Posted on 06/15/2010 1:39:06 PM PDT by James C. Bennett
You wrote:
“Yes I’ve heard of it. But that wasn’t solely about Irish rights.”
It was for the Irish.
“So let me see if I’ve got this straight. The protestant unionists, because they are all (apparently) “racist oppressors” and completely under the thumb of the British (also racist oppressors) and therefore have (and in fact deserve) no rights, no consideration and no voice? The catholic nationalist majority, because they are a majority, can pass any laws, make any decisions they desire, with total impunity and no moral comeback?”
1) You’re the one calling them racist. You keep pretending this is about race. They are all the same race. 2) Your second question is laughably stupid since I suggested no such thing. The Catholic majority in the Republic has been very hospitable to Protestants even after centuries of oppression from them.
“Is that exactly what you are saying? I dont want to misrepresent you here.”
You already have.
“Well, they are not. But assuming that they are, then what right do Irishmen have to be an independent nation?”
By what right do you deny them their freedom?
“After all, if we are all the same then surely we should all be united into one big happy family.”
Just a seond ago you said you didn’t want to misrepresent me and here you are doing it again for the second time in a single post. I neversaid they were the same. I said they were the ame race. And they are.
“Of course they are different races. Its nonsense to suggest otherwise.”
Nope. According to DNA analysis they are essentially the same people. Articles about exactly that have been posted here for years.
“Is the question too difficult or uncomfortable for you?”
Neither. I jsut enjoy watching you flounder as you are now.
“You seem to be doing everything you can to avoid answering it.”
No, I’ve barely started.
“And drogheda was nearly four hundred years ago, and the easter uprising is nearly a century old.”
Yes, and they prove my point while no batle in 1812 proves yours.
“Why are you still fighting the battles of old now?”
I am posting on the internet to sciolist. I see no battle here. Perhaps you think you are fighting a “virtual” battle?
“Sure are. The payback was the whitehouse getting the torch.”
And it was rebuilt better than ever. Honestly it never seemed like much of a loss to me. Merely secular buildings with almost no history, easily rebuit. No big deal.
“Not really. At least their farms weren’t getting burned down in the name of “liberty”.”
No, instead they were seized in the name of oppression by the British.
“There’s no need to be insulting.”
Kettle meet pot.
“I know about the raiding/slaving culture practiced by the Irish on all and sundry (St Patrick being the most famous victim). Right little lot of oppressors (oh sorry, no its only British and their lackeys who oppress. Sorry). But I’ve never heard of Anglo-saxons raiding Ireland. Vikings yes. But not English.”
But the point is the same. You were wrong. You apparently knew nothing about what I mentioned. You were wrong. Get used to it. It isn’t going to change.
Ok Ill soldier on. The protestant unionists, because they are all “oppressors” and completely under the thumb of the British oppressors therefore have (and in fact deserve) no rights, no consideration and no voice? The catholic nationalist majority, because they are a majority, can simply be an independent nation, irrespective of the wishes of the protestant unionists, because they are the majority. Is that a fairer summation of your position?
By what right do you deny them their freedom?
By what right do you deny the unionists their freedom to do what they want i.e. be in the union?
Nope. According to DNA analysis they are essentially the same people. Articles about exactly that have been posted here for years.
Human beings are remarkably genetically similar (99.72% on average I understand). Yet, if you were to take a spot of blood from 100 people in Eire and 100 people in Ulster and send them off to a lab, I guarantee you that a scientist could tell which was which.
No, I’ve barely started.
So go on then. What is your definition of freedom?
Yes, and they prove my point while no batle in 1812 proves yours.
What point would that be?
No, instead they were seized in the name of oppression by the British.
Rubbish. When did the British government seize farms in lower Canada?
Kettle meet pot.
I havent descended to personal abuse. I think youre wrong. In fact I think your belief system is puddled, but I havent called you stupid, said you were floundering, told you you were bad at debating, told you you were an oppressor scum and on, and on.
But the point is the same. You were wrong. You apparently knew nothing about what I mentioned. You were wrong. Get used to it. It isn’t going to change.
The point I made, which you denied, was that it was the normans who got England involved in Ireland when they invaded in the 12th century. The Anglo-Saxons never invaded Ireland. Some of Harold Godwinsons family took sanctuary in Ireland but that's hardly the start of English oppression, and your man Diarmait lent an Irish fleet that invaded England, not the other way round.
The only point is that you just don't like the British and will find any reason to point it out. Even a sincere apology doesn't cut it, so why bother apologising. If its not going to be enough, its never going to be enough.
You wrote:
“Ok Ill soldier on.”
...in posting misrepresentations apparently.
“The protestant unionists, because they are all “oppressors” and completely under the thumb of the British oppressors therefore have (and in fact deserve) no rights, no consideration and no voice?”
Why do you insist on lying about what I have said?
“The catholic nationalist majority, because they are a majority, can simply be an independent nation, irrespective of the wishes of the protestant unionists, because they are the majority. Is that a fairer summation of your position?”
Quit while you’re behind. If you can’t understand why I so plainly stated, then this is simply too difficult for you.
“By what right do you deny the unionists their freedom to do what they want i.e. be in the union?”
They can be in union with the UK all they want - in England, or Wales, or Scotland. They actually have several choices without in any way encroaching on the freedoms of the Irish to be in union with their own people on their own island in their own ancestral homes.
“Human beings are remarkably genetically similar (99.72% on average I understand). Yet, if you were to take a spot of blood from 100 people in Eire and 100 people in Ulster and send them off to a lab, I guarantee you that a scientist could tell which was which.”
Actually, not so much. Again, you appaently haven’t read up on this. They are the same race with the same genetic make-up on all major markers. You were wrong.
“So go on then. What is your definition of freedom?”
I would rather watch you twist in the wind making constant errors.
“What point would that be?”
If you paid attention, you would have known.
“Rubbish. When did the British government seize farms in lower Canada?”
Lower Canada? I never brought up Lower Canada. You’re wrong again!
“I havent descended to personal abuse.”
Neither have I. I have merely stated facts.
“I think youre wrong. In fact I think your belief system is puddled, but I havent called you stupid, said you were floundering, told you you were bad at debating, told you you were an oppressor scum and on, and on.”
I called you a sciolist. I said your comment or point was stupid (ti was!). You are floundering and have been from the start. You also have problems debating. I called oppressors oppressors. If you believe that applies to you, then so be it. Everything I said was true. If facts bother you, then stay away from the internet.
“The point I made, which you denied, was that it was the normans who got England involved in Ireland when they invaded in the 12th century. The Anglo-Saxons never invaded Ireland.”
I didn’t ignore your point. I showed it was a por understanding of history. You jump back and forth from now to the 12th century almost as if there is a point to your leapfrogging, but there isn’t.
“Some of Harold Godwinsons family took sanctuary in Ireland but that’s hardly the start of English oppression, and your man Diarmait lent an Irish fleet that invaded England, not the other way round.”
And all of that still proved my point. And you no longer remember what that is and I am not inclined to tell you.
“The only point is that you just don’t like the British and will find any reason to point it out.”
I treat the British as they deserve to be treated in regard to their actions. Some of their actions have been good. Some have been horrible. You apparently want the British to be worshiped. I want them to be treated as they are - flawed mortals who oppressed their neighbors for hundreds of years while still producing some good things. I am in the end much more even handed than you are.
“Even a sincere apology doesn’t cut it, so why bother apologising. If its not going to be enough, its never going to be enough.”
And apology is the start. A better action would be for the British to simply admit they should have left all of Ireland in the 1920s. Bloody Sunday never would have happened if they had.
I'm trying to understand what you are saying, to lay it out to see if it is consistent. The omens arent good at the moment. If you think it is a misrepresentation THEN WHY DON'T YOU CORRECT IT?
Why do you insist on lying about what I have said?
I'm saying that because that seems to be what you are saying. If I am wrong, then WHY DON'T YOU CORRECT IT?
Quit while you’re behind. If you can’t understand why I so plainly stated, then this is simply too difficult for you.
You ARE good at debating. This technique of stating something highly controversial and/or innacurate, and then when an incredulous observer tries to clarify it and explain its implications, just loftily affirming your superior intelligence works very well. You can say almost anything doing that. Well done.
They can be in union with the UK all they want - in England, or Wales, or Scotland. They actually have several choices without in any way encroaching on the freedoms of the Irish to be in union with their own people on their own island in their own ancestral homes.
But that's the point. They are in Ireland and they want to be part of the Union. They very, very much want to be in Ireland and very very much want to be part of the Union. Violently so. They reject your choices, which effectively (as far as I can make out) amount to a form of ethnic cleansing. It's no wonder you want to obscure your argument.
Actually, not so much. Again, you appaently haven’t read up on this. They are the same race with the same genetic make-up on all major markers. You were wrong.
Actually, I have studied it at degree level (BSc Genetics). In fact it is you who are wrong. Major markers are not the be all and end all of genetic make up. Your simple assertion that I am wrong, tragically, doesn't mean that I am. In any case, your argument is fallacious. How can say that the Irish want to be in union with their own people on their own island, and yet at the same time argue that there is no difference between Irish, Scots, Welsh and English? If the Irish are not a distinct people, then surely their history, culture, trials and tribulation are of no moment! But that is nonsense. In spite of your protestations, the various sub groupings on the British Isles are racially distinct, and they most certainly are culturally distinct.
I would rather watch you twist in the wind making constant errors.
In other words, you aren't going to say because it would show up your arguments for what Modern Irish Nationalist and republican thought all too often is - inward looking, backward looking, and very, very selfish. Not that the unionists are any better.
Lower Canada? I never brought up Lower Canada. You’re wrong again!
Err...yes you did. This particular section was on the war of 1812 and the US invasion of Canada, which was repulsed, and your assertion that payback was a bitch, and that the canadians were oh so wrong to choose the crown over a republic that was "liberating them" by burning down their farms et al. Remember?
I called you a sciolist. I said your comment or point was stupid (ti was!). You are floundering and have been from the start. You also have problems debating. I called oppressors oppressors. If you believe that applies to you, then so be it. Everything I said was true. If facts bother you, then stay away from the internet.
It's true if you accept your definitions. I don't accept I've been floundering. I think it seems that way because you have been slipping and sliding and evading my attempts to clarify, which raises the suspicion that you're doing that because your arguments are weak and will not stand up to critical scrutiny. Tell you what, let me try this technique.
I didn’t ignore your point.
Yes you did. And you still are doing.
I showed it was a por understanding of history.
No you didn't. You didn't show anything.
You jump back and forth from now to the 12th century almost as if there is a point to your leapfrogging, but there isn’t.
Yes there is.
And all of that still proved my point.
No it doesn't. It shows that English people went to Ireland occasionally. That's not the same as dabbling in Irish affairs.
And you no longer remember what that is and I am not inclined to tell you.
I recall better than you. This is easy.
I treat the British as they deserve to be treated in regard to their actions.
Yeah yeah.
Some of their actions have been good. Some have been horrible.
Odd how only the bad gets mentioned.
You apparently want the British to be worshiped.
Nope. I want to move onto the 21st century, not remain in the distant past, where wrongs and wrongdoing are nurtured and amplified, to the detriment of the here and now. Cameron apologised for an incident where the British Army was in the wrong, after an enquiry that cost millions and took years to write. I don't notice any enquiries or apologies from the IRA, or the INLA or the UVF, or the Red Hand Gang, or any of the rest of the murderers who bombed and shot their way across Ulster and beyond for three decades. So, on the one side we have people who really do acknowledge that they are flawed mortals who make mistakes, and whose ANCESTORS oppressed their neighbors for hundreds of years, and on the other we have a bunch of self-contained, self-righteous bigots with lots of suppressed anger and an inbuilt martyr complex. The Irish never forget the past, and they never forgive it, and therefore they will always be shackled by it. Which is their problem, except when they make it MY problem. Well I have news for them (and for you). I'm not going on some self flagellating mass guilt trip for their benefit for the rest of my life. They can get stuffed. This is the only apology they get for Bloody Sunday.
A better action would be for the British to simply admit they should have left all of Ireland in the 1920s. Bloody Sunday never would have happened if they had.
No, but the great Irish civil war would have happened instead, and the island would have run with blood, on a scale that hadnt been seen since the last Civil War. You underestimate the passions involved. Britain should have left Ireland when Gladstone suggested in the 1860's. To abandon it in 1912 and immediately afterwards would have compounded the mistake and been a gross dereliction of responsibility.
You wrote:
“I’m trying to understand what you are saying, to lay it out to see if it is consistent.”
I don’t believe you.
“The omens arent good at the moment. If you think it is a misrepresentation THEN WHY DON’T YOU CORRECT IT?”
You’ll simply misrepresent that too. It’s what you do.
“I’m saying that because that seems to be what you are saying. If I am wrong, then WHY DON’T YOU CORRECT IT?”
Because you’ll simply misrepresent that too. It’s what you do.
“You ARE good at debating. This technique of stating something highly controversial and/or innacurate, and then when an incredulous observer tries to clarify it and explain its implications, just loftily affirming your superior intelligence works very well. You can say almost anything doing that. Well done.”
I never stated anything here that is inaccurate. Thus your premise is wrong and your comment is simply useless. Go ahead and misrepresent something else I said.
“But that’s the point. They are in Ireland and they want to be part of the Union.”
That would be up to the Irish - and they have said NO. This is Ireland we are talking about and not England.
“They very, very much want to be in Ireland and very very much want to be part of the Union. Violently so. They reject your choices, which effectively (as far as I can make out) amount to a form of ethnic cleansing. It’s no wonder you want to obscure your argument.”
My argument is clear. Only the Unionists have practiced ethnic cleansing. They’ve been practicing it for more than 300 years.
“Actually, I have studied it at degree level (BSc Genetics). In fact it is you who are wrong. Major markers are not the be all and end all of genetic make up.”
They are here. Put the Irish, Scots, English and Welsh together and you CANNOT TELL THEM APART. They are the SAME RACE. They are all caucasian. To say they are not the same race is to deny that they are all caucasian - and that would just make you look stupid.
“In other words, you aren’t going to say because it would show up your arguments for what Modern Irish Nationalist and republican thought all too often is - inward looking, backward looking, and very, very selfish. Not that the unionists are any better.”
No. Again you resort to misrepresenting me. Why do you insist on lying? I wil simply watch you twist in the wind because I enjoy watching you twist in the wind.
“Err...yes you did. This particular section was on the war of 1812 and the US invasion of Canada, which was repulsed, and your assertion that payback was a bitch, and that the canadians were oh so wrong to choose the crown over a republic that was “liberating them” by burning down their farms et al. Remember?”
You’re misrepresenting me again. I NEVER brough up LOWER CANADA. You did. I merely responded. Why do you insist in lying?
“It’s true if you accept your definitions. I don’t accept I’ve been floundering.”
You’ve been floundering anyway.
“I think it seems that way because you have been slipping and sliding and evading my attempts to clarify, which raises the suspicion that you’re doing that because your arguments are weak and will not stand up to critical scrutiny. Tell you what, let me try this technique.”
There you go again misreresenting me.
“Yes you did. And you still are doing.”
No, actally I didn’t. You’re simply wrong as usual and misrepresenting me - again.
“No you didn’t. You didn’t show anything.”
Yeah, actually I did. Keep misrepresenting me though if that makes you feel better.
“Yes there is.”
Nope.
“No it doesn’t. It shows that English people went to Ireland occasionally. That’s not the same as dabbling in Irish affairs.”
They weren’t English - they were Anglo-Saxons. And yes, it showed exctly what I said it did.
“I recall better than you. This is easy.”
Being wrong is easy for you.
“Yeah yeah.”
Yep. And I am right.
“Odd how only the bad gets mentioned.”
That’s what the thread is about. You really don’t pay attention do you?
“Nope. I want to move onto the 21st century, not remain in the distant past,”
The 1970s is not distant to those whose loved ones were murdered by the British and their unionist thugs. I also doubt that those who lost loved ones to IRA terrorists eel like it was the distant past. I’m sorry but you’re coming across as a fool to denigrate the suffering of innocent people like you are.
“where wrongs and wrongdoing are nurtured and amplified, to the detriment of the here and now. Cameron apologised for an incident where the British Army was in the wrong, after an enquiry that cost millions and took years to write.”
And who has been charged? Trials? Punishments? How about an apology for 400 years of oppression?
“I don’t notice any enquiries or apologies from the IRA, or the INLA or the UVF, or the Red Hand Gang, or any of the rest of the murderers who bombed and shot their way across Ulster and beyond for three decades.”
No one expects terrorists to apologize. We expect elected governments to right wrongs. You realy seem clueless about reality.
“So, on the one side we have people who really do acknowledge that they are flawed mortals who make mistakes, and whose ANCESTORS oppressed their neighbors for hundreds of years, and on the other we have a bunch of self-contained, self-righteous bigots with lots of suppressed anger and an inbuilt martyr complex.”
That’s both sides. Do you think the unionist thugs don’t have a martyr complex? You don’t think they’re “self-righeous bigots”? One minute watching video from Ian Paisely in full froth should change your mind.
“The Irish never forget the past, and they never forgive it, and therefore they will always be shackled by it.”
Nonsense. The Irish in the South are doing just fine. The Irish in the North, however, are still suffering from the past because it has never ended. They are still oppressed in their own homeland.
“Which is their problem, except when they make it MY problem. Well I have news for them (and for you). I’m not going on some self flagellating mass guilt trip for their benefit for the rest of my life. They can get stuffed. This is the only apology they get for Bloody Sunday.”
Oh, boo hoo. Are you crying through gritted teeth? Wimpering softly while clutching your union jack? Grow up. It’s not about YOU and your petty ego. It’s about justice for the murdered and the oppressed. It does’t surprise me that you would twist it into being all about you. You’re a disgrace. I hope other Canadians are not as self-absorbed as you are.
“No, but the great Irish civil war would have happened instead, and the island would have run with blood, on a scale that hadnt been seen since the last Civil War.”
No. That is your guess and there’s no reason to believe it is true. There was no Protestant-Catholic civil war in the South. There is no reason to assume it would have happened in the North - especially since the unionist would have known they would lose from the start.
“You underestimate the passions involved.”
Not one bit.
“Britain should have left Ireland when Gladstone suggested in the 1860’s. To abandon it in 1912 and immediately afterwards would have compounded the mistake and been a gross dereliction of responsibility.”
Nope. It would have been the right thing to do. It still is. Ireland should be free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.