Enniskillen and appeasement

Peter Taylor’s programme on the Eskund and Enniskillen has just been aired on the BBC. I will not go over the events in detail save to say that it made this grown man, who is not unacquainted with death, cry. What I found interesting and disgusting in equal measure is the way in which this programme propagated the revisionist narrative which is now prominent regarding the IRA and the Troubles.Taylor, an experienced journalist regarding Northern Ireland made some claims which can only be seen as lies. He commented on his surprise at the Enniskillen massacre stating that the “IRA did not target civilians”. Such a falsehood cannot be allowed to stand. I could spend the rest of the night blogging on the civilians the IRA had murdered before this event, let us mention merely the La Mon, Kingsmills and Darkley massacres and move on. It is also worth mentioning that Taylor discusses the attempted murders of the BB and GB at Tullyhommon and his interviewee states that the IRA regarded them as legitimate targets as they were part of the “community in Fermanagh” and we all know that that is true and exactly what it means. Mention is also made that that was a command wire device which would have meant that an IRA “volunteer” would have stood and pressed a button whilst watching to see the BB and GB children die.

To try to justify the moral surrender to murderers that has subsequently happened here in Northern Ireland there is a need to justify the revisionist narrative. That narrative is that the IRA leaders and specifically Gerry Adams (and possibly to a lesser extent) Martin McGuinness realised after Enniskillen that there was a need for peace and then began a process to bring that about.

Of course we know that this was abject nonsense, though of course it is not merely nonsense it is actually a monstrous lie. Enniskillen was a terrible embarrassment but it did not stop extremely frequent murders of civilians subsequently. So why this need to have the narrative? A few reasons come quickly to mind; I am sure others will add more.

Firstly the need to excuse those who later entreated with the leaders of these murderers, let the murderers out of prison and essentially ensured that no one will ever be pursued for the Enniskillen atrocity or the very many other unsolved crimes.

Secondly to make people feel that the perpetrators of that act and their leaders were jolted into some sort of decency, helping to justify the moral gymnastics of their appeasers above.

Thirdly to try to make some good come out of evil. There was good as I have said before: That was Gordon Wilson’s appeal for no retaliation, Noreen Hill’s devotion to the oft forgotten 12th murder victim Ronnie Hill. People want to see some good: it helps with the two issues above.

Fourthly I would suggest that this is in part people saying that the IRA were different to the like of current so called Muslim terrorists as they (the IRA) would not have done the likes of 9/11 and the July London bombings. We know of course that the IRA would have and did relatively similar things. It is important, however, for the appeasers to feel that the IRA were somehow different terrorists to the Al Qaeda terrorists as that explains giving Adams and co some of what they wanted and not doing so with Bin laden.

Finally of course some of the appeasers may be quietly preparing for the day (it may already be happening) when the likes of Bin Laden or his successors are entreated with, welcomed and their rehabilitation begun.

Those who died at Enniskillen died to satisfy the bigoted murderous blood lust of Adams and McGuinness coupled with their warped sense of a revolution and the same perversions in their friends and helpers. Those who died at 9/11 did so to satisfy the same emotions from Bin Laden and his cohorts. Both groups of victims are equally blameless, both groups of perpetrators equally guilty. The only question is how long the appeasers will pretend that they see a difference.

  • Peter Brown

    So the soldier who shot Eddie Copeland in the aftermath of the Shankill Bomb did nothing wrong?

  • Realist

    Mayoman,

    “It isnt truth, its a hypothetical premise. Although, I am not surprised by your reply, as it seems there are some (only some!)unionists who will always struggle with the notion of ‘the truth’”

    Are you denying that if HMG Forces had of eliminated all known PIRA members, instead of arresting them and bringing them to justice, that Bob’s stats would be the same?

  • kensei

    Are there thousands of republicans alive today, who would not otherwise be so, because HMG Forces were restrained by having to arrest, send to trial, and secure sentencing of PIRA members?

    Yes or no, will suffice.

    Demands for one word answers are a way of shutting off debate.

    The answer is undoubtedly yes. But there are undoubtedly quite a lot of British soldiers alive because they did not pursue that policy. An “elimination” policy almost certainly would have precipitated a complete breakdown in civil society here. Now, you might argue that the British Army might come off better, but it would be somewhat crass to “keep score”. It is not impossible to see scenarios where the South gets drawn in that case, and it certain could have led to political instability there during the 70’s at least. The idea that you could simply walk in and wipe out all the people you don’t like is fantasy, because you inevitably create more in the process. Taken to its conclusion it would mean genocide.

    It should be noted that the IRA could also have been substantially more vicious. Many modern groupings are. They could have put bombs without warnings. They could have shot up or bombed Protestant districts and civilians (under their definition) at random.

    The truth is both sides restrained themselves to various degrees because of outside forces and their own world view. I’m not entirely sure debating moral shades of grey in a conflict where all sides have some truly horrific acts chalked up to their name is a particularly productive argument.

  • Realist

    Mayoman,

    Apologies – previous question should have begun “Are you suggesting…”

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘Yes, of course.’

    Glad you agree

    ‘I’m suggesting that those “much more efficient” Nazis were unable to defeat the British Forces.’

    because the main Nazi effort was on the eastern front, where they suffered most of their losses.

    ‘That would depend on how you are defining “efficient’

    Groan

    ‘PIRA not once did the same’

    do we need to run over the ‘guerilla’ thing again?

    ‘Whilst we’re on this, would you care to define “combatant” and “legitimate target” in the context of PIRA targeting?’

    Why would i care to do this ?

  • Realist

    kensei,

    “Now, you might argue that the British Army might come off better, but it would be somewhat crass to “keep score” ”

    It’s Bob who constantly likes to remind us of the scores.

    Maybe when he resorts to that again, you will remind him of how “crass” he is being?

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘So the soldier who shot Eddie Copeland in the aftermath of the Shankill Bomb did nothing wrong?’

    If you believe the actions of the IRA against HMG Forces were wrong then so was this.

  • kensei

    Realist

    It’s Bob who constantly likes to remind us of the scores.

    Maybe when he resorts to that again, you will remind him of how “crass” he is being?

    It undoubtedly is and I have no love of it. I tend to try and avoid this type of debate.

    I still worry about the “wipe out” fantasy that pops out from Unionists from time to time.

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘Are there thousands of republicans alive today, who would not otherwise be so,’

    Yes just as there would have been those angered more by HMG Forces actions and so willing to take their place.

  • Realist

    Kensei,

    “It undoubtedly is and I have no love of it. I tend to try and avoid this type of debate”

    Me neither – I entered this discussion largely to highlight the how “crass” Bob’s constant churning out of scores is.

    “I still worry about the “wipe out” fantasy that pops out from Unionists from time to time”

    Not possible to “wipe out”.

    Always those ready to step into the dead mans shoes – on either side.

    And so the carnage continues…

  • Peter Brown

    If you believe the actions of the IRA against HMG Forces were wrong then so was this.

    it was a carefully chosen example – I do because it was illegal under the crinminal law as the soldier found out later and I believe that the actions of guerillas and governments should both be judged by the same standard – but do you?

    In the best tradtions of Irish Republicanism you carefully avoiding answering my question. Was that because it would contradict your earlier post as by that standard all republicans are legitimate targets for the sceurity forces in some sort of acceptbale shoot on sight policy which even I could never have supported?

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Bob McGowan: “1. in case you didn’t notice, I asked why HMG escaped being identified as a terrorist organization when 50% of the victims of the security forces were civilians as opposed to the 30% of PIRA victims.”

    How is this broken, let me count the ways…

    1) The fundamental difference in the rate of casualties over time / differnce in operations.

    2) The terrorist, like the guerrilla, uses the civilian population as cover. As such, the security forces are put in the untenable position having to make harder choices than the terrorist.

    3) The simple fact that targetting security forces is far simple (due to the uniforms) than targetting terrorists (due to the lack thereof).

    4) The simple fact that the security forces were setting off bombs in pubs and other acts of random havoc.

    Bob McGowan: “Secondly, in a war, combatants are the fighters and, as such, are fair game. Now, if the Britiah (sic) Army and security forces suffered more combatant casualties—as they did—than the PIRA, that does not mean anything except that the PIRA fought a better fight than either of their opponents. ”

    Which explains why the Germans defeated the Russians during World War II… Body count proves almost nothing, Bob.

    As noted above, the security forces suffered the disadvantage of being readily identifiable, as a general rule, by dint of their uniforms. This, as opposed to the two paramilitary organizations, who were not so encumbered.

    All your meandering mewling about percentages is to camoflage the actual numbers. Your ham-handed “analysis” is a case of boot-strap levititation, failing to take into account the nature of the conflict, the actualities of counter-terrorism operations or the high number of civilian casualties inflicted by PIRA.

    Likewise, you hide behind the simplified categories, rather than delve into the details.

    Were you to do so, you’d note that the IRA has the highest number of civilian deaths to their “credit,” easily the highest of any individual group. But then, disclosing this doesn’t support the narrative you’d like to present, so it is swept under the carpet.

    You use percetages to tell a story while minimizing information. Your analysis aggregates to patch over flaws in your narrative, rather than make a useful summary of the information.

  • Bottom line; The Army killed more civilians than combatants.(BTW, 2/3 of those victims were Catholic civilians, an ethnic cleansing?). And, still, our unionist/British apologists continue to tell us that the PIRA(30% of whose victims were civilians) was a terrorist organization and the Army was not.

    They tell us that the PIRA [b]usually[/b] targeted civilians because 30% of their victims were civilian. But, the Army was not a terrorist organization even though 50% of their victims were civilians.

    And, of course, that does not take into consideration the civilians killed by the unionist murder gangs with the assistance of the security forces.

    But, of course, HMG has a long history of supporting and supplying guerilla forces, i.e. terrorist groups, in conflicts.

    So, I guess that makes HMG a terrorist government.

  • willowfield

    DISHONEST BOB

    Bottom line; The Army killed more civilians than combatants.

    There were no “combatants” and very few of those civilians killed by the Army were murdered or killed unlawfully.

    And, still, our unionist/British apologists continue to tell us that the PIRA(30% of whose victims were civilians) was a terrorist organization and the Army was not.

    The vast majority of PIRA victims were civilians – not 30%. ALL of the PIRA victims were murdered. The PIRA, by any definition, was a terrorist organisation. The Army, by any definition, was not a terrorist organisation.

    They tell us that the PIRA usually targeted civilians because 30% of their victims were civilian.

    The majority of PIRA victims were civilian. Targeting non-civilians is just as much a criminal act than targeting civilians.

    But, the Army was not a terrorist organization even though 50% of their victims were civilians.

    The Army victims, by and large, were not murdered.

  • Dread, you cannot assume that all the civilian casualties of the security forces were accidents and all the civilian casualties of the PIRA were deliberate.

    But, without even considering the contribution of the security forces and HMG to the violence of the unionist murder gangs, the security forces killed more civilians than combatants. That is a very poor record. When all is said and done, the PIRA fought a cleaner war.

    That’s what the summary clearly shows.

    So, if the current government should be purged of terrorists, HMG goes first.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Bob McGowan: “Dread, you cannot assume that all the civilian casualties of the security forces were accidents and all the civilian casualties of the PIRA were deliberate. ”

    You infer something that was not implied, Bob.

    I made no such assumptions. I merely pointed out there were factors that your “batting average” analysis does not take into account.

    Bob McGowan: “But, without even considering the contribution of the security forces and HMG to the violence of the unionist murder gangs, the security forces killed more civilians than combatants.”

    And PIRA killed more civilians than any other organization.

    You’re argument is on the level of the fellow who loses a drag race saying his opponent came in next to last, whilst he claimed second place.

    Bob, you’re arguments are technical accurate, in the sense you haven’t lied, per se. You, however, prevaricate and misrepresent the underlying information.

    F’r’instance, the meme is that the RUC was a collection of unreconstructed bloodthirsty thugs (29 civilian deaths). You allude that the British Army was indulging in ethnic cleansing (150 civilian deaths). But then you would have us believe that PIRA is the hero of the piece (498 civilian deaths, not including 19 civilian political activists, 66 ex-combatants or a pro-rata share of 80 uncategorized ‘Republican’ civilian kills).

  • Democratic

    There is a new term I have recently heard used by our American cousins “You’ve just been served!”
    You would swear it was conceived for you on this thread Bob…..

  • Realist

    Bob,

    “But, without even considering the contribution of the security forces and HMG to the violence of the unionist murder gangs, the security forces killed more civilians than combatants.”

    HMG Forces arrested thousands of PIRA members – in your parallel world, those arrested would have been summarily executed, and your figures would be somewhat different.

  • Remember the bombing of Hamburg. The German defenders could not figure out why the Brits kept missing the harbour and factories and kept incinerating the women and children in their homes and hospitals. The Brits – the cold, calculated, hearltess killers commemorated at Enniskillen – targeted “women and hcildren first”.

    I watched Rocky Road to Dublin recently. It showed a hurling match in Croke Park. Instead of commenting on the civilian martyrs gunned down in Croke Park by the B men, it harped on that the GAA did not allow B Specials terrorists, RAF terrorists or the others lionised at Enniskillen into their pristine organisation.
    As regards Omagh, Enniskillen, stuff happens. Get over it.

    As regards South Armagh: the execution of those Bible thumpers stopped the murders of those children of a lesser God, Irish Catholics. Just like Frank Aiken.

    FAIR should move on. They should get a life. The real question is who skuppered East Tyrone’s Thet offensive. We know who gunned the McKearneys down in their butcher shop. But the McKearneys are just Catholics, victims of the Orangies.

  • willowfield

    Hmmm, Dave O’Connell argues that because the RAF bombed civilians in WW2, the PIRA aren’t terrorists.

    Great argument there, Dave!

  • Pancho’s Horse

    No, Willowfield, he isn’t. He’s stating that the Provisional aren’t terrorists – full stop.The rest is just to remind you how noble the English are.

  • Dave

    So, Pancho, if a Provo raped your wife, would that be okay because a British soldier raped a Polish woman during WW2? That’s the problem with moral relativism.

    The other problem is with self-categorisation (common among megalomaniacs and the insane): declaring that you are a legitimate government with a territory to defend from invasion by a hostile army, and possessed of a properly constituted army that operates in accordance with the Geneva/Hague Conventions for that purpose does not make it so, particularly when the reality is that they are a bunch of vicious sectarian thugs who would be employed behind bars and butcher counters if the opportunity for a more exciting and empowering lifestyle at the direct expense of others did not present itself to them in the late 60s.

  • Dave

    By the way, Pancho, if the aim of the legitimate government and its army was to free Ireland from an invading army, how come they are now employed in the service of Her Majesty and her government for the purpose of administering the authority of ‘invading’ power in her colonial outpost? Surely that should be shot by their own Army Council as legitimate targets, being servants of Her Majesty and in collusion with the occupying power? Traitors to their own cause, eh? Ireland unfree shall be a place for Provos to enjoy ministerial cars and the trappings of colonial power… 😉

  • Peter Brown

    International Rules of War for slow learners Bob (again) – everyone killed by terrorists is a non combatant thereofre the Provo war was not cleaner it wasn;t clean at all….

  • Pancho’s Horse

    No, Dave, rape is wrong but trying to oust the colonial power is not. Apply your moral relativism to that. And only for Britannia’s Huns with their long range guns we would once again be in control of our own island.If you like it you stay, if not back to Mammy Mainland.

  • RepublicanStones

    It seems people are shooting the messenger, Im sure Bob didn’t invent those stats himself. We also have people condemning a guerilla organisation, for precisely that. yet seem to think any guerilla organisation who wasn’t at odds with their govt is not to be held to the same standards. People also seem to think if violence is perpetrated by a govt or state agencies then it is absolved from being labelled as ‘terrorism’. Yet this get out of jail free card is not enjoyed by guerilla armies, because of the fact that they are guerilla armies.

  • Peter Brown

    That’s three posts and still no answer to my question RS – I answered yours, was ridiculed for it and now you won’t answer mine – where have I seen this double standard before?

  • willowfield

    PANCHO

    No, Willowfield, he isn’t.

    So what was all the guff about Germany about? Glad you agree it’s totally irrelevant

    He’s stating that the Provisional aren’t terrorists – full stop.

    Well, he’s wrong, then.

    No, Dave, rape is wrong but trying to oust the colonial power is not.

    Absurdly simplistic statement. “Trying to oust the colonial power” may or may not be wrong, depending entirely on the circumstances.

    In NI, there was no “colonial power” so the statement is irrelevant in any case.

    PS. Would rape be right if it was in the service of “trying to oust the colonial power”?

  • willowfield

    REpStones

    It seems people are shooting the messenger, Im sure Bob didn’t invent those stats himself.

    No, he’s just deliberately misinterpreting them in order falsely to draw perverse conclusions!

  • RepublicanStones

    which question was that Peter?

    ‘In NI, there was no “colonial power” so the statement is irrelevant in any case.’

    Willow, are you suggesting Ireland was never colonized by Britain and that the main effort of that colonization didn’t occur in the north. How is it Britain has such a loyal minority in the north of Ireland then?

  • Peter Brown

    So the soldier who shot Eddie Copeland in the aftermath of the Shankill Bomb did nothing wrong?

    In response to your answer (sic) I have clarified my position…would you care to do the same?

  • willowfield

    Willow, are you suggesting Ireland was never colonized by Britain and that the main effort of that colonization didn’t occur in the north. How is it Britain has such a loyal minority in the north of Ireland then?

    You need to stop living in the past. I know it’s hard to move on as you love wallowing in self-pity so much, but the Plantation happened 400 years ago and Ireland ceased to be a colony at the latest in 1801.

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘I do because it was illegal under the crinminal law as the soldier found out later and I believe that the actions of guerillas and governments should both be judged by the same standard – but do you?’

    What standard is that Peter?
    and if the should be held to the same, considering the evidence that, yes, the british army did act in much the same way as the Provisionals, why is it, you do not condemn them as you do republicans?

    Regarding Eddie Copelands shooting why did the soldier feel the need to fire into a bunch of people attending a funeral Peter? Was he a Micheal Stone fan?

    ‘You need to stop living in the past.’

    You mean the past makes uncomfortable reading for your colonial/unionist mindset. Also convey your message of stop living in the past to your orange mates will you? And because the legislative house which has occupies and colonises a country decides to tie that colony closer through a piece of legislation those being colonized could not argue against, means it did not stop being a colony, merely it allows those doing the colonising to criminalise in their foreign courts those who resist. I bet Parliament provides many a soothing balm to ease your empire mind.

  • willowfield

    ‘You need to stop living in the past.’

    You mean the past makes uncomfortable reading for your colonial/unionist mindset.

    No, I don’t: I mean you need to stop living in the past. That’s why I said “You need to stop living in the past”.

    Also convey your message of stop living in the past to your orange mates will you?

    I don’t have any “orange mates”.

    And because the legislative house which has occupies [sic] and colonises a country decides to tie that colony closer through a piece of legislation those being colonized could not argue against, means it did not stop being a colony

    If it ceased to be a colony, then – by definition – it ceased to be a colony, regardless of the means of achieving the change in status.

    , merely it allows those doing the colonising to criminalise in their foreign courts those who resist.

    Sorry? The status, colonial or otherwise, made no difference to the criminal law. A crime is a crime. What did happen, was the Ireland became represented in a unified Parliament on the same basis as the rest of the kingdom.

    I bet Parliament provides many a soothing balm to ease your empire mind.

    I don’t have an “empire mind” (whatever that is).

    Unlike you, I live in the present. Time you moved on. You’ll be much happier for it. Have some self-confidence and live life in the present.

  • RepublicanStones

    So willow the colonized are to accept the decision of those who colonized them regardless. A bill was passed in a foreign legislature so that makes it alright.

    ‘A crime is a crime.’
    So those who place themselves over anothers land can criminalize the people who resist that imposition, but those being colonized cannot criminalize those doing the colonizing. Is that your analysis. The bully boy rules, his way or the high way.

  • M3Km6U phxdmesccpzz, [url=http://ltrttxzwhohe.com/]ltrttxzwhohe[/url], [link=http://eelalgwsnnww.com/]eelalgwsnnww[/link], http://knrmiyutaajg.com/

  • Peter Brown

    Yet again you failed to answer the question RS maybe that is all the answer I need – you do apply different rules to terrorists and governments despite the implication to the contrary earlier on this thread

  • willowfield

    RepublicanStones

    So willow the colonized [sic] are to accept the decision of those who colonized [sic] them regardless.

    It’s up to the “colonised” what they want to accept or not accept. But whether they accepted it or not, Ireland ceased to be a colony. (Ironically, of course, given your ignorant whingeing, the “colonised” were supporters of Union and the “colonisers” had to be bribed to support it!)

    A bill was passed in a foreign legislature so that makes it alright [sic].

    Two bills were passed: one in the Irish Parliament and one in the Parliament of Great Britain: thus Ireland ceased to be a colony. Whether that was “alright” or not is entirely a matter of opinion. But the fact is that it happened – no matter how much you try to deny it!

    So those who place themselves over anothers [sic] land can criminalize the people who resist that imposition

    I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. What land? How does one “place oneself above another’s land”?

    In Britain and Ireland most of the criminal law is based on common law. And still is, in the Republic today.

    but those being colonized [sic] cannot criminalize [sic] those doing the colonizing [sic].

    See above: most of the criminal law is based on common law. It applied to everyone: the “colonised” and the “coloniser”.

    Is that your analysis. The bully boy rules, his way or the high way.

    I’m not offering any analysis: I’m just stating a fact – there was no “colonising power” during the period of the PIRA terror campaign. You’re the one who brought up centuries-old grievances.

    Get out of your MOPE comfort zone and join the present. Have some self-confidence and embrace the present.

  • RepublicanStones

    Irish Parliament was repersentative of the irish people was it willow?

    ‘place oneself above another’s land’

    who said ‘above’?

    ‘Whether that was “alright” or not is entirely a matter of opinion’

    as is whether or not it stopped being a colony, no matter what a peice of paper from the colonizer says.

    ‘centuries-old grievances.’

    which given the fact Britain still occupies part of Ireland are still raw. Yet you seem unwilling to accept this as a legitimate view.

    Peter, ask away.

  • Paul

    Willowfield, you do enjoy your petty pedantry, i really hope you around for 50%+1 day, i’m very sure i will be.

  • willowfield

    Irish Parliament was repersentative of the irish people was it willow?

    Of course not! Did someone say it was?

    who said ‘above’?

    “Over” or “above” – what’s the difference?

    as is whether or not it stopped being a colony.

    Not it’s not: being a colony is a constitutional/legal status, not a matter of opinion!

    which given the fact Britain still occupies part of Ireland are still raw.

    “Britain” doesn’t occupy any part of Ireland!

    Yet you seem unwilling to accept this as a legitimate view.

    It’s not a “view”: it’s simply an untrue statement.

    You seem to have a problem dealing with reality. Is that why you love wallowing the past so much?

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘Over” or “above” – what’s the difference’

    i heard of people taking over land….i’ve not hear anyone takin above land….have you?

    ‘not a matter of opinion!’

    ‘Britain” doesn’t occupy any part of Ireland!’

    ‘It’s not a “view”: it’s simply an untrue statement.’

    ok willow the above illustrates that your blissfully ignorant of the republican tradition.
    your entitled to your view but you won’t afford others the same. Your mentality is perfectly clear.

  • RepublicanStones

    Your love of italics and vanity in needing to get the last word in everytime is also evident.

  • kensei

    willow

    Not it’s not: being a colony is a constitutional/legal status, not a matter of opinion!

    Could you perhaps write to all the historians that debate that point and tell them they are wasting their time, as you’ve pronounced?

    kthxbye.

  • willowfield

    RepublicanStones

    i heard of people taking over land….i’ve not hear anyone takin above land….have you?

    I’ve never heard of people “placing themselves over anothers [sic] land”. Hence my query. I note your failure to explain.

    ok willow the above illustrates that your blissfully ignorant of the republican tradition.

    No it doesn’t. I’m fully aware of the “republican tradition”. But my awareness or ignorance of the “republican tradition” doesn’t alter the fact that Ireland wasn’t a colony and no part of Ireland is currently “occupied”.

    your entitled to your view but you won’t afford others the same.

    Completely untrue statement.

    KENSEI

    Could you perhaps write to all the historians that debate that point and tell them they are wasting their time, as you’ve pronounced?

    It’s a fact that Ireland ceased to be a colony in 1801: that’s what the Act of Union achieved – it became an integral part of a newly-united single kingdom.

    If historians might argue that it was a “colony” they do so with “artistic licence” – they really mean that it was “like a colony” or had some characteristics of a colony. In reality, though, it was part of the UK.

  • RepublicanStones

    Dear willow

    ‘doesn’t alter the fact that Ireland wasn’t a colony’

    after you had written

    ‘Ireland ceased to be a colony at the latest in 1801.’

    anyway enjoy your italics, semantics, pedantry and vanity.

  • willowfield

    And?

  • Peter Brown

    Peter, ask away.

    I thought I just did – 4 times! I even answered my own question and you still haven’t!

  • Pancho’s Horse

    Willowfield,Hitler made France etc part of the Greater Reich. Did that mean the Nazis didn’t occupy France? A theft is still a theft even if it happened 400 years ago. You knoooow – a theft- taking something that doesn’t belong to you. Regardless of who Ireland belonged to – it certainly didn’t belong to England. But let’s move on, no living in the past.

  • Peter Brown

    So are we giving Australia back to the Aborigines? New Zealand to the Maoris? And North America to the Inuit? And the British Isles back to the Picts?

    I look forward to Ireland having to accomodate the 50m+ diaspora return that PH is presumably advocating…

    PS RS I am still waiting although not patiently anymore….

  • willowfield

    Willowfield,Hitler made France etc part of the Greater Reich.

    No he didn’t. France was never part of the Reich. It was divided into two: the northern and western zone was under occupation and the Vichy Republic was established in the rest of the country.

    Did that mean the Nazis didn’t occupy France?

    See above.

    A theft is still a theft even if it happened 400 years ago.

    No-one has said otherwise.

    You knoooow – a theft- taking something that doesn’t belong to you.

    Yes, I know what a theft it. What are you referring to?

    Regardless of who Ireland belonged to – it certainly didn’t belong to England. But let’s move on, no living in the past.

    Ireland belonged to the English Crown since 1171!

    Seems you’re also in denial! Just because you wished things in the passed didn’t happen, doesn’t mean they didn’t happen!

  • willowfield

    “Past” – apologies.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    It was Hitler’s intention to make ALL the conquered countries a part of the Greater Reich. And Ireland belonged to the English crown since 1171? Who did it belong to in 1170? And if they owned it, why the need for an army ‘presence’ since then? And how did they come into posession of it? Even from you this is claptrap.

  • willowfield

    It was Hitler’s intention to make ALL the conquered countries a part of the Greater Reich.

    What his intention was is irrelevant! What matters is the actual fact tht France wasn’t part of the Reich!

    And Ireland belonged to the English crown since 1171? Who did it belong to in 1170?

    I guess the various Irish kings.

    And if they owned it, why the need for an army ‘presence’ since then?

    To secure and protect ownership!

    And how did they come into posession of it?

    By a combination of papal authority, local invitation and conquest. Have you never studied Irish history?

    Even from you this is claptrap.

    Nothing I have said is “claptrap”: ironically, though, much of what you have said is claptrap!

  • Peter Brown

    I’ll try again – I seem to be in PH’s selective blind / deaf spot

    So are we giving Australia back to the Aborigines? New Zealand to the Maoris? And North America to the Inuit? And the British Isles back to the Picts?

    I look forward to Ireland having to accomodate the 50m+ diaspora return that PH is presumably advocating

  • Steve

    If you give north america back to the INUIT there will be an awful lot of dissapointed first nations. But hey atleast the Eskimos will be happy as they can move off the ice flows

  • Peter Brown

    If I rephrase the question I suspect it will still go unanswered though – the silence is deafening…

  • Pancho’s Horse

    Sorry Peter Brown. I thought that was a rhetorical question. Whether or not these countries ought to be returned to their original occupants (willowfield has problems with ‘owners’) is irrelevant. My point is that those that seized these lands are thieves and few thieves give anything back. But sure what odds. They were only savages anyway and weren’t utilising the land properly.

  • RepublicanStones

    Ireland belonged to the English crown?????
    So Poland belonged to Germany once Hitler decided to annex it then did it?

    ‘So are we giving Australia back to the Aborigines? New Zealand to the Maoris? And North America to the Inuit? And the British Isles back to the Picts?’

    We??? Do the british still govern these lands?
    Picts….is there still people running about who descibe themselves as Picts?

    Peter ask away !

  • Peter Brown

    What is the point in keeping asking a question that is never answered?

  • Pancho’s Horse

    Can’t you read, boy?

  • willowfield

    PANCHO

    My point is that those that seized these lands are thieves and few thieves give anything back.

    Theft: “the act or instance of stealing”.
    Steal: “to take (something) from someone without permission or unlawfully”.
    (Collins English Dictionary)

    The English Crown neither took Ireland without permission, nor unlawfully!

    NB. You can’t change things that happened in the past.

    REPUBLICANSTONES

    Ireland belonged to the English crown?????
    So Poland belonged to Germany once Hitler decided to annex it then did it?

    Hitler’s annexation of Poland was unlawful!

    Your ignorance is incredible.

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘The English Crown neither took Ireland without permission, nor unlawfully’

    So you think the Pope had a right to grant Henry permission to take land which was not his? You agree with the Pope?
    Without permission? did they seek the permission of the people whose land it was?
    you also mention how it was taken by conquest, surely then you can have no qualms with the irish retaking what was lost with force.

    ‘Hitler’s annexation of Poland was unlawful’

    the nazis argued that germanic people have been living in the lands of the slavic peoples for cenutries upon centuries, which made them fair game in the eyes of the Nazis, rather like the argument certain people use about Ireland.

    Your ignorance outdoes even my own.

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘The English Crown neither took Ireland without permission, nor unlawfully’

    So you think the Pope had a right to grant Henry permission to take land which was not his? You agree with the Pope?
    Without permission? did they seek the permission of the people whose land it was?
    you also mention how it was taken by conquest, surely then you can have no qualms with the irish retaking what was lost with force.

    ‘Hitler’s annexation of Poland was unlawful’

    the nazis argued that germanic people have been living in the lands of the slavic peoples for cenutries upon centuries, which made them fair game in the eyes of the Nazis, rather like the argument certain people use about Ireland.

    Your ignorance outdoes even my own.

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘The English Crown neither took Ireland without permission, nor unlawfully’

    So you think the Pope had a right to grant Henry permission to take land which was not his? You agree with the Pope?
    Without permission? did they seek the permission of the people whose land it was?
    you also mention how it was taken by conquest, surely then you can have no qualms with the irish retaking what was lost with force.

    ‘Hitler’s annexation of Poland was unlawful’

    the nazis argued that germanic people have been living in the lands where slavic peoplenow dwelled for cenutries upon centuries, which made them fair game in the eyes of the Nazis, rather like the argument certain people use about Ireland.

    Your ignorance outdoes even my own.

  • RepublicanStones

    apologies for the double post

  • willowfield

    So you think the Pope had a right to grant Henry permission to take land which was not his?

    I don’t “think” he had a right: I know that, in the medieval period, the Pope was recognised as tha arbiter of such matters in Western Christendom. The Pope did, therefore, indeed have the “right” to order that Ireland should come under the overlordship of the English king.

    You agree with the Pope?

    Whether or not I agree with a decision of the Pope over 800 years ago is entirely irrelevant!

    Without permission? did they seek the permission of the people whose land it was?

    Permission was granted by the Pope. In terms of the natives, many of the native Irish kings resognised Henry as their overlord and paid homage to him.

    you also mention how it was taken by conquest, surely then you can have no qualms with the irish retaking what was lost with force.

    Whether or not I have any “qualms” with “the Irish retaking what was lost with force” is entirely irrelevant to the question of the legal status of Ireland after 1171.

    the nazis argued that germanic people have been living in the lands where slavic peoplenow dwelled for cenutries upon centuries, which made them fair game in the eyes of the Nazis, rather like the argument certain people use about Ireland.

    Whatever the Nazis argued is irrelevant: the annexation of Poland was unlawful.

    Your ignorance outdoes even my own.

    I have not demonstrated any ignorance. On the contrary, I have demonstrated knowledge and understanding far superior to your own.

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘The Pope did, therefore, indeed have the “right” to order that Ireland should come under the overlordship of the English king.’

    Afraid not willow, he may have the authority, but not a right, as the land was not his own.

    ‘Whether or not I agree with a decision of the Pope over 800 years ago is entirely irrelevant!’

    oh but it is willow as you use for it basis of your argument, therefore you must agree with the pope.

    ‘In terms of the natives, many of the native Irish kings resognised Henry as their overlord and paid homage to him’

    a majority or a minority? have you figures?

    ‘Whether or not I have any “qualms” with “the Irish retaking what was lost with force” is entirely irrelevant to the question of the legal status of Ireland after 1171.’

    its perfectly relevant willow because you presume the english crown ‘owned’ Ireland after conquest, therefore according to you, ownership of the land is not ivested in the people of the land but rather those who rule it by force. So if republicans seek to take back what was taken by force, you must have no problem with that.

    ‘I have not demonstrated any ignorance. On the contrary, I have demonstrated knowledge and understanding far superior to your own.’

    your modesty is humbling willow.

  • willowfield

    Afraid not willow, he may have the authority, but not a right, as the land was not his own.

    It doesn’t matter who owned the land, the Pope, as arbiter of western Christendom, had the right to assign Ireland to the realm of the English king.

    oh but it is willow

    It’s not: my personal opinion on a papal decision of 800 years’ vintage is completely irrelevant.

    as you use for it basis of your argument, therefore you must agree with the pope.

    Don’t be absurd. I don’t agree with Gordon Brown that the 10% tax band should be abolished: it doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been abolished, nor that Brown has the “right” to abolish it!

    a majority or a minority? have you figures?

    No idea. Have you?

    ‘Whether or not I have any “qualms” with “the Irish retaking what was lost with force” is entirely irrelevant to the question of the legal status of Ireland after 1171.’

    its [sic] perfectly relevant willow

    It’s not. The legal status is dependent neither on my qualms or otherwise about “the Irish retaking what was lost with force”, nor on the actual “retaking of what was lost with force” by “the Irish”!

    because you presume the english crown ‘owned’ Ireland after conquest

    I don’t presume anything: I merely state the fact that Ireland was lawfully within the realm of the English king.

    , therefore according to you, ownership of the land is not ivested [sic] in the people of the land but rather those who rule it by force.

    The ownership of all property, land or otherwise, is ultimately determined by the law. The law is backed up, where necessary, by force.

    Even today, those on the land, do not necessarily own it. I, for example, do not own the land on which my property is built. My brother, for example, does not own the property in which he lives or the land.

    So if republicans seek to take back what was taken by force, you must have no problem with that.

    Since your premises are false, so logically must your conclusion be false.

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘because you presume the english crown ‘owned’ Ireland after conquest

    I don’t presume anything: I merely state the fact that Ireland was lawfully within the realm of the English king.’

    why then write this willow?

    ‘Ireland belonged to the English Crown since 1171’

    the word ‘belong’ denotes ownership. Again you seem to think land taken by force is rightfully ‘owned’.

    ‘Don’t be absurd. I don’t agree with Gordon Brown that the 10% tax band should be abolished: it doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been abolished, nor that Brown has the “right” to abolish it!’

    ahh willow, first you talk about the ‘right’ of an institution (the medieval papcy) which the people who were affected by his judgements had no say in electing. you then say he still had a ‘right’. you then laughably compare this to todays premiership/govt , which is actually elected, and has recieved a mandate from the people who are affected by his decisions. Thanks for the giggle.

    ‘The ownership of all property, land or otherwise, is ultimately determined by the law. The law is backed up, where necessary, by force.’

    are you speaking about today or the 1100s?

    You speak highly of ‘law’, and seem to think that because something is ok according to the law, it is inherently right. So you must think therefore that the laws the nazis passed pertaining to judaism etc, anybody who carried out an action in compliance with this law had a ‘right’ to do so.

    ‘Since your premises are false, so logically must your conclusion be false.’

    Since your argument leads you into uncomfortable waters i await more pedantry.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    RS. Thank you for your treble posting. While willowfield may be obtuse, he does not need x3. It will suffice to show him twice.I actually think there are two willowfields as no one man could make such a hames of an argument.If the pope gives me the right, I’ll go in and clean his house out.

  • willowfield

    why then write this willow? ‘Ireland belonged to the English Crown since 1171’

    Because it did.

    the word ‘belong’ denotes ownership. Again you seem to think land taken by force is rightfully ‘owned’.

    Ireland “belonged” to the English Crown by virtue of papal authority and subsequent conquest. I’m not sure of the relevance of land ownership, nor why you are obsessed by land. Most of the land in Ireland would not have been owed by the Crown.

    ahh willow, first you talk about the ‘right’ of an institution (the medieval papcy) which the people who were affected by his judgements had no say in electing. you then say he still had a ‘right’.

    And? If he had the right he had the right. Where is the contradiction in talking about a the Pope’s right and then saying he had the right. It is the same thing!

    you then laughably compare this to todays [sic] premiership/govt , which is actually elected, and has recieved a mandate from the people who are affected by his decisions.

    The comparison was to demonstrate that my personal opinion of a decision has no bearing on its legality or the right of the decision-maker to make it.

    The legality of a decision or the right of a decision-maker to make a decision was not and is not dependent on the existence of democratically-accountable government. By such argument, no law existed prior to the era of democratic government. That is an absurd argument.

    Even today, many governments, for example, are not democratically elected. Yet there still exists law in those states!

    You are seriously confusing yourself by: (a) conflating the law with your own views on political legitimacy; and (b) failing to comprehend that democratic norms in the 21st century did not exist in the 12th century.

    are you speaking about today or the 1100s?

    It has always been thus since man evolved and organised himself into communities and societies.

    You speak highly of ‘law’, and seem to think that because something is ok according to the law, it is inherently right.

    I have never stated nor implied any such thing!

    On the contrary, and ironically, it is actually you who are confusing legality and morality. You seem to be arguing that because you think it was “wrong” for Ireland to be within the realm of the English king that therefore it actually was not in his realm. That is s completely illogical and downright silly position.

    So you must think therefore that the laws the nazis passed pertaining to judaism etc, anybody who carried out an action in compliance with this law had a ‘right’ to do so.

    Unfortunately and sadly, under German law they did have such a right.

    Under the moral code of western civilisation, of course, they did not have such a right.

    Happily, however, political and legal developments since Germany’s defeat mean that such laws could no longer be made: Germany has surrendered its right to make such laws by its submission to various international treaties.

    Since your argument leads you into uncomfortable waters i await more pedantry.

    I haven’t put forward an argument: merely stated facts. And I am not in any uncomfortable waters. You, on the other hand, are completely confused.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    ‘unfortunately and sadly’ the English and their running dogs thought they had the right to steal other peoples lands (or, as you so quaintly put it – conquest)because, for the same reason a dog licks his cadabblers – because he can. The Pope was only right in matters of faith and morals and the theft of property does not fall under these.

  • willowfield

    ‘unfortunately and sadly’ the English and their running dogs thought they had the right to steal other peoples [sic] lands (or, as you so quaintly put it – conquest)because, for the same reason a dog licks his cadabblers – because he can.

    They didn’t steal lands: Ireland was assigned to the English king.

    The Pope was only right in matters of faith and morals and the theft of property does not fall under these.

    Not sure what property has to do with this, but in medieval times the Pope’s authority extended into the secular world.

    Clearly you’re not a historian.

  • RepublicanStones

    willow pull your trousers up, your ass is red enough !

  • Pancho’s Horse

    I didn’t steal this TV yer Honour. It was assigned to me. Honest. By no less than the Pope. You would think the papist Irish would accept this once and for all.I don’t know if this is your first rout, willowfield,but I’m sure you will rise again.

  • willowfield

    Desperately try to convince yourself that history didn’t happen all you like – but the reality is that you can’t change what happened in the past.