Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[MMI]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I said perspective in these instances is everything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On both sides I am sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[denuseri]

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

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

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

Martian Sheen isn't a terrorist is he?

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

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

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

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

Which was the only point I was making.





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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Same here.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

Seriously?

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

At least from England's point of view.

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

To the English it certiantly does.

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

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

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

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

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

Oh I never said they were all sunshine and parades.

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