, the British did so too.

Pretty much. Doesn't make it ok but its how it is.

So, if, today, Irish terrorists behave in the way they are expected to, no-one needs to comment?

Martian Sheen isn't a terrorist is he?

I don’t really understand that comment, but I’m sure I’m not trying to say what you suggest. What I am saying is that the Irish have never, at any time in history (so far as I can see) been at peace with each other: there has always been some division between them which has justified one side or other taking violent action against the other. They have justified their actions by saying the English are to blame.

Which is how it appears from your perspective...just like Hezbollah justifies its actions and beliefs...the only perspective that matters is their own...they certainly don't care a wit what the Jews think.

From England’s point of view, Ireland has never had much value, but it has posed a threat. During the Troubles, the majority of English would have been happy to see Ireland sink under the sea. Nevertheless, we sent in our young men to die trying to stop them from killing each other, while the Republic gave succour to the IRA and its government contemplated military action in Ulster. In other words, Eire considered going to war with Britain in support of a rebellious minority, no doubt, with the ultimate aim of incorporating British territory into its own – against the majority will of the people living there.

Shrugs...I am sure Brittan is just like the Jedi coming in to free Naboo...all peace loving and only wanting to help and the bad meanie Irish are then just like the Sith...at least from the English perspective. I am sure that perspective is flipped around for the Irish however.

Which was the only point I was making.





But the Irish patriot is wrong by saying it: he is perpetuating an untruth that everyone seems to be more than willing to believe, simply because he says it with a touraluralay in his voice.

Perhaps...perhaps not. All it takes is one soldier getting caught pissing on a dead body of an occupied countries "terrorist/freedom fighter) and ten plus years of goodwill goes out the window like so much slop.

In your scenario, you appear to be describing a feud between a two Irish lords, where one of them invites an English ally to help him in his attempts to subdue the other. One Irishman oppressing another again. And quite normal behaviour at the time. Why should the Irish patriot comment?

More to the point, why the fuck is he still blaming us for something that happened hundreds of years ago? I’ll tell you why: to justify the terrorism that continues to this day.

Why do African Americans, Jews, People of India, Arabs, etc etc all still complain or comment on what their "oppressors" did too them so many years ago? I will tell you why: Perceptions of injustices resonate just as strongly sometimes as the actual acts that fostered them in the first place real or imagined.


I’m not saying we were ever “nice”. We just had better things to do than trying to think of things that would make Paddy cross.

I think its a bit more complicated than that and a great deal more exploitation and indifference and more than a wee bit of "Imperial" arrogance was involved.


As the only version of Irish history that is generally noised around the world is the nationalist version, I don’t see how you can accuse England of lies and exaggerations.

No more so than I accuse any other nation of such fickle historical sophistry when it suits them or they don't like the way some thing about themselves or their ancestors sounds. Remember our discussions on the American Revolution? Brittan taught their version to you and your peers in school...while American children were taught their own version. Who had the "truth"...who had the "right" of it? Did Herodotus malign the Persians in favor of his countrymen in his works? Did Livy favor the Romans over all others in his histories?

Even I have only to quoted documented facts, not simply things that I would like to have happened.

Same here.

As you have mentioned out twice now, it is important not to have a closed mind on this subject. Keeping an open mind does not mean disregarding any arguments that support the British cause.

Nor the Irish cause either right?. Not if one is to truly be objective that is. Which I doubt is happening when we discuss things that are very close to one's home. (not mine I was born in beyrut..its the Jew/Arab thingy that should strike close too me)

I think my “perspective” is closer to the truth than that the notion that all Irish rebels were noble heroes struggling against England as an infinitely evil oppressor. Why should I admit otherwise?The exploitation was by one Irishman against another. Simple as that.

Your opinion is your opinion. I just think its a bit biased is all.

Is it justifiable in any way to allow the people in any part of one’s dominions to rise up against each other, and to kill them – men, women and children – without trying to restore law and order? The alternative is chaos, civil strife and foreign interference.

Ahhh now here is the rub huh? And a very tough one to answer in depth. Too be honest I dont know how the situation realistically would have been handled any differently by any other group holding power over another in the same exact situation and inclinations all things assumed equal. Obviously if England had instead been Russian and had Russian conditions and terrian and history...it would have been different...but its not its England. (Enviroment imho shapes us in some ways).


Do some history, then. Tell me when England invaded Ireland for the sole reason of oppressing the people and bringing them under her heel.

The sole reason? There is never a sole reason. But it has happened several times. Starting with a series of Norman right on through Elizabethian times. The reasons given by the invaders however...will be documented as self justifing however...that much is pretty much garenteed. Oh I was invited to "help" but now that I am here I am staying...like it or not etc.

Cromwell is probably a good start. Set that number against the times British troops were sent to quell civil disorder or to eject foreign invaders and Pretenders to the Crown.

At least we’ll be having a debate with facts on both sides then.

Oh but we allready have...I even quoted like a whole page of historical notes way earlier in the thread. I just think you were rather subjectivly one sided in your interpetation is all, which is understadable.

(And it’s cruel of you to even hint you’d blow me when you know you never would!)

If you were right here in front of me ...how do you know I wouldnt?





Continuing to hold dominion ... In other words, trying to maintain the Queen’s Peace in a British province. No different than keeping law and order on the streets of London, Liverpool or Glasgow.

I am certian that from the Crown's point of view thats precisely whats going on.

IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DISRUPTING LAW AND ORDER WHO ARE IN THE WRONG, NOT THE LAWFUL AUTHORITIES THAT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM. England cannot be blamed if Ireland is stuffed full of blind bigots whose only method of protest is to murder innocent bystanders and call themselves patriots.

Seriously...why do you think the bigots are being so bloody bigoted?

Seriously?

It is high time that responsibility for the Irish situation was shared properly. England has acted harshly with regard to the Irish at times, but no harsher than it has acted towards others at different times. It was acting in accordance with the normal standards of behaviour of the day. Every rebellion in Ireland has been by Irishmen, and has been focused on other Irishmen or property. Peace has had to be restored by English troops. To that extent, England IS the good guy.

At least from England's point of view.

Every invasion by foreign powers has had to be defeated by England to avoid Ireland being conquered or used as a jumping-off point for an attack on Britain. The attempts by the Stuarts to seize the Irish Crown, and then the English Crown, had to be put down for the same reason. If that doesn’t make England the good guy, it certainly justifies the English actions.

To the English it certiantly does.

As you know, I consider the American Rebellion was just as illegal as the Irish rebellions. That, too was led by criminals and exploiters for their own enrichment rather than for the good of America in general. And just like the Irish, America paints its act of arch-treachery as a noble strike for freedom!

Yeah must be why they came up with that nifty new form of government that worked so dam well to limit tyranny and all instead of declaring themselves pirate kings (at least for a time...its a bit tattered now days if you ask me).

There is a difference, however between acts of treachery and acts of resistance against a foreign invader.

If the shoe were on the other foot I wonder what you would say then?

I don’t think this discussion can go much further unless and until people shake off the idea that the IRA was fine body of fresh young men who marched nobly towards Dublin in the Green, where the bayonets flashed, and rifles crashed, to the echoes of a Thompson gun. Not everything the Irish did was justified by England’s existence. IF they ever were that noble, those days are long gone. What we have now is a gang of psychopathic bigots, drug dealers, pimps and extortionists.

Oh I never said they were all sunshine and parades.

From my point of view....niether side is.

[IAN 2411]

Martian Sheen isn't a terrorist is he?

You are correct, because he is worse in the eyes of the British soldier and their kin. He is the Type of disgusting filth that was filling the coffers of the IRA so that they could go and kill the British soldier. He can only be excelled by another set of garbage called J F Kennedy and the rest of his Irish American breed that are most probably still doing the same. Kennedy really was a big spender and it was a known fact that he sympathised with the Irish. I just wonder how deep his hand went into his pocket to show them real sympathy. The trouble with the American Presidents is they all want to be Irish, even Paddy O’Bama, what a fucking joke. Obama jumped from his close relations being a terrorist in Kenya to another bunch of terrorists on the shores of the UK. I’ll bet even the Russians had a good laugh at that, the English are still laughing. I wonder if Paddy O'Bama knows that there are a few Kenyans in el Qeada, we already know that there are a few IRA training them?

MMI...denu....your arguments are old hat, because you are going over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over the same bit of history. To be honest, it has damn all to do with Martin Sheen and his disgusting relations.

Be well IAN 2411

[MMI]

Ian

At least we are trying to exchange points of view (although each of us thinks the other is irredeemably biased and his/her arguments flawed). It's better than a foul tirade of angry bile.

Who knows ... one or other of us might suddenly get a new perspective on matters which, once articulated on these boards, will solve the whole Anglo/Irish problem forever? But if it's too tedious for you, skip over it. That's what everyone else is doing.

Den

I'm too tired to reply tonight, so I'll return to it another time.

[IAN 2411]

Ian

It's better than a foul tirade of angry bile.

There is nothing angry about it, and since when has truth been bile?

Who knows ... one or other of us might suddenly get a new perspective on matters which, once articulated on these boards, will solve the whole Anglo/Irish problem forever?

Get real, so you are going to do in this thread what the English and Irish have been trying to do for hundreds of years. LMAO.

Its not very nice to know that people laugh at your post, MMI, is it? And why the hell should I skip over posters that have hijacked a thread for their own ends that have nothing to do with the OP. We can all read and copy from history books but I stoped doing that in high school. I wont skip over you, but I will stay out of the thread because it has lost its way.

Be well IAN 2411

[MMI]

Martian Sheen isn't a terrorist is he?

No, I’m sure he isn’t, but I wasn’t referring specifically to him in my previous post. And in any case, I don’t believe you have answered my point by making such a dismissive remark. Your contention is that if people behaved in accordance with the times they lived in, they are not to be criticised. Thus the Irish are not to be criticised for their murderous raids on mainland Britain during the Roman occupation.

Yet, although many European nations - and even the United States of America – have built empires in the more recent past, Britain alone is to be faulted for doing so.

As for Martin Sheen, I think Ian’s remarks above will suffice.

[The Irish] have justified their actions by saying the English are to blame.

Which is how it appears from your perspective...just like Hezbollah justifies its actions and beliefs...the only perspective that matters is their own...

I agree that we have different perspectives, but I don’t think my views can be summarily disregarded simply because they do not fit in with your uncritical absorbtion of the American/Irish Nationalist version of history; and I am quite unsure that your experience of violence in Lebanon enables you to empathise with Irish Republicans. (Why not with the Loyalists, who are also Irish?)

I am sure Brittan is just like the Jedi coming in to free Naboo...all peace loving and only wanting to help and the bad meanie Irish are then just like the Sith...at least from the English perspective. I am sure that perspective is flipped around for the Irish however.

You tell me you’re a historian, yet here you are comparing British Imperialism and Irish Nationalists with a Hollywood film! I can assure you, the problem is far more complicated than that and deserves to be considered more thoughtfully. I note you have already made a similar point earlier in this thread.

The first thing you need to understand is that the problem is not what the British did to the Irish, but what the Irish did – and are still doing - to each other. When you look at things from that perspective, you will see that Britain’s actions are almost irrelevant.

All it takes is one soldier getting caught pissing on a dead body of an occupied countries "terrorist/freedom fighter) and ten plus years of goodwill goes out the window like so much slop.

I’m not aware of this incident. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Why do African Americans, Jews, People of India, Arabs, etc etc all still complain or comment on what their "oppressors" did too them so many years ago? I will tell you why: Perceptions of injustices resonate just as strongly sometimes as the actual acts that fostered them in the first place real or imagined.

Perceptions of injustice can be – and in this instance, I submit, are – self-delusional; and it would be wrong to pander to such self-deception when trying to understand history.

As the only version of Irish history that is generally noised around the world is the nationalist version, I don’t see how you can accuse England of lies and exaggerations.

No more so than I accuse any other nation of such fickle historical sophistry when it suits them or they don't like the way some thing about themselves or their ancestors sounds. Remember our discussions on the American Revolution? Brittan taught their version to you and your peers in school...while American children were taught their own version. Who had the "truth"...who had the "right" of it? Did Herodotus malign the Persians in favor of his countrymen in his works? Did Livy favor the Romans over all others in his histories?

As the Irish version of history is one-sided and in many places fallacious, I wonder where the sophistry truly resides.

The British educational system – at least when I was at school – spent perhaps one lesson on the American Revolution - two or three if you count the colonial period and events in Canada: it was just one small theatre in a world-wide war and not important enough to bother justifying or apologising for.

But this is a side-issue and we don’t want to start that argument all over again!

Keeping an open mind does not mean disregarding any arguments that support the British cause.

Nor the Irish cause either right?. Not if one is to truly be objective that is. Which I doubt is happening when we discuss things that are very close to one's home. (not mine I was born in beyrut..its the Jew/Arab thingy that should strike close too me)

No-one is allowed to forget the Nationalist view, so that particular question doesn’t arise. They even glory in their atrocities. When, on the other hand, have you heard anyone seriously argue against the Irish “Truth”?

Your opinion is your opinion. I just think its a bit biased is all.

… and therefore invalid? What makes you think that? Simply because I interpret historical events differently from you?

Enviroment imho shapes us in some ways.

Is that an oblique way of making Britain responsible for things like the Plague or potato blight?

Tell me when England invaded Ireland for the sole reason of oppressing the people ...

The sole reason? There is never a sole reason. But it has happened several times. Starting with a series of Norman right on through Elizabethian times. The reasons given by the invaders however...will be documented as self justifing however...that much is pretty much garenteed. Oh I was invited to "help" but now that I am here I am staying...like it or not etc.

Never simply to oppress, then, but to help or protect Ireland, or to prevent Ireland becoming a staging post for England’s enemies.

I’ll make it simpler: when was oppression of the Irish people one of the stated aims of any British invader?

I ... quoted like a whole page of historical notes way earlier in the thread. I just think you were rather subjectivly one sided in your interpetation is all, which is understadable.

Yes, I read and commented upon those notes. I said they did not demonstrate English oppression, but, rather, the opposite. Instead of patronising me by “understanding” my prejudices, please point out the events mentioned that clearly demonstrate England invaded Ireland to suppress the population as a whole (as opposed to rebels in particular).

Continuing to hold dominion ... In other words, trying to maintain the Queen’s Peace in a British province. No different than keeping law and order on the streets of London, Liverpool or Glasgow.

I am certian that from the Crown's point of view thats precisely whats going on.

So why do you doubt and deny it?

Seriously...why do you think the bigots are being so bloody bigoted?

Because the other bigots are killing them! One Irishman against another.

Every rebellion in Ireland has been by Irishmen, and has been focused on other Irishmen or property. Peace has had to be restored by English troops. To that extent, England IS the good guy.

At least from England's point of view.

No. From a detached and dispassionate point of view.

Every invasion by foreign powers has had to be defeated by England to avoid Ireland being conquered or used as a jumping-off point for an attack on Britain. The attempts by the Stuarts to seize the Irish Crown, and then the English Crown, had to be put down for the same reason. If that doesn’t make England the good guy, it certainly justifies the English actions.

To the English it certiantly does.

If you deny it, explain?

… just like the Irish, America paints its act of arch-treachery as a noble strike for freedom!

Yeah must be why they came up with that nifty new form of government that worked so dam well to limit tyranny and all instead of declaring themselves pirate kings (at least for a time...its a bit tattered now days if you ask me).

They replaced a benign tyranny (if you must call it tyranny) with a weak confederacy, run by self-interested smugglers, land-grabbers and other disreputable blackguards, that began its life by reneging on the first international treaty it signed, and planned to turn on its allies (the French and Spanish – who won the American war for them) in order to take over New France and Florida once the English had been ejected.

As for “new”, what about the Licchavi, or Rome or Lucca?

There is a difference, however between acts of treachery and acts of resistance against a foreign invader.

If the shoe were on the other foot I wonder what you would say then?

I would say the same thing: there is a difference.

[denuseri]

How I like to reply with a quote:

Click the reply with quote key,

then I type what I want and make it a different color at various places between the text that is copied into the box and make sure to type something outside the quotes at the bottom.

How MMI does it pulling quote within quote I have no idea lol

Sorry is this is further off topic for you Ian but MMI asked me some questions so I being submissive and all will attempt to answer them. My post before this one I hope will receive some clarification since I went back to the OP and re-read it to see if I somehow missed the boat.

No, I’m sure he isn’t, but I wasn’t referring specifically to him in my previous post. And in any case, I don’t believe you have answered my point by making such a dismissive remark. Your contention is that if people behaved in accordance with the times they lived in, they are not to be criticised. Thus the Irish are not to be criticised for their murderous raids on mainland Britain during the Roman occupation.

Are the English to be criticized for theirs? Do you honestly believe that the entire predicament has zero blame to lay at England door and all the blame on Ireland?

My contention was one being that we should try to view history as objectively as possible IE: not only from our own perspectives, but the perspectives of the people on all sides of any issue in a historical setting.

Yet, although many European nations - and even the United States of America – have built empires in the more recent past, Britain alone is to be faulted for doing so.

No of course not. We do have to however take the bad with the good..."warts and all". Otherwise we risk loosing objectivity.

As for Martin Sheen, I think Ian’s remarks above will suffice.

Shrugs.



I agree that we have different perspectives, but I don’t think my views can be summarily disregarded simply because they do not fit in with your uncritical absorbtion of the American/Irish Nationalist version of history; and I am quite unsure that your experience of violence in Lebanon enables you to empathise with Irish Republicans. (Why not with the Loyalists, who are also Irish?)

I don't honestly empathize with either party. I think war however necessary at times it is deplorable. I just figured that someone best play devils advocate for the sake of discussion since no one was taking up for the much maligned Irish and you two were just bashing them up like Brown shirts going after Juden in Munich before the start of the war. (sarcasm) Point being not everything thats happened to the Irish is necessarily the sole fault of the Irish.

You tell me you’re a historian, yet here you are comparing British Imperialism and Irish Nationalists with a Hollywood film!

Why not often times such analogies get through an otherwise difficult concept to my students when I teach.

I can assure you, the problem is far more complicated than that and deserves to be considered more thoughtfully.

Yes but also sometimes a more laconic approach is merited. Both have their place. Belligerent bellicose ranting however is imho completely unwarranted in any serious discussion (not talking about you MMI).

I note you have already made a similar point earlier in this thread.

Yep and I was very disappointed it was discarded out of hand and the sophistry continued. But I tried.

The first thing you need to understand is that the problem is not what the British did to the Irish, but what the Irish did – and are still doing - to each other. When you look at things from that perspective, you will see that Britain’s actions are almost irrelevant.

Oh personally I fully agree both sides should have put away their toys and went home like 50 years ago or never started fighting to begin with after the peace Collins helped make with the British. I understand the British argument for continued occupation, I also understand their opposition...though considering the resolve of the people wanting one united Ireland free of occupancy by outsiders and all the trouble its caused I must say that someone on both sides of the peace table dropped the ball in Collins day or at the very least lacked foresight.



I’m not aware of this incident. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Oh that was a reference to the United States Soldiers that were all over TV for having taken cell pics of themselves peeing on a dead Afghan.


Perceptions of injustice can be – and in this instance, I submit, are – self-delusional; and it would be wrong to pander to such self-deception when trying to understand history.

Yep but to be anywhere near objective you have to first be able to admit that the self delusions will be prevalent on both sides of the issue in question and perhaps even within one's self.

As the Irish version of history is one-sided and in many places fallacious, I wonder where the sophistry truly resides.

On both sides. As evidenced by our collective references to the "interpetive" history and its two distinct versions we were both tuaght in our respective educations. Which I will refrain from making any further comment on in this thread.

The British educational system – at least when I was at school – spent perhaps one lesson on the American Revolution - two or three if you count the colonial period and events in Canada: it was just one small theatre in a world-wide war and not important enough to bother justifying or apologising for.

But this is a side-issue and we don’t want to start that argument all over again!

lol Agreed!



No-one is allowed to forget the Nationalist view, so that particular question doesn’t arise. They even glory in their atrocities. When, on the other hand, have you heard anyone seriously argue against the Irish “Truth”?

Oh you should have been a fly on the wall during my first European History class ever (we had an Oxford man for our instructor) and to hear him put it, without Great Brittian their would be no Europe to have a history. He oft likened them to the Athenians of Greece...and just as oft left out any and all of the more sorted tales or other bad things they did etc. (and by Britian he did indeed mean England first over all others...the Welsh, Scots etc where all from some lower order in his book).



… and therefore invalid? What makes you think that? Simply because I interpret historical events differently from you?

I was just pointing out your subjectivity is all.



Is that an oblique way of making Britain responsible for things like the Plague or potato blight?

Gosh can we blame the finacial crisis on them too? Seriously...nope not at all...just that how a culture is shaped is often a by product of its enviroment. Like the Russians I am sure wouldnt have been nearly as understanding or light handed with the Irish situation if it had been them and not the Brits dealing with it.

Never simply to oppress, then, but to help or protect Ireland, or to prevent Ireland becoming a staging post for England’s enemies.

Now you sound just like my first European history teacher again...smh. Sure you arnt an Oxford man teaching in the southern USA at a community college? (if you are you may be in for some really good blow jobs soon lol)

I’ll make it simpler: when was oppression of the Irish people one of the stated aims of any British invader?

Oh that would never be the stated claim at least not offically we all know that. Most invaders want to be seen as liberators or protectors if the people they invade. (note how America has followed our British forbears example in the middle east during our invasions there)


So why do you doubt and deny it?

All I am saying is that obviously the people fighting back do not share the viewpoint of the Crown on this matter and they most likely think of themselves as freedom fighters much the same as the "terrorists" in the middle east do. I bet their viewpoints are shared with the Crown as much as Alquieada shares the USA's view or William Wallace shared the English view whilst fighting them at Stierling. (yes I may be setting up for another movie quote or two).





They replaced a benign tyranny (if you must call it tyranny) with a weak confederacy, run by self-interested smugglers, land-grabbers and other disreputable blackguards, that began its life by reneging on the first international treaty it signed, and planned to turn on its allies (the French and Spanish – who won the American war for them) in order to take over New France and Florida once the English had been ejected.

As for “new”, what about the Licchavi, or Rome or Lucca?

Now now shouldnt we make a whole seperate thread where we can flirt over that subject?



I would say the same thing: there is a difference.

Seriously is you were born and raised in Belfast and raised to believe that your father and mother and brothers etc were fighting for your independence from opression...how would you really feel?

[MMI]

Sorry is this is further off topic for you Ian but MMI asked me some questions so I being submissive and all will attempt to answer them. My post before this one I hope will receive some clarification since I went back to the OP and re-read it to see if I somehow missed the boat.

It is not off-topic: it is just one of two or three themes.

Referring back to your last post, you claim that your position is neutral and that history must be viewed objectively. You also allow that people on each side of the problem have their own subjective opinions. However, throughout this thread you have challenged any attempt to put forward an objective justification – or even an explanation – of the English viewpoint. Did I say “challenged”? I meant “denied”: denied out-of-hand with nothing rational to support your rejection.

Then you accuse me of sophistry! At least sophists recognise facts.

I will accept the British have done bad things in Ireland; but you must accept the Irish have done worse, more often, and to their own countrymen. It is despicable to put the blame for their own low behaviour on the English, but innate in the Irish character.

You go on to ask,

Seriously is you were born and raised in Belfast and raised to believe that your father and mother and brothers etc were fighting for your independence from opression...how would you really feel?

Seriously, I still would believe there is a difference between acts of treachery (e.g., British citizens who kill other British citizens in the name of Irish Republicanism) and acts of resistance against a foreign invader (e.g., the French resistance).

================================================== ================================================== ================

Further evidence of the Irish habit of subjugating their own was provided in BBC Radio 4’s “Woman’s Hour” last week when they discussed how mothers in Londonderry are forced to ensure their sons, who have been fingered by Republican Action Against Drugs (an IRA splinter group “policing” Republican areas of Londonderry) to keep an appointment for a shooting, because they will be shot anyway, but more seriously if they ignore the summons. Listen to it, then maybe you’ll understand a bit better:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18068691

MOTHER "I had to let him go"

INTERVIEWER "Why?

MOTHER "Because that's the way of it ..."

It must be remembered that drugs formed a significant proportion of the IRA’s income, and with that in mind, one wonders why RAAD is seeking to eliminate drug dealers in Londonderry, even though drug-dealing and drug-taking is still rife.

[denuseri]

Referring back to your last post, you claim that your position is neutral and that history must be viewed objectively.

Should be viewed as objectively as possible. My position is and will remain in this regard completely neutral.

You also allow that people on each side of the problem have their own subjective opinions.

Yep. Their individual perspectives in combination with the human proclivity to self justify one's self and one's actions no matter how heinous is also factored in. Which is why I say that the one side will view the other as being the bad guys. Just like Al Quida vs the USA, or Arab vs Jew etc etc ...or in this case Irish vs English.

However, throughout this thread you have challenged any attempt to put forward an objective justification – or even an explanation – of the English viewpoint. Did I say “challenged”? I meant “denied”: denied out-of-hand with nothing rational to support your rejection.

When I see a truly objective explanation I shall indeed give much praise. So far I haven't seen anything objective so much as pro-English only with window dressing to give the basest of appearances of objectivity (almost as sublime a use of sophistry and subjectivity as that I receive from my main opponent in the religion section here) at least on your part (much the same as in our discussions concerning the American Revolution only there we were both being "subjectively" objective in our own way due to the primary sources from which we each respectively were drawing our information IE English schools taught a pro-English stance where as American one's taught a pro-American stance).

Then you accuse me of sophistry! At least sophists recognise facts.

Shrugs I call em like I see em. Sophism is a hard bucket to stay away from...its soooo natural for human beings to resort too it. So much so entire schools of philosophers followed it's tenants for centuries before those influenced by Socrates was adopted by people during the Renaissance. Additionally ...I have read all the things you presented as facts...and I have read everything else you presented...my only issue (the main point of which your participation has only added supporting evidence too btw) is that one's perspectives on these matters have everything to do with whether or not one views Mr Sheen's comments as being an affront too society or not. As to whether or not the Irish or the English are objectively in the right? My call is that it is perhaps no different than the USA and the Islamic Terrorists...both parties are perhaps in the wrong to one degree or another "objectively"...with each side "subjectively" accusing the other of being more if not totally in said "wrong".

I will accept the British have done bad things in Ireland;(<<< there you have made an attempt at objectivity...claps in applause) but you must accept the Irish have done worse, more often, and to their own countrymen. It is despicable to put the blame for their own low behaviour on the English, but innate in the Irish character.

Sighs...ahh but their you had to go and resort to the subjective all over again...and that my dear Sir is where the sublime sophism is coming into play followed by a wee bit o' bigotry I might add in bold at the end. Smh, I seem to recall a certain Austrian who made similar comments (though far more bellicose) about a certain group of Semites not so long ago. Innate in their character huh?

You go on to ask,



Seriously, I still would believe there is a difference between acts of treachery (e.g., British citizens who kill other British citizens in the name of Irish Republicanism) and acts of resistance against a foreign invader (e.g., the French resistance).

My guess is you would be throwing rocks with the others at what you have been taught to believe is a foreign invader who has kept your people oppressed for hundreds of years. Additionally you would also most likely self justify such actions and call what the English are doing the real "treachery" and perhaps even honestly believe as children of KKK members sometimes do about people of color that whatever is bad in "them" it is "innate in their character".

================================================== ================================================== ================

I do however thank you for proving my point for me though. (that one's perspective determines who the good guys and the bad guys are in this issue)

It is my overall opinion that:

both sides have done wrong and that their are groups on both sides who are willing to look past said wrongs and agree to both start doing right....but as with most of the other divisions of perspective we have touched on...some asshats (on both sides) ") keep setting things up to fail, or keep pushing, or cant be objective and are going to extremes that some find horrific because they are either unwilling or unable to allow peace or accept it until whatever it is they are fighting for is accomplished without compromise in full or the other side relents in total etc (maybe because its "innate to their character huh?).

Which imho is also a crying shame.

[MMI]

Ian

The bile is not in the facts you use, but the way you use them.

These topics have a habit of meandering, but I don't think it has strayed from the OP - but you don't own the thread anyway. It has just moved in a direction you disapprove of. If that's the case, bring it back in track instead of whingeing or sulking off.

Otherwise, I'm glad my comments have amused you. I hope it helps you be well.

[IAN 2411]

Your coments always amuse me MMI. I might just do exactly what you say and I know I dont own the thread, but I will ask you a serious question.

What makes two American people or other than English/Irish [I asume your are both American and I will stand to be corrected]think they can work out the whys and wheres of English/Irish politics over the troubles, when the English/Irish themselves dont know the answer? It is all very well looking at the history books and quoting whats there, but what input of your own ideas have you arrived at so far.

You have both clouded your posts with known history that is almost imposible to define your inputs from what you have learned from the history books. I have yet to figure out how the hell to quote your work to question it because of this crazy way you go about talking to each other in your own little black blob. Then again maybe that makes me stupid for being like the majority in not being good at IT.

Be well IAN 2411

A PS for you MMI, Go to Northern Ireland, and come back with nail hols in your body, and then talk to me about not writing about the IRA without some depth of feeling.

[MMI]

What an excellent question. What, I wonder, made Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, and Kennedy travel to Ireland? Why did Carter "internationalise" the Troubles by issuing a policy statement on Northern Ireland, when the situation in Northern Ireland was a UK domestic affair? I don't know, but maybe it's because many Americans have close links with Ireland, even if they have a misguided understanding of the problems there.

To suggest that nobody can make any valid contribution to this problem by discussing it is the language of the gunman or the bomber. I know you're ex-army, but you don't want to get trapped down that particular road. The only outcome will be more deaths and deeper hatred (if that's possible); but if Martin Sheen is, by any chance, reading this thread, maybe he'll see there was never any glory in what the IRA did, and reconsider his earlier comments about his uncle.

As for original input, aren't you expecting a lot? However, judging by the reaction from several posters here when I said the nub of the Irish problem is that the Irish themselves, not the British, have always been oppressors of their own people, I expressed an idea not previously encountered by them.

[denuseri]

So is Collins a good guy or a bad guy? Was he a freedom fighter? Or a terrorist? I mean isn't that the man and the IRA of that time period too which Mr Sheen was referring? He was quoted as having made his statements during a show about his ancestors history etc right?

[MMI]

So is Collins a good guy or a bad guy? Was he a freedom fighter? Or a terrorist? I mean isn't that the man and the IRA of that time period too which Mr Sheen was referring? He was quoted as having made his statements during a show about his ancestors history etc right?

No doubt about it: he was evil. He was also unlucky enough to be dumped on by his own side, but no sympathy here. Casts a different light on deValera, though!

As for the rest of your posts, can I ask for an extension before responding?

[thir]

Sorry to come in late, but have been away for some weeks, and this is an interesting discussion.

Quote Originally Posted by denuseri
So is Collins a good guy or a bad guy? Was he a freedom fighter? Or a terrorist?


He was a freedom fighter, quite obviously. England had no business being in Ireland.

Some points:

1: I do not see how any country can justify invading another, whether for strategic reasons or because they think said country do not behave as they should.

2: If you do invade, and call said country 'your domain', I do not see how you can complain about having to spend money and soldiers hanging on to it, or to keep it 'orderly'.

3: I do not understand how taking a country makes it yours by moral or divine right or whatever, and any uprising thereafter 'rebels' or 'treason'. It is all about violence, nothing else.

[MMI]

He was also a cowardly assassin, but js makes a much better point.

As to your three points,

(1) If a country fails to act in the face of a perceived strategic imperative, it is likely to be destroyed. But if one country behaves in a way that its larger neighbour disapproves of, that is no justification for invasion (unless that "misbehaviour" constitutes a threat).

In the present case, when has Ireland been invaded for displeasing England by its behaviour? The Tudors? They conquered Ireland to quell a usurpation of the Irish Crown by an Irish Earl (threat), and they restored power to the Irish Parliament which had been assumed by the more powerful Earls and Chiefs. The Plantation of Ulster? Northern Ireland was settled by Scottish and English farmers who were given land taken from the rebellious O'Neils and O'Donnells (threat) in the hope that the new demography would be more amenable to English authority. Cromwell? The Irish were supporting the Royalist cause (threat - ironic that the Irish hate the enemy of England's monarch, whom their ancestors supported and fought and died for)

(2) The presumption being that England has no right "to be there". By that argument, virtually the whole population of the Americas - north and south - have even less right to be there, because they arrived much later. The same goes for Australia and New Zealand. Presumably, if the Aboriginals or Maoris started to foment revolution, you would say that the governments there could not complain about the cost in money or lives spent in maintaining order?

(3) Moral right ... England was invited, and being in control, it was obliged to maintain order; divine right (a) Pope Adrian granted the English Crown suzerainity over Ireland, and (b) the Irish Jacobites upheld the Stuart claim to the "Divine Right of Kings". Michael Collins, for example, was born a British subject, studied in King's College and began his career in London working for important financial institutions. His act of rebelling against the established government cannot be anything other than treason, and using violence against the state invites a violent response, even today in any country you care to name.

[thir]

He was also a cowardly assassin, but js makes a much better point.

I do not know what you are refering to here, but surely the army uses assassins? And drones? And bombs meant for hostile leaders?

As to your three points,

(1) If a country fails to act in the face of a perceived strategic imperative, it is likely to be destroyed.

So, when the Sovjet Union took half of Europe after WW2 to make a buffer zone, they were within their right?

If, theoreticallly speaking, it had been possible for Ireland to invade parts of West England to protect their shores, they would have been within their right?

But if one country behaves in a way that its larger neighbour disapproves of, that is no justification for invasion (unless that "misbehaviour" constitutes a threat).

Example?

In the present case, when has Ireland been invaded for displeasing England by its behaviour?

Another poster made that claim, that is why I included it.

(2) The presumption being that England has no right "to be there". By that argument, virtually the whole population of the Americas - north and south - have even less right to be there, because they arrived much later. The same goes for Australia and New Zealand.

You have to distinguish between military invasion, and immigration. But I see colonization as invasion too.

Presumably, if the Aboriginals or Maoris started to foment revolution, you would say that the governments there could not complain about the cost in money or lives spent in maintaining order?

Yes, I would.

(3) Moral right ... England was invited,

No country invites invasion

and being in control, it was obliged to maintain order;

Complaining bitterly about it too, and using excessive force, but yes

divine right (a) Pope Adrian granted the English Crown suzerainity over Ireland, and (b) the Irish Jacobites upheld the Stuart claim to the "Divine Right of Kings". Michael Collins, for example, was born a British subject, studied in King's College and began his career in London working for important financial institutions. His act of rebelling against the established government cannot be anything other than treason, and using violence against the state invites a violent response, even today in any country you care to name.

Nonsense. What right does any pope have to give away other people's lands? They did it in South Africa and Asia as well. It is just another way to say 'we take the right'.

England took Ireland, and any act of rebellion is the right of any invaded country. Ireland was a colony for so many years, that does not mean they do not have the right for independance, just as for example India and many African states.

Just as the other colonies Ireland had so much trouble getting back on its feet economically.

[IAN 2411]

A day in the life of the British Para, 1967-74

Get up 6am, do two hours of security road blocks at random and then patrol the surrounding countryside in open top land-rover until mid day.

During the afternoon patrol the protestant area of Belfast, stop to talk to the locals. Union flags in most windows. Red hand of Ulster flags painted on the end of terraced houses. The protestant community are pleased to see you patrolling their estates? I think not. They hate the British soldier as much as the Catholics in Bally Murphy.

“Do you want a cup of tea my dear?” A woman asks.

“Yes says the NCO, and a few of the section have the tea thinking they are safe. They think the same as the Americans that these people are English. They are not they were born in Northern Ireland and that makes them dangerous. The section finishes drinking their tea and walk off carrying on with business.

The section is told by the radio operator that a fight has broken out in Bally Murphy, the sections turf. They jump in the two vehicles and drive off to the location. They are met with a bombardment of children and women throwing stones and bottles. The section jump out of the vehicles cock weapons and take up defensive positions waiting for the real show of force. It never happens but the stone throwers have disappeared, but in place walking towards the section is a crowd. These are the real deal, men and boys spoiling for trouble and outnumbering the section. The radio operator calls for back-up they are outnumbered and outgunned, somewhere among that two hundred restless men is one lone shooter waiting to get his chance. The section waits and hopes the back-up will arrive fast as this is not looking to good. The British soldier only has live rounds to fire at the crowd and they will never be used.

Back-up arrives and section withdraws back to base.

Just before meal half the section doubles up in pain and doctor arrives [Arsenic poisoning.] Yes that good old cup of tea the friendly protestant’s gave the soldier had powdered glass mixed with the sugar. The part of the section which is only five men that never had the tea are about to do roaming night patrols in Belfast City.

Eleven pm, suspicious man near Match Factory at end of M1 and the half section goes out to investigate. While investigating a shot is fired at the section and as they hit the ground in defensive positions a nail bomb is thrown. The radio operator is lucky this time as the nails only killed his radio...the next time he will feel pain. There were no other injuries but the section has been informed that another section of soldiers has apprehended an IRA suspect just north of the Match Factory running away from a suspected explosion. Clear the area and leave for base arriving two am. Flop on bed fully dressed, must be awake at six for more road blocks at random.

.................................................. ......

Not bad for one day’s work, poisoned by the Protestant’s, stoned by the Catholics , and damn near killed by the IRA. The whole lot of them hated the British Soldier. While walking through the Protestant estate we were stopping their Para military from actively doing their clandestine work. By being in the Catholic Bally Murphy we were bait for the bigger rioting real deal. They knew we would send for back-up and it was the back-up that would get the shooter. The IRA bomber, well he was the only one that could be respected because he was the enemy. He was not just the enemy of the British, the Soldier, but he was an enemy to the Irish people both Protestant and Catholic and both sides of the border.

If the Irish Americans knew this would it have made any difference, probably not because they would say it was English propaganda? They would believe their extended kin that they knew damn all about because they wanted to be part of a cause.

I will say that the TRA started out at the beginning as a self appointed freedom fighter, but somewhere along the long trail they lost their way. The IRA graduated into terrorists and no longer has respect for the cause they are fighting. There is no cause now since the Good Friday Agreement, and once you offer your services to train others, [el Qaeda] then you are no longer a soldier but a terrorist mercenary.

It is just that I find it strange that the Americans still think that the English are still the oppressors in Northern Ireland, because we have a military presence. The strangest thing about the little story above that did take place, is the fact that for the last hundred or so years. The British were not there to protect the Protestants and Unionists. The British Soldiers were there to stop the Protestants and Unionists from annihilating the minority in Northern Ireland....The Catholics. [Remember the powdered glass]?

I know you're ex-army, but you don't want to get trapped down that particular road.

I hear what you’re saying.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

Oh that would never be the stated claim at least not officially we all know that. Most invaders want to be seen as liberators or protectors if the people they invade. (Note how America has followed our British forbear’s example in the Middle East during our invasions there)

If what you say is what the American Government was thinking, denu; then the Americans had not read their history properly, because the British got their ass kicked there. A few hundred years later the Russians got their ass kicked also. Looking at the way things are going at the moment the British are still getting our ass kicked, but at least this time we are not on our own.

Oh personally I fully agree both sides should have put away their toys and went home like 50 years ago or never started fighting to begin with after the peace Collins helped make with the British. I understand the British argument for continued occupation, I also understand their opposition...though considering the resolve of the people wanting one united Ireland free of occupancy by outsiders and all the trouble its caused I must say that someone on both sides of the peace table dropped the ball in Collins day or at the very least lacked foresight.

The British could not pack up and leave, and until it is a United Ireland I doubt that they ever will. The IRA started something they could never win, because the majority of the population in Northern Ireland where Protestants. All the time the loyalists held the governing power and supposedly wanted to be part of the UK, the soldiers would stay. One of the reasons was because of the Protestant Para Military being in a better position with many more soldiers in the correct place than the IRA.

If the soldiers left Northern Ireland the Protestants would overwhelm the Catholics proclaiming Northern Ireland their own. They would then UK that theirs was the right under the majority rule. However, the British Soldier where not going to leave at any price. Make no mistake there would have been a blood bath, and then the British would have been accused of failing the Catholics. The right dishonorable Ian Paisley came very close to stating that very fact so many times, and he was as much of a pain in the ass to the peace treaty as the political arm of the IRA.

Paisley was an instigator of violence and was disliked almost as much as the IRA by the British Soldier. He coveted his place in the British Parliament and used his position to cover his own illegal membership of the protestant Para Military. To be factual he also had a lot of blood on his hands, making him no better or worse than Martin McGuiness. Paisley, never wanted peace, and that’s why he was forever shouting his mouth off at every opportunity. It was to instigate more violence by giving speeches that had double meanings.

When Paisley dies, the term Reverend will be of little use to him as he forfeited the right to hold that status. He and McGuiness can shout at each other while they stoke the fires of hell.

When in the Province I attended as many Protestant riots as I did Catholic, and we did as many house searches in the Protestant areas as we did in the Catholic. The Irish were more of a danger to themselves and their kin and other Irish, than the British soldier could ever be on a bad day. It was the Irish that were fighting the war between themselves, and the British soldier stayed there to make sure they couldn’t.

Be well IAN 2411

[MMI]

"A Day in the Life of the British Para 1967 - 74"

If this site still had a "Thank-you" button, I'd use it now. Apart from showing the unenviable position the British soldier found himself in, it demonstrates beyond argument that the Irish are factional, and no one faction can live with another: one Irishman against another. It also shows how they blame the English for what they are doing to themselves.

Originally Posted by MMI
I know you're ex-army, but you don't want to get trapped down that particular road.

I hear what you’re saying.

Be well IAN 2411

I feel a little churlish asking this, but do you still advocate more military action against the Irish, until CIRA is destroyed (and UVF too)?

The Irish were more of a danger to themselves and their kin and other Irish, than the British soldier could ever be on a bad day. It was the Irish that were fighting the war between themselves, and the British soldier stayed there to make sure they couldn’t.

Be well IAN 2411

You have made the same point as I have been trying to make, but you have done it much more succintly.

[IAN 2411]

I feel a little churlish asking this, but do you still advocate more military action against the Irish, until CIRA is destroyed (and UVF too)?

There is no need, the IRA of any type are extinct along with the UVF. There might be a handful of these hardliners left and it is now up to the Northern Ireland police to find them and bring to justice. They are not freedom fighters of any type now, just racketeers, thugs, murderers and thieves, giving protection through stealth. Their flow of money from the USA has almost expended and dried up, and even the American Irish that gave most of their money to their coffers has dried up. [I hope]

The soldiers in Northern Ireland are not there to fight the IRA, UVF, UDA, UDR, Irish or criminals. They are there for show, and to tell the Irish factions that if they don’t toe the line with the Good Friday Agreement, they can be deployed once more on the streets. They are a warning of intent until such times as Ireland sort out their differences.

People such as Paisley, McGuiness and Adams, are all hard liners and hard core leaders of fighting factions. They have no right to be in the positions they are in, because for Northern Ireland to move forward with the rest of the world they need peace keepers at the helm not killers of their own kind.

The British do not fight the IRA we protect ourselves from them, as if they were any other terrorist unit. Their cause is no more but they are too stupid to see that, and their supporters are hard line thugs and felons and in their pocket. I know from being over there that when the Provisional IRA had a rally most of the crowd had been told to be there or else. Nothing has changed because the same is still taking place, and will do until the Irish police arrest all the men in balaclavas and send them to prison. It is not down to the soldier now, as it is for the Northern Irish to prove they have come of age to be left on their own. Until Ireland becomes a whole once more the British presence in military form will always be there.

do you still advocate more military action against the Irish, until CIRA is destroyed (and UVF too)?

A quick answer....You cannot destroy political ideals with a show of force.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

I have had something on my mind for a long time and I might be a million miles away from the truth. My battalion of Para were the first Special Forces to be posted to Northern Ireland, and I have often wondered why? Para’s like Marines are shock troops and go in fast paving the way for the main forces and then withdraw. There was a relative calm in the Province when we arrived and we could drive about in open top vehicles.

We went into the Protestant areas and they were hostile or should I say they gave us a lot more attention than they gave other units. They were unfriendly but not openly aggressive towards the Para’s. As we walked their streets passing groups of women or men there could be heard whispers in our wake. Our platoon had the outskirts of the town to patrol and also the countryside about.

It was about a month into the tour that things started getting hairy and I often wonder if the powers to be knew this would happen. The IRA started getting bolder and the riots started getting bigger. It was as if because the Para’s had arrived the whole of Northern Ireland upped their game to coincide. They must have known that we would not take the same type of crap the other units were taking.

The other units were in a strange sort of way a little complacent of the peace they had. I think that looking back the Irish, both Catholic and Protestant had placed them in a false state of security. It was peace, but the type of peace the factions wanted so that they could carry out their clandestine activities. I think even to this day that the Special Forces were sent there to shake them about a little and see what falls out. I think the high command knew what was going on and wanted life in the Province without punishing the other units commanders.

Well we did shake them about and made many arrests locking up members of both factions. It was this that started to bring the Provisional IRA, out into the open and they openly walked next to their dead comrades coffins. Para’s took advantage and even more arrests were made the day of the funeral, the peace had been broken and the factions were fighting back. In the six months I was there during that tour, all hell was let loose. 1 Para took over from us and were there for two years, and during the two years there was some of the bloodiest fighting between the factions. Bloody Sunday was just icing on the cake that had been cooking since our first day in the Province.

It’s only a thought.

Be well IAN 2411