Easter Lily & Rising Commemorations

[easytiger95]

Skull, I'm not replying to the question posed in your last post, because I reject the analogy of "rape". It is far too complex to reduce down the relations between Dublin/London/Stormont to such a simplistic metaphor.

If you accept that there was just cause for the Irish government not to invade, then what else did you expect for them to do? At that stage there is only diplomacy left, both bi lateral and international and they were all routes that the Irish government tried. The essay I posted was to give an indication of how difficult it was to steer a clear course for any Taoiseach, whose imperative was to save lives, or at least prevent further lives being lost.

I think it is up to you and others who feel the way you do to explain what you think should have been done. If you come up with anything that I haven't heard before, and makes me feel shame for the ROI not doing it, I'd be willing to express that shame.

However, I'm not going to express shame for being born in the South, for our country being situated both geographically and economically where it is, for electing politicians who believed dialogue was a more effective way to get change than through violence, and for my generation and the three or four before it, not coming up with an ideal solution for a problem that has defeated every mind on the island for the last 900 years.

If I thought there was a prevailing attitude of malice or disinterest towards other Irishmen and women in the North, I'd feel shame. But I've never felt that myself and I'm not going to put a hairshirt on to alleviate your feelings, much and all as I may empathize with them and feel sick that my compatriots feel that way. But if the State had seen a better course than the one it took, I'm sure it would have taken it.

[AZOffaly]

Skull, I'm not replying to the question posed in your last post, because I reject the analogy of "rape". It is far too complex to reduce down the relations between Dublin/London/Stormont to such a simplistic metaphor.

If you accept that there was just cause for the Irish government not to invade, then what else did you expect for them to do? At that stage there is only diplomacy left, both bi lateral and international and they were all routes that the Irish government tried. The essay I posted was to give an indication of how difficult it was to steer a clear course for any Taoiseach, whose imperative was to save lives, or at least prevent further lives being lost.

I think it is up to you and others who feel the way you do to explain what you think should have been done. If you come up with anything that I haven't heard before, and makes me feel shame for the ROI not doing it, I'd be willing to express that shame.

However, I'm not going to express shame for being born in the South, for our country being situated both geographically and economically where it is, for electing politicians who believed dialogue was a more effective way to get change than through violence, and for my generation and the three or four before it, not coming up with an ideal solution for a problem that has defeated every mind on the island for the last 900 years.

If I thought there was a prevailing attitude of malice or disinterest towards other Irishmen and women in the North, I'd feel shame. But I've never felt that myself and I'm not going to put a hairshirt on to alleviate your feelings, much and all as I may empathize with them and feel sick that my compatriots feel that way. But if the State had seen a better course than the one it took, I'm sure it would have taken it.

I'm not going to express shame for being born in the South, but I do recognise I'm extremely lucky to have done so.

[Il Bomber Destro]

Skull, I'm not replying to the question posed in your last post, because I reject the analogy of "rape". It is far too complex to reduce down the relations between Dublin/London/Stormont to such a simplistic metaphor.

If you accept that there was just cause for the Irish government not to invade, then what else did you expect for them to do? At that stage there is only diplomacy left, both bi lateral and international and they were all routes that the Irish government tried. The essay I posted was to give an indication of how difficult it was to steer a clear course for any Taoiseach, whose imperative was to save lives, or at least prevent further lives being lost.

I think it is up to you and others who feel the way you do to explain what you think should have been done. If you come up with anything that I haven't heard before, and makes me feel shame for the ROI not doing it, I'd be willing to express that shame.

However, I'm not going to express shame for being born in the South, for our country being situated both geographically and economically where it is, for electing politicians who believed dialogue was a more effective way to get change than through violence, and for my generation and the three or four before it, not coming up with an ideal solution for a problem that has defeated every mind on the island for the last 900 years.

If I thought there was a prevailing attitude of malice or disinterest towards other Irishmen and women in the North, I'd feel shame. But I've never felt that myself and I'm not going to put a hairshirt on to alleviate your feelings, much and all as I may empathize with them and feel sick that my compatriots feel that way. But if the State had seen a better course than the one it took, I'm sure it would have taken it.

There wasn't a just cause. The only reason they didn't intervene was because there would have been repercussions for them if they did so. They did the wrong thing for self serving reasons, they have never once acknowledged that. We have guys like you coming on here and making excuses up to beat the band, stop denying and admit the Free State could have acted but chose not to, for self serving purposes.

[Applesisapples]

Peace is more than the absence of conflict, it is also equality and fair treatment for all citizens. I think it's fair to say that the horrible war that went on for 30 years or more certainly had a hand in delivering a more equitable peace to the North. Whether is should have been necessary is a moot point.

You are exactly right. If you look at the current behaviour of the Unionist parties you can see exactly why it took thirty years. Unionist controlled councils still discriminate when it comes to funding community events, loads of money for the Somme/Bonfires/Bands etc, not a penny for the rising because it would not be inclusive.

[easytiger95]

Skull, I'm not replying to the question posed in your last post, because I reject the analogy of "rape". It is far too complex to reduce down the relations between Dublin/London/Stormont to such a simplistic metaphor.

If you accept that there was just cause for the Irish government not to invade, then what else did you expect for them to do? At that stage there is only diplomacy left, both bi lateral and international and they were all routes that the Irish government tried. The essay I posted was to give an indication of how difficult it was to steer a clear course for any Taoiseach, whose imperative was to save lives, or at least prevent further lives being lost.

I think it is up to you and others who feel the way you do to explain what you think should have been done. If you come up with anything that I haven't heard before, and makes me feel shame for the ROI not doing it, I'd be willing to express that shame.

However, I'm not going to express shame for being born in the South, for our country being situated both geographically and economically where it is, for electing politicians who believed dialogue was a more effective way to get change than through violence, and for my generation and the three or four before it, not coming up with an ideal solution for a problem that has defeated every mind on the island for the last 900 years.

If I thought there was a prevailing attitude of malice or disinterest towards other Irishmen and women in the North, I'd feel shame. But I've never felt that myself and I'm not going to put a hairshirt on to alleviate your feelings, much and all as I may empathize with them and feel sick that my compatriots feel that way. But if the State had seen a better course than the one it took, I'm sure it would have taken it.

There wasn't a just cause. The only reason they didn't intervene was because there would have been repercussions for them if they did so. They did the wrong thing for self serving reasons, they have never once acknowledged that. We have guys like you coming on here and making excuses up to beat the band, stop denying and admit the Free State could have acted but chose not to, for self serving purposes.

a. I was talking to skull, who accepted in his post that there may have been just cause for the ROI not to invade.
b. Guys like me are allowed to come on here whenever we like, because, hey, that's democracy.
c. I'm not in the business of giving excuses, I'm discussing the historical facts and if Skull (or you) can come up with a credible course that the government did not consider to alleviate the plight of Northern nationalists, I'm more than prepared to admit I'm wrong. I think in your case though, I'll be waiting.
d. Telling someone to
stop denying and admit the Free State could have acted but chose not to, for self serving purposes.
is an order not an argument, and in this case, is an order without any proof or logic behind it. You'll forgive me if I'll decline to follow your order, Kommandant, because, hey, that's democracy.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your link to the study that about social parity for Catholics in Scotland? I hope you weren't spoofing about that.

[Il Bomber Destro]

Skull, I'm not replying to the question posed in your last post, because I reject the analogy of "rape". It is far too complex to reduce down the relations between Dublin/London/Stormont to such a simplistic metaphor.

If you accept that there was just cause for the Irish government not to invade, then what else did you expect for them to do? At that stage there is only diplomacy left, both bi lateral and international and they were all routes that the Irish government tried. The essay I posted was to give an indication of how difficult it was to steer a clear course for any Taoiseach, whose imperative was to save lives, or at least prevent further lives being lost.

I think it is up to you and others who feel the way you do to explain what you think should have been done. If you come up with anything that I haven't heard before, and makes me feel shame for the ROI not doing it, I'd be willing to express that shame.

However, I'm not going to express shame for being born in the South, for our country being situated both geographically and economically where it is, for electing politicians who believed dialogue was a more effective way to get change than through violence, and for my generation and the three or four before it, not coming up with an ideal solution for a problem that has defeated every mind on the island for the last 900 years.

If I thought there was a prevailing attitude of malice or disinterest towards other Irishmen and women in the North, I'd feel shame. But I've never felt that myself and I'm not going to put a hairshirt on to alleviate your feelings, much and all as I may empathize with them and feel sick that my compatriots feel that way. But if the State had seen a better course than the one it took, I'm sure it would have taken it.

There wasn't a just cause. The only reason they didn't intervene was because there would have been repercussions for them if they did so. They did the wrong thing for self serving reasons, they have never once acknowledged that. We have guys like you coming on here and making excuses up to beat the band, stop denying and admit the Free State could have acted but chose not to, for self serving purposes.

a. I was talking to skull, who accepted in his post that there may have been just cause for the ROI not to invade.
b. Guys like me are allowed to come on here whenever we like, because, hey, that's democracy.
c. I'm not in the business of giving excuses, I'm discussing the historical facts and if Skull (or you) can come up with a credible course that the government did not consider to alleviate the plight of Northern nationalists, I'm more than prepared to admit I'm wrong. I think in your case though, I'll be waiting.
d. Telling someone to
stop denying and admit the Free State could have acted but chose not to, for self serving purposes.
is an order not an argument, and in this case, is an order without any proof or logic behind it. You'll forgive me if I'll decline to follow your order, Kommandant, because, hey, that's democracy.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your link to the study that about social parity for Catholics in Scotland? I hope you weren't spoofing about that.

What was the just cause?

To protect the people of the South at the expense of the nationalist community in the North?  You see,  that was self serving and maybe if you actually took a holistic view on this matter, you might understand that.

Would you choose between your children and which of their lives were worth more?

[Main Street]

At least the Monaghan Republican Front  tried  to invade and liberate Tyrone from the yoke of brit imperialism and their various quasi-military backwoods thug lackeys  but we were betrayed and undone by a local snitch.

And now look at how Tyrone repays us for that blood loss of our children? 

[Il Bomber Destro]

At least the Monaghan Republican Front  tried  to invade and liberate Tyrone from the yoke of brit imperialism and their various quasi-military backwoods thug lackeys  but we were betrayed and undone by a local snitch.

And now look at how Tyrone repays us for that blood loss of our children?

It was a Monaghan man who betrayed the Loughgall martyrs.

[MoChara]

At least the Monaghan Republican Front  tried  to invade and liberate Tyrone from the yoke of brit imperialism and their various quasi-military backwoods thug lackeys  but we were betrayed and undone by a local snitch.

And now look at how Tyrone repays us for that blood loss of our children?

It was a Monaghan man who betrayed the Loughgall martyrs.

Was a Monaghan Man lead them too

[Il Bomber Destro]

At least the Monaghan Republican Front  tried  to invade and liberate Tyrone from the yoke of brit imperialism and their various quasi-military backwoods thug lackeys  but we were betrayed and undone by a local snitch.

And now look at how Tyrone repays us for that blood loss of our children?

It was a Monaghan man who betrayed the Loughgall martyrs.

Was a Monaghan Man lead them too

Yes. I have great time for the border counties of Monaghan, Louth and Donegal, less so Cavan.

[MoChara]

I think this could be of interest to this discussion

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/arms-trial-ensured-lynch-s-northern-policy-prevailed-1.301495

[easytiger95]

Skull, I'm not replying to the question posed in your last post, because I reject the analogy of "rape". It is far too complex to reduce down the relations between Dublin/London/Stormont to such a simplistic metaphor.

If you accept that there was just cause for the Irish government not to invade, then what else did you expect for them to do? At that stage there is only diplomacy left, both bi lateral and international and they were all routes that the Irish government tried. The essay I posted was to give an indication of how difficult it was to steer a clear course for any Taoiseach, whose imperative was to save lives, or at least prevent further lives being lost.

I think it is up to you and others who feel the way you do to explain what you think should have been done. If you come up with anything that I haven't heard before, and makes me feel shame for the ROI not doing it, I'd be willing to express that shame.

However, I'm not going to express shame for being born in the South, for our country being situated both geographically and economically where it is, for electing politicians who believed dialogue was a more effective way to get change than through violence, and for my generation and the three or four before it, not coming up with an ideal solution for a problem that has defeated every mind on the island for the last 900 years.

If I thought there was a prevailing attitude of malice or disinterest towards other Irishmen and women in the North, I'd feel shame. But I've never felt that myself and I'm not going to put a hairshirt on to alleviate your feelings, much and all as I may empathize with them and feel sick that my compatriots feel that way. But if the State had seen a better course than the one it took, I'm sure it would have taken it.

There wasn't a just cause. The only reason they didn't intervene was because there would have been repercussions for them if they did so. They did the wrong thing for self serving reasons, they have never once acknowledged that. We have guys like you coming on here and making excuses up to beat the band, stop denying and admit the Free State could have acted but chose not to, for self serving purposes.

a. I was talking to skull, who accepted in his post that there may have been just cause for the ROI not to invade.
b. Guys like me are allowed to come on here whenever we like, because, hey, that's democracy.
c. I'm not in the business of giving excuses, I'm discussing the historical facts and if Skull (or you) can come up with a credible course that the government did not consider to alleviate the plight of Northern nationalists, I'm more than prepared to admit I'm wrong. I think in your case though, I'll be waiting.
d. Telling someone to
stop denying and admit the Free State could have acted but chose not to, for self serving purposes.
is an order not an argument, and in this case, is an order without any proof or logic behind it. You'll forgive me if I'll decline to follow your order, Kommandant, because, hey, that's democracy.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your link to the study that about social parity for Catholics in Scotland? I hope you weren't spoofing about that.

What was the just cause?

To protect the people of the South at the expense of the nationalist community in the North?  You see,  that was self serving and maybe if you actually took a holistic view on this matter, you might understand that.

Would you choose between your children and which of their lives were worth more?

I believe you should address your question to Skull as it was from his post the phrase "just cause" came from. Do you read much Bomber?

I don't believe a man who squawks about an entire state of people being "quislings and traitors", who believes that anyone who disagrees with him is peddling falsehoods or a "cheap prostitute" and refuses to back up any of his statements with either links or reference to historical fact, should be using the word "holistic" in a sentence. Or even knows what "holistic" means.

Because it is actually defined as  - characterized by the belief that the parts of something are intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole which would mean that any government of the Free State or the ROI, looking on the island of Ireland as a whole, would be, by definition,  not self serving in making the decision not to invade NI, as the loss of any nationalist lives, would be a loss to the whole, as well as putting nationalists both North and South in danger at the same time.

Does the flower on your jacket spout water as well?

[Rossfan]

When or where did the " Sectarian mass murder of Protestants" in Cork take place I wonder???

[Il Bomber Destro]

When or where did the " Sectarian mass murder of Protestants" in Cork take place I wonder???

Dunmanway was one.

[Rossfan]

Tell us more.